Is it time for Fractal to upgrade the DSP chips in the Axe FX II/Xl

Status
Not open for further replies.

jjdpro

Inspired
Ok.. Is it time for Fractal to upgrade the DSP chips in the Axe FX II/Xl? I ask this because, I'm seeing so many post about CPU usage(V17) or CPU amount.

I thought the whole idea with the AXe FX was that it eliminated the worry about "running out of steam" DSP wise while being able to execute large amount of data for stellar modeling and effects. Unlike the other manufactures offerings, which were very limited in DSP power.

I'm sure that with each firmware update, which improves then product with each instance, there has to be more strain of the DSPs. Just a thought..
 
I think the trick is, with such a full tool box, don't try to use all the tools at once, just because they are there.

Heres' something that just came to mind - when the remaining available CPU gets low, try using more presets and fewer scenes, since using scenes means you probably have lots of blocks, but many are not used all at once.

And BTW - changing the processors is major undertaking. I don't even know if there is much out there that can out perform the tiger sharks...
 
Its not how big it is, or how you use it, its how many people are watching that counts


Though on a more serious note, sure it would be nice to have more processing power, but there would always be someone adding 52 amp sims to their single path complaining

I'm sure the axeFx 4 will suffice :)
 
I thought the whole idea with the AXe FX was that it eliminated the worry about "running out of steam" DSP wise while being able to execute large amount of data for stellar modeling and effects.

That's not a realistic view. There is no computing product like that, guitar related or not. I remember thinking when I was 10 that my Nintendo 8 bit would satisfy all my gaming needs for life. 10 years later, the laws about super computers in some countries had to be revised to make the PS2 legal for distribution to the public. Pfff... PS2.
 
I think we should first let cliff take this thing as far as he think is possible and let him and fas make the most of the machine before the next gen axe fx's
:)

but then again I'm not a professional, just a very happy amateur that hope my investment has a lot of life left before it gets "outdated"
and for the better part of the users, I think we have more power and more effects than we really know how to use effectively ..

but then again what do I know .. hehehe I'm just a bedroom guitar player with a magic box

;)
 
I would offer you review exactly what you are referring to as "CPU usage".
The AFX is a digital signal processor that listens to input signals and modifies them per FAS's programming.
It uses at least one CPU to do this job. I for one want each of my CPU's to be running at least 110% usage.
Maximizing the CPU usage is a good way to tell you are using the resource (CPU) fully.
I am sure FAS could program how the "Amp" and "Reverb" blocks are computing so they take as little as 10% CPU usage.
Unfortunately the quality of the output would be less than achievable.
If the average AFX was running at about 20% CPU all the time, I am sure the forums would be screaming for more elaborate code that uses
more CPU and provides more "tone". The CPU is just one of the resources the AFX uses to create awesome tones.
What we don't want is for FAS to automagically reduce the quality of a block because we have loaded in so many blocks into our preset.
I suspect FAS has determined what is typically run in most presets and modified their code to use as much CPU as possible for a slightly larger than average preset.
I think you can load in every block and overload the CPU. Basically, you can "break it". The same as hooking up 100 stomp boxes on your monster pedal board. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Also, reading in a single number and then considering a re-engineering of a device is a sure way to waste a bunch of money. Let FAS do their own engineering.
I believe in FAS!
 
I mentioned the CPU max thing in another thread, yet it wasn't to suggest that the Axe FX II or the XL need more processing power. It was more about my "user" error, than anything else.
My concept was simply that upgrades in the firmware result in adjustments in certain things, by definition. These changes could require adjustments in certain presets.

Anyway, Cliff and Fractal give us amazing products, and their constant, tireless work brings us lucky guitarists new firmware. That newer firmware "may" require these adjustments I speak of :)
 
Just speaking for myself, I'll take quality over quantity any day. I've been able to get the sounds I’m after without making the CPU's puke.
 
^^ +1

Quality over quantity for me too! I used high reverb and preamps on all my patches and the CPU sits between 60 and 80%, so I have plenty of headroom for more effects.
 
I find myself running out of CPU more often than I like, so I would have to answer yes to this - in the form of an upgrade kit for my II. It's been a while since the II was launched, are the CPUs in the II really still the most powerful available?
 
The XL was only launched in the past 12 months IIRC.

As a business decision I wouldn't want to make a flagship 'obsolete' (in terms of development) so quickly at the price point it is at. When the 3 comes out the development will have to stop for the 2.

The Ultra was launched in 2008, it wasn't until 2011 that the 2 came out.

I would personally hope that there is at least a year or two of more development in the Axe FX 2 platform.

There isn't any real competition processing power wise right now, and also I can't imagine that there are a lot of people running out of CPU beyond power users, or people wanting every effect available at all times - both of these groups could buy an FX8? I think my main patches use around 60% CPU.
 
It's amazing how as a culture we have shifted so much to focus on a constant technological development process and the presumption that newer is better. I am as guilty as anyone of this mindset. I can think of many things I would change or improve about the AxeFx experience, but most of them don't need a new processor. I'd be more interested in a VST that would allow me to control everything from within a DAW and I'd also love to see a similar interface/aesthetic to what UAD has done with their plugins. Some day it would be awesome if Cliff further pursued the studio gear emulations he's already added with FW17, but I think that is likely to require another processor or two if he jumps in headfirst. I completely understand and endorse Cliff and FAS doing what they think is important and not worrying so much about specific customer requests (although it is obvious they do listen to us). I also understand if he's waiting to see what the next generation of TigerSharcs or their equivalent has to offer before deciding on a hardware upgrade for the AxeFx.
 
automagically
not making fun, love this word!

I suspect FAS has determined what is typically run in most presets and modified their code to use as much CPU as possible for a slightly larger than average preset.
I think you can load in every block and overload the CPU.
perhaps the caffeine hasn't had sufficient time to work yet and i'm completely misreading this; i doubt they're intentionally modifying code to use as much cpu as possible.

Let FAS do their own engineering.
I believe in FAS!
exactly
 
If you really need more CPU then the Axe Fx 2 can handle... why not buy a second one then? Or the floorboard?
In my opinion the Axe FX2 has enough power.

The only thing I would really like is more and more Original effects. It seems as though the priority on amps can be lowered for a little while since we now have a whopping 200 of them :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom