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.
It is possible to dial in a tone, and then record it.
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.
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.It is possible to dial in a tone, and then record it.
I can through analog and another interface, but that's more d/a a/d conversion that changes the sound.
Had the exact opposite experience... Usb outs all the wayI 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
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
Had the exact opposite experience... Usb outs all the way
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...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
Yes, it adds color. So technically it's not better, it could clearly be considered as worse...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.
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.
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...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.
Hi Alex,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...
Nothing to rewrite, it's just C/C++ code i guessRight. 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.
Well Cliff stated few months ago a VST plugin of the AMP block was in the works... Maybe it's a vaporware, we'll seeYou 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.