Wish No Cabs Global OUT2

teddis

teddis

Fractal Fanatic
This would be great if it was selectable in options, so that guitar CAB guys do not have to insert an FXL loop before Cab in every patch.
Possible ?
 
Last edited:
teddis said:
Out 2, would have no cabs. That’s it :)

Out 1 stays the same :)
Click to expand...
But how would the unit know where the signal is headed? It doesn't know, when the audio is passing through the CAB block, where it's destined. It has to process the single signal passing through the block and place the changed signal at the block output without this knowledge.

The grid doesn't really allow for this kind of request to happen.
 
The Cab can be placed before or after many other blocks in the grid. The output can’t simply subtract a “cab sound” from the end of the grid.

Adjust the presets you use to add another Output block where you want the non-cab sound to exit.
 
Simply the unit picks off the output (FXL) block before the cab.

Option in I/O to enable this. Would make the unit more guitar Cab and power amp user friendly.

Of course we can continue to add FXL blocks on all patches.....
 
The AX8 would do this automatically, if option enabled. Then it’s global for that output.
 
Maybe :)
I move the cab block around all the time, and pick off the FXL before it.....doesn’t seem to sound any different....should it ?
 
For those who switch between amplification systems a lot, this proposal would be a handy solution / workaround.

The AX8 would copy the signal at the input of the Cab block and reroute that to Output 2.

Case:
When using FRFR monitoring with the AX8, I like to make OUT 2 echo the Output 1 signal, to have a separately controlled monitor signal. But I can’t because my presets need to contain an FXL block to feed a traditional cab when not using FRFR.

This proposal would allow me to leave out the FXL blocks, have a separate monitor feed with FRFR monitoring, or let me send a signal out without Cab modeling when using a traditional cab.
 
teddis said:
The AX8 would do this automatically, if option enabled. Then it’s global for that output.
Click to expand...
Your proposal makes more sense now that you’ve said you’d just want the input to the CAB block routed to Output 2. I thought you’d want the signal, including any post-CAB effects, but NOT the CAB block’s effects routed to Output 2. Which would be nigh impossible.
 
I could see this creating as many headaches as it could help.

Depending where your cab block is located could mean your going to miss reverb etc, depending where you locate those in the chain, and then what is the solution to that ? To go and manually make sure your always putting your cab block last ? That would work but then isn’t that as much ‘work’ as going and putting in a FX loop ?

Plus, how many other user presets, producer packs etc would work with this option?

How would it work with routing that have a few parallel paths ?

I just don’t think you can go and “hardwire” a send coming off the cab block, press one global button and have it all work effortlessly.

Current method works perfectly and it’s adaptable to lots of existing presets. As I said, this would create as much extra work as it saves due to existing grid layout.

On top of that, how would it work on a II or III where you have the options to do things like run two different reverbs? What if you want a mild reverb to a cab but then a bigger reverb to your FOH ?

If the signal is coming “bypassed” from the cab block and going to an existing output 2, how can you add other blocks to that pathway ?

As it’s currently setup with the FX loop and routing options on the III, you can split it off, add the stuff you want to that chain, and have it go to a cab. It gives way more flexibility in allowing you to tailor exactly what your sending. Maybe you want to add a little EQ to it etc, right?

It’s not a bad idea per say, but I think it’s one that wouldn’t suit a majority of users current setups and has a lot of limitations.

If someone specifically set up patches around this layout, and sometimes wanted to use a cab, sometimes not, then it makes sense, but would it really be easier than just setting up an FX loop, which you could use or not use depending if you are using a cab ?
 
I will say I could see this as a potential idea on the III, where a cab block could include an option to send to a given set of outputs, say output 3 or 4, as those are less likely to be used by many users, and if stuff is setup with a second output for monitors, fx loop, etc, it wouldn’t get in the way as much. Make an option in the menu for which outputs the cab bypass sends to if engaged. Would still have some potential issues, but the III’s routing power would make it a good bit more practical overall
 
lqdsnddist said:
I could see this creating as many headaches as it could help.

Depending where your cab block is located could mean your going to miss reverb etc, depending where you locate those in the chain, and then what is the solution to that ? To go and manually make sure your always putting your cab block last ? That would work but then isn’t that as much ‘work’ as going and putting in a FX loop ?

Plus, how many other user presets, producer packs etc would work with this option?

How would it work with routing that have a few parallel paths ?

I just don’t think you can go and “hardwire” a send coming off the cab block, press one global button and have it all work effortlessly.

Current method works perfectly and it’s adaptable to lots of existing presets. As I said, this would create as much extra work as it saves due to existing grid layout.

On top of that, how would it work on a II or III where you have the options to do things like run two different reverbs? What if you want a mild reverb to a cab but then a bigger reverb to your FOH ?

If the signal is coming “bypassed” from the cab block and going to an existing output 2, how can you add other blocks to that pathway ?

As it’s currently setup with the FX loop and routing options on the III, you can split it off, add the stuff you want to that chain, and have it go to a cab. It gives way more flexibility in allowing you to tailor exactly what your sending. Maybe you want to add a little EQ to it etc, right?

It’s not a bad idea per say, but I think it’s one that wouldn’t suit a majority of users current setups and has a lot of limitations.

If someone specifically set up patches around this layout, and sometimes wanted to use a cab, sometimes not, then it makes sense, but would it really be easier than just setting up an FX loop, which you could use or not use depending if you are using a cab ?
Click to expand...

All these things apply to FXL too, but users still learn and know how to use it.

Also, this option would not replace FXL, it would just add an option. And avoid having to make choices like having duplicate sets of presets.

FAS gear is pro audio gear. If we want to avoid options that can be used wrongly, require caution, or cause confusion, let's strike 50% of all features.
 
lqdsnddist said:
I will say I could see this as a potential idea on the III, where a cab block could include an option to send to a given set of outputs, say output 3 or 4, as those are less likely to be used by many users, and if stuff is setup with a second output for monitors, fx loop, etc, it wouldn’t get in the way as much. Make an option in the menu for which outputs the cab bypass sends to if engaged. Would still have some potential issues, but the III’s routing power would make it a good bit more practical overall
Click to expand...

The suggested option is not needed on the III with its multiple I/O pairs.
 
yek said:
The suggested option is not needed on the III with its multiple I/O pairs.
Click to expand...

Well you could certainly set up a patch with an additional output pair split off before the cab, but you’d have to go and set that up manually, patch by patch right?

What the OP wants, if I’m understanding correctly, is a way to have a global setting that would go and automatically have a cab bypass signal for each and every preset. Essentially saving the effort of setting up the routing required for a cab block with IR vs real cab.

Maybe I’m just not getting the what and why of the proposal
 
lqdsnddist said:
Well you could certainly set up a patch with an additional output pair split off before the cab, but you’d have to go and set that up manually, patch by patch right?
Click to expand...

Yes indeed, but unlike the AX8, that would not prohibit the possibility to echo output 1 to output 2.
Maximum flexibility with a single preset.
 
Thanks for all the replies guys.
It’s is fantastic that we can float ideas round for product development. Who knows right !
 
lqdsnddist said:
I could see this creating as many headaches as it could help.

Depending where your cab block is located could mean your going to miss reverb etc, depending where you locate those in the chain, and then what is the solution to that ? To go and manually make sure your always putting your cab block last ? That would work but then isn’t that as much ‘work’ as going and putting in a FX loop ?

Plus, how many other user presets, producer packs etc would work with this option?

How would it work with routing that have a few parallel paths ?

I just don’t think you can go and “hardwire” a send coming off the cab block, press one global button and have it all work effortlessly.

Current method works perfectly and it’s adaptable to lots of existing presets. As I said, this would create as much extra work as it saves due to existing grid layout.

On top of that, how would it work on a II or III where you have the options to do things like run two different reverbs? What if you want a mild reverb to a cab but then a bigger reverb to your FOH ?

If the signal is coming “bypassed” from the cab block and going to an existing output 2, how can you add other blocks to that pathway ?

As it’s currently setup with the FX loop and routing options on the III, you can split it off, add the stuff you want to that chain, and have it go to a cab. It gives way more flexibility in allowing you to tailor exactly what your sending. Maybe you want to add a little EQ to it etc, right?

It’s not a bad idea per say, but I think it’s one that wouldn’t suit a majority of users current setups and has a lot of limitations.

If someone specifically set up patches around this layout, and sometimes wanted to use a cab, sometimes not, then it makes sense, but would it really be easier than just setting up an FX loop, which you could use or not use depending if you are using a cab ?
Click to expand...
Just adjust the preset as needed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom