Highcastle_of_Tone
Power User
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Edit and the front panel, and I wouldn't want that to be lost, but it's really cool to see the analog gear as it was originally made.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.
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.