Precedent for full Axe-Fx Plugin?

acidfrost said:
Oooohhh and 15 days demo! I might be a convert by then. No more reamping through the axe multiple times until I get the tone I want. Tweaking while listening to the mix is where it's at.
Click to expand...

It is possible to dial in a tone, and then record it.
 
exciting indeed! So if this sound as good as the hardware, it'll probably be the best sounding ampsim VST out there (until an eventual axe-fx vst ;-) I will definately check it out, as I think reamping is a hassle. And my new PC will have thunderbolt support...just in case ;-) Those new superlow latency interfaces sound interesting.
 
Jeries said:
It is possible to dial in a tone, and then record it.
Click to expand...
Yes when you record yourself. But when I record customers and reamp through the axe, it's a real bitch as I can't listen to the axe and the mix seperately through usb. I can through analog and another interface, but that's more d/a a/d conversion that changes the sound. Also, all that wasted time waiting for the tracks to be reamped, then you want to tweak them again, so back to square one.

A fractal vst would be where it's at, but I would settle for the helix. Instant reamping, no time wasted.
 
acidfrost said:
I can through analog and another interface, but that's more d/a a/d conversion that changes the sound.
Click to expand...

I guarantee you with 100% certainty-
honest and objectively -testing it blindly

you will get a MUCH better sound using the xlr outs into a good preamp, or even decent preamp- maybe even a cheap preamp---
than the digital outs of the axe fx

try it if you don't believe me.

bigly
 
Jeries said:
I guarantee you with 100% certainty-
honest and objectively -testing it blindly

you will get a MUCH better sound using the xlr outs into a good preamp, or even decent preamp- maybe even a cheap preamp---
than the digital outs of the axe fx

try it if you don't believe me.

bigly
Click to expand...
Had the exact opposite experience... Usb outs all the way
 
Jeries said:
I guarantee you with 100% certainty-
honest and objectively -testing it blindly

you will get a MUCH better sound using the xlr outs into a good preamp, or even decent preamp- maybe even a cheap preamp---
than the digital outs of the axe fx

try it if you don't believe me.

bigly
Click to expand...

I have also found the XLR outs to sound better than the digital outs, which I have always thought was weird, but I've tried several times and always came to the same conclusion.
 
AlGrenadine said:
Had the exact opposite experience... Usb outs all the way
Click to expand...

The better the interface the better the XLR results

If you have the best experience with USB-

I'd agrue a firewire or thunderbold or usb 3.0 interface would be much better...

the digital might be better because you have bad built in mic pres and you can hear the artifacts
 
Jeries said:
The better the interface the better the XLR results

If you have the best experience with USB-

I'd agrue a firewire or thunderbold or usb 3.0 interface would be much better...

the digital might be better because you have bad built in mic pres and you can hear the artifacts
Click to expand...
I have a firewire interface. There's no logical reason a D/A and A/D conversion add would sound better. The AxeFx produces its signal in the digital word, so its USB outs are the pure sound it produces, nothing more, nothing less...
Adding your soundcard preamps into the chain is just snake oil to me...
 
Well, some people like the color pre-amps, especially tube pre-amps, add. It's a matter of taste I'd say. Going the analog way certainly adds the risk of picking up extra noise.
 
ChristThePhone said:
Well, some people like the color pre-amps, especially tube pre-amps, add. It's a matter of taste I'd say. Going the analog way certainly adds the risk of picking up extra noise.
Click to expand...
Yes, it adds color. So technically it's not better, it could clearly be considered as worse...
 
Yeah. I see no point in bringing the axe in the analog domain when it's a digital device. Extra conversion regardless of the quality of your converters can make it worse, not better.

Plus, reamping in analog means d/a from interface to a/d to axe, then d/a a/d from axe to interface. That's a lot more conversions than digital only.

Also mic pres don't create artifacts, the converters do...

Usb, firewire or thunderbolt don't affect the sound at all. The different is how many tracks you can transmit at what latency and sample rate...
 
Robboman said:
http://www.musicradar.com/news/guit...d-amp-and-effect-modelling-in-a-plugin-647171

Looks like the Helix is going to be ported into a software plugin. Transfer presets directly to\from Helix hardware.

This is something Axe-Fx users have wanted since the last decade. Maybe fear of piracy is still a valid reason to NOT do it, but it's interesting L6 feels the benefits outweigh the downsides.
Click to expand...

Not sure how LINE 6 or other Plugins manufacturers do it (program) but DSP are not CPUs and the TigerSharc DSPs in the AXE are some of the most powerful DSP. DSP are specialized in certain math transformations (gear towards signal/sound processing). OK CPU do have multi-media parallel processing and lots of ARM SOC (System on Chip = CPU + lots of other things) now actually contain DSPs that do special processing like sound. So specialized DSP hardware is very likely to be able to run more complex algorithms than "standard" CPUs (even with many cores running at 4GHz). That could explain why FAS has stuck with specialized DSP hardware. Writing a plugin version of the AXE-FX firmware is likely to involve quite a change in the code and a lot of work on optimizing it for this new CPU environment, or it would mean building a cut down version of the algorithm/firmware. That why I gather, but I could be wrong:).
 
PALYGAP said:
Not sure how LINE 6 or other Plugins manufacturers do it (program) but DSP are not CPUs and the TigerSharc DSPs in the AXE are some of the most powerful DSP. DSP are specialized in certain math transformations (gear towards signal/sound processing). OK CPU do have multi-media parallel processing and lots of ARM SOC (System on Chip = CPU + lots of other things) now actually contain DSPs that do special processing like sound. So specialized DSP hardware is very likely to be able to run more complex algorithms than "standard" CPUs (even with many cores running at 4GHz). That could explain why FAS has stuck with specialized DSP hardware. Writing a plugin version of the AXE-FX firmware is likely to involve quite a change in the code and a lot of work on optimizing it for this new CPU environment, or it would mean building a cut down version of the algorithm/firmware. That why I gather, but I could be wrong:).
Click to expand...
Even standard desktop cpus of today are a lot more powerful than tigersharcs... Even if not specialized, see how many complex vst plugins you can insert in a 4 GHz 8 core cpu ($250) in your daw without pushing the limits... it's huge...
 
AlGrenadine said:
Even standard desktop cpus of today are a lot more powerful than tigersharcs... Even if not specialized, see how many complex vst plugins you can insert in a 4 GHz 8 core cpu ($250) in your daw without pushing the limits... it's huge...
Click to expand...
Hi Alex,
True CPUs of today are damn powerful, and have parallel execution on the MultiMedia processing with SSE ( use to be MMX) or the like. But these VST might not have algorithms that are just as complex as in the AXE-FX. I have not been using VST recently so could be I am out of sync with what they can really do. AFAIK, DSP also have another advantage on CPU (with OS) is that they have predictable execution time (not real-time) where with CPUs the execution timing depends on the OS running on the CPU. One can get "jitter" in the sound using VST in a live context (not post-production) depending on the power of the CPU. That might not be the case with newer more powerful CPUs. Anyway my point is was that DSP are specialized processor and some are specifically design to do signal/sound processing. So it is likely they do a better/faster job at it, but it's only my reckoning on the matter. The real experts should know what is actually better/faster.
 
Hey Eric ;)
Yes of course for realtime processing DSPs are better in a way... But a VST plugin like Line6's is not intended specifically for realtime. It's more a recording tool, so reamping can be done or realtime if the soundcard has low latency etc...
 
Right. I thought those VSTs were used a like BIAS desktop. Yes for reamping/post-processing could be useful. But rewriting would be quite a task.
 
You could be right.;)

AFAIU, DSP have specific math functions/treatment, so at least a library with similar functions would have to be found. Then, I wouldn't be surprised if there were quite a few optimisations of the code specific to the DSP. Anyway it is a guess. In my experience most software that have very good (close to real-time performance) with complex algorithms are not that easy to move from one platform to another. But it might not be the case in this specific instance.
 
PALYGAP said:
You could be right.;)

AFAIU, DSP have specific math functions/treatment, so at least a library with similar functions would have to be found. Then, I wouldn't be surprised if there were quite a few optimisations of the code specific to the DSP. Anyway it is a guess. In my experience most software that have very good (close to real-time performance) with complex algorithms are not that easy to move from one platform to another. But it might not be the case in this specific instance.
Click to expand...
Well Cliff stated few months ago a VST plugin of the AMP block was in the works... Maybe it's a vaporware, we'll see ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom