Wish Independent Settings for each Output

[frankencat]

I don't know if this is available on the Axe or not but it would be nice to be able to have different settings for Power Amp Modeling, Cabinet Modeling, and Output Mode assignable for each output. One use case is when running Output 1 direct to FOH with full modeling and then Output 2 to an onstage amp or "powercab" setup where you don't want the modeling - at least not the cab.

Currently I run this kind of routing but it requires me to run time effects in front of the cab black and it requires extra blocks for the routing.



Possibly it could be implemented here in the Audio Setup screen.



Modeling on/off settings:


Output Mode:


Thank you FAS!

 

[moerker]

There are 2 problems here:

• power amp modeling is happening in the Amp-block. It's a nonlinear operation, which cannot "easily" be mirrored in another block. Only possibility I know would be separating the effect of the nonlinear operation, apply the same effects on this part separately and diff it at the end. But this also breaks if you use time based or nonlinear effects in between - so it is not really applicable.
• same goes for the cab: the output does not "know" about the cab used in front, thus it cannot be substracted. Also as mentioned before, puttint the cab block before any time-based or nonlinear effects would make this impossible.

From a user perspective, I completely understand the request, but the technical challenges you have here are not easy to defeat. The global cab and power amp modeling switches are introduced for live use cases, were you may play in the FX return of a tube amp with a guitar cabinet, but ususally only use a PA-based system.
For your use case (which is also nearly mine, tbh), having to separate signal paths is the only option, though.

 

[frankencat]

"We choose to separate these properties and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills." JFK (F for Fractal )

Trust me I understand that things are difficult. I have been a software developer for 25+ years. The FAS dev is amazing and I don't think there is anything that is truly impossible with regard to the software. Thank you for your input.

 

[unix-guy]

"We choose to separate these properties and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills." JFK (F for Fractal )

Trust me I understand that things are difficult. I have been a software developer for 25+ years. The FAS dev is amazing and I don't think there is anything that is truly impossible with regard to the software. Thank you for your input.

Get an FM9 or Axe Fx III.

Use 2 Amp and 2 Cab blocks and route as required.

What you're asking for has been asked many times. It isn't going likely to happen for the reasons already explained by @moerker.

 

[frankencat]

Ok if this is a limitation of the FM3 I can live with that. So this is possible in FM9 and AxeFx?

 

[unix-guy]

Ok if this is a limitation of the FM3 I can live with that. So this is possible in FM9 and AxeFx?

Use 2 Amp and 2 Cab blocks and route as required.

 

[moerker]

"We choose to separate these properties and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills." JFK (F for Fractal )

Trust me I understand that things are difficult. I have been a software developer for 25+ years. The FAS dev is amazing and I don't think there is anything that is truly impossible with regard to the software. Thank you for your input.

Actually, it is possible, but the cost performance wise.... the FM9 is the better route to go.
Because it's the easier solution for a problem which will never be easy solved

 

[frankencat]

How would "2 Amp and 2 Cab blocks" help me with my scenario? One path has the full modeling and one path goes to a guitar amp. Isn't that pretty much what I have now with the FM3?

 

[unix-guy]

How would "2 Amp and 2 Cab blocks" help me with my scenario? One path has the full modeling and one path goes to a guitar amp. Isn't that pretty much what I have now with the FM3?

If you're concerned about where the time based effects are placed, it shouldn't matter pre or post cab as those effects are LTI (Linear Time Invariant). The only minor affect would be if the Cab block is adding distortion.

Otherwise, the solution I offered doesn't actually help. Sorry, I misread the OP. I was really answering the question about the modeling being included or not on different outputs.

Edit:

As an additional thought specifically for the FM9: Amps, Reverbs and Delays run on dedicated cores, so you could duplicate those with no extra CPU use.

 

[frankencat]

If you're concerned about where the time based effects are placed, it shouldn't matter pre or post cab as those effects are LTI (Linear Time Invariant). The only minor affect would be if the Cab block is adding distortion.

This would be true except for when you have high cuts or other filtering on the cab block. I would rather have the pristine reverbs and delays rather than going through the cab block. I hate to keep bringing up the Kemper but it does allow you to turn off the cab modeling on each output specifically for this kind of setup. If you use one or the other then it is a non issue but if you use a hybrid setup like I do then you will run into this issue. This is the basis for my “wish”.

 

[GlennO]

This would be true except for when you have high cuts or other filtering on the cab block. I would rather have the pristine reverbs and delays rather than going through the cab block. I hate to keep bringing up the Kemper but it does allow you to turn off the cab modeling on each output specifically for this kind of setup. If you use one or the other then it is a non issue but if you use a hybrid setup like I do then you will run into this issue. This is the basis for my “wish”.

That's a common setup and your request is not unusual. However, that feature is only possible on the Kemper because blocks are restricted to a very limited arrangement (and don't you lose the post-cab effects when monitor cab is off?). That limited arrangement capability is basically the opposite of the Axe-FX.

 

[unix-guy]

This would be true except for when you have high cuts or other filtering on the cab block.

No... EQ affects things the same both ways. Please see this post from Cliff:

https://forum.fractalaudio.com/threads/to-all-the-pundits.137179/post-1713205

Or this one:

https://forum.fractalaudio.com/thre...delay-whats-your-preference.57690/post-722671

 

[frankencat]

Ok now that is some freaky stuff. Very interesting I will go and read up on that and try to get an understanding to work with. Obviously if this is true then the position of the cab vs time effects shouldn’t matter, as much as that makes my brain crink.

 

[chris]

Ok now that is some freaky stuff. Very interesting I will go and read up on that and try to get an understanding to work with. Obviously if this is true then the position of the cab vs time effects shouldn’t matter, as much as that makes my brain crink.

Your cab cuts lows and highs then runs into the Reverb, and the reverb processes a tone with cut lows and highs.

Vs

Your reverb runs into the cab block which cuts the same lows and highs.

Same result.

 

[mr_fender]

One potential difference is in stereo image. You will need two identical cabs hard panned and the input mode set to stereo to maintain the same stereo image of your effects if you put the Cab block after them.

 

[GlennO]

the position of the cab vs time effects shouldn’t matter,

For the most part, yes. Strictly speaking, that's true only if you ignore any non-linear processing like distortion on a tape or analog delay, or cab block drive. And, as Mr Fender says, you also have to your cab block set up for stereo in/out for that to be true.