Random AxeFX III ideas

FIRST - I'm not suggesting there's a need for an AxeFx III by any stretch. I still haven't figured out how to harness more than about 5% of the capabilities of the AxeFx II. Actually this idea probably applies more to the Axe Edit/software side, but more on that in a minute.

I needed a new audio interface and I recently picked up the UAD Apollo Quad. Those with studio time and experience mixing/mastering, etc. will undoubtedly be familiar with UAD, a very old and respected studio gear company. Many of you will also know they have been making interface cards for computers for many years, and the Apollo Quad is a natural progression of that, it's one of their audio interface and hardware plugin accelerators in a 1U unit.

The quad has four of the sharc DSPs (Axe has 2 IIRC?) that it uses to model analog gear in a similar (as far as my simple minded reader's digest understanding of modeling goes) fashion to the Axe. And it does a fantastic job as far as I can tell. I have never owned any of the classic analog gear that UAD has modeled, but the digital compressors, equalizers, channel strips and other gear is the best I've ever heard.

So, on to the point: One thing I like about the Apollo is that the computer interface includes graphical representations of the analog gear that UAD has modeled. I think it would be awesome if that in the next iteration of the Axe if FAS was able to include these for all the modeled gear. Maybe this is more of a software than Axe hardware issue, since essentially all of the heavy lifting is being done by the Axe itself.

In the UAD software interface, you get the actual graphical representation of the device, which is a nice touch. The AxeII has much more tweakability within Axe Edit and the front panel, and I wouldn't want that to be lost, but it's really cool to see the analog gear as it was originally made. The same would go for all the amps, cabs, pedals as well.

I understand that FAS is able to skirt patent and copyright issues by not using the actual company names, and maybe a graphical interface would be pushing the limit more than they want. Most of the other software modelers (which are sonically inferior by several orders of magnitude) have been doing this for years (Guitar Pro, Amplitube, etc.).

Not a critical change, but it would be awesome to see all that gear and it would help people like me better sort through all the different options of amps, cabs, etc.

Just my random idea, not an expectation or request.
 
OTOH, people will listen with their eyes even more! ;)

If those are the same Sharc chips (I would think not), then that card must be HUGELY expenxive?
 
I think the axe uses 2 tiger sharcs. line 6 uses sharcs also. but not the much more expensive and powerful tigersharc
 
No offence, Strumzilla, but couldn't disagree more. I think those kind of skeuomorphic interfaces are cool for about 2 minutes, and then just get in the way and clutter up tour view of the software so it's harder to use.
 
No offence, Strumzilla, but couldn't disagree more. I think those kind of skeuomorphic interfaces are cool for about 2 minutes, and then just get in the way and clutter up tour view of the software so it's harder to use.

I agree. Takes up screen real estate unnecessarily, and doesn't bring anything to the party. I know what gain and wet/dry mix and depth and all those types of variables are; I don't necessarily need to see a knob or a switch. Plus, many of the effects in the Axe have parameters available that didn't exist on the physical renditions, so how do you maintain any graphic faithfulness to the original device?
 
Y1cwyNZFYwfUZusJ
vs
sRKYz1nUnMHQkbF9
 
No offence, Strumzilla, but couldn't disagree more. I think those kind of skeuomorphic interfaces are cool for about 2 minutes, and then just get in the way and clutter up tour view of the software so it's harder to use.
+1. Skeuomorphism is soooo 2009. I actually had issues with it long before than when I had to "flip pages" with my mouse in Lotus Notes' calendar about 20 years ago. To be honest, "knobs" on a screen are a pet peeve of mine as well.
 
The advantage for me with the UAD is the easier recognition of the device it's modeling. I wouldn't want a graphical interface to be the only option. It would be nice to see a layout like you would build it in the real world, which is sort of what you get with UAD's interface. If you prefer the current AE layout or the front panel you could still use those. I preferred AE over the front panel, but when I didn't have the choice, I learned the front panel. I can see using all three options if they were available. If you don't like the graphical interface, then use AE or the front panel. It would also be nice to be able to visually browse through all the different amp, cab, pedal, etc. options like you would if you actually had the gear.
 
Back
Top Bottom