Number of the same effects

H

Harm

Experienced
Hi all, dumb question maybe, but I’d like to understand.
It’s not a wish either, so relax haha. Just curious why for example the pitch shifter block can only be placed twice in a preset (ignoring channels now, just for the sale of the argument). I get that some high cpu demanding blocks like the amp block are limited. But is there reason keep it at two? The pitch shifter is just an example. I could have said chorus or flanger or whatever.

Harm
 
The units have only so much CPU, so they are designed to fit the needs of most users, not every possible option. People like Dweezil used to use two units to go further out on the limb.
 
No, that is not what I mean.
My point is: We have a certain amount of CPU available for a preset. Why does it matter how we divide/spend that? If I would choose to use 5 choruses and no other effects for example. I do not consider CPU a factor in this, unless it would cost CPU just to be able to use it even when you don't. And again, this is not a plea to make this available. I'm just wondering.

Harm
 
So many reasons.... You can't build a controlled environment without knowing what's it going to contain. The firmware has to know what to expect.

Examples:

Some algorithms run on a dedicated processor. For example, AMP and DELAY run together on a single CPU in the FM3. Three delays would be too much for that CPU.

The Pitch block depends on pitch followers. Multiplying the number of Pitch blocks also means multiplying the number of pitch followers. That has to be built in the firmware.

Each instance of an effect block needs to get a unique modifier. Nowadays the III and FM3 uses their own internal system. But for external MIDI controllers MIDI CCs still need to be assigned and these are limited in number.

All this (and much more) would make the firmware file size grow enormously, and the preset file size as well. Sharing presets between devices would also suffer.
 
Last edited:
yek said:
So many reasons.... You can't build a controlled environment without knowing what's it going to contain. The firmware has to know what to expect.

Examples:

Some algorithms run on a dedicated processor. For example, AMP and DELAY run together on a single CPU in the FM3. Three delays would be too much for that CPU.

The Pitch block depends on pitch followers. Multiplying the number of Pitch blocks also means multiplying the number of pitch followers. That has to be built in the firmware.

Each instance of an effect block needs to get a unique modifier. Nowadays the III and FM3 uses their own internal system. But for external MIDI controllers MIDI CCs still need to be assigned and these are limited in number.

All this (and much more) would make the firmware file size grow enormously, and the preset file size as well. Sharing presets between devices would also suffer.
Click to expand...

Ah. I understand. Thank you.
 
Harm said:
Hi all, dumb question maybe, but I’d like to understand.
It’s not a wish either, so relax haha. Just curious why for example the pitch shifter block can only be placed twice in a preset (ignoring channels now, just for the sale of the argument). I get that some high cpu demanding blocks like the amp block are limited. But is there reason keep it at two? The pitch shifter is just an example. I could have said chorus or flanger or whatever.

Harm
Click to expand...

It can be done. It’s quite common in audio software to have a dynamic pool of effects modules that you can employ in a preset. The number you can use is only limited by resources you have available, for example cpu or the number of available grid slots. But it’s more work to implement things that way since it’s harder to keep track of things like remote control connections. Anytime you’re faced with a more difficult way to do things, you have to ask yourself “is it worth it?” FAS has decided the answer is no. Personally I run out of effect types from time to time, but it’s rare enough that I can’t complain about their design decision.
 
Last edited:
My assumption is the biggest reason is how the Axe handles control signals. You set up MIDI signals or FC switches to explicitly control "Chorus 2" so they created a sane number of explicitly numbered effects instances which can all be assigned or listed.

This means you can't just add 8 pitch effects like on other platforms, but setting up your midi control signals is a lot simpler because it's really obvious which one is Pitch2. If you did have 8 pitch blocks and you removed the third one, does that mean the former 4th one is Pitch4 or Pitch3 now? Do your midi control signals suddenly break because of it? It avoids a lot of those problems, if if I'd like 3 pitch blocks in my kitchen sink preset.
 
hmmmm...

Since we’re discussing MIDI and modifiers, aren’t all such external control “connections” defined by the User depending on how they wish to control certain parameters within certain blocks? Not seeing how control signals/modifiers would affect how many block instances could be employed in a preset — you use whatever you wish until you run out of control paths.

I come from a world of dedicated audio DSP platforms that allow the user to create as many processing blocks/instances as they desire up to the CPU (hardware) limitations — dependent, of course, on which internal hardware devices are employed to support which type of processing block(s). FWIW, the blocks are clearly labeled with a “percent of CPU use” so as a designer I can wisely (!) pick and choose which blocks to keep/delete (without experimenting/guessing, for the most part) when the CPU finally runs out of gas.

That said, it wouldn’t surprise me if FAS at some point offers “daughter” processing cards to support specific additional AFX3 functionality (like my dreamed-of “SuperLooper”?). Isn’t that “plug-in port” ability one the primary features of the new AFX3/II platform?
 
I also find myself wondering if any of these (supposed) limitations have to do with compiling our amazingly complex preset designs into some form of machine code that’s used by the processors...
 
I believe part of it is Ftactal/Cliff saving us from ourselves. More to the point, saving bad word of mouth from new users, whom make their unit sound like crap, not knowing what they are doing.
 
cybermgk said:
I believe part of it is Ftactal/Cliff saving us from ourselves. More to the point, saving bad word of mouth from new users, whom make their unit sound like crap, not knowing what they are doing.
Click to expand...
First part I totally agree with, as in "give a mouse a cookie". Second part? I can make ANYTHING sound like crap, even an AFX3...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom