Something Cool I've Been Working On

Right but when he says it doesn't have more "power" he means processing power. The processor hasn't changed - what has changed is your ability to store more information, which means that you can have more instances of effects, more modifiers, etc.
 
maharzan said:
Great to know that. :) Thought ultrares require more power which is available in XL!
Click to expand...

IIRC, part of the UtraRes technology is a new algorithm that Cliff has developed that let's the AxeFx II process longer IR's but NOT take a big CPU hit.

In other words, the opposite of what you thought.

Longer IR's but not more powered required.
 
  • Like
Reactions: J.C
barhrecords said:
IIRC, part of the UtraRes technology is a new algorithm that Cliff has developed that let's the AxeFx II process longer IR's but NOT take a big CPU hit.

In other words, the opposite of what you thought.

Longer IR's but not more powered required.
Click to expand...

Yes. To add to this, UltraRes will use LESS CPU than current high res IRs. How's that for a big bowl of awesome?
 
VegaBaby said:
that's pretty much what we're currently noticing during our beta tests with some UltraRes IRs. all the frequencies seem to sound more "controlled" and sit where they are supposed to without using an EQ. if you listen careful to the second clip, the Lo Res version, you can hear the bass being a bit out of control, almost to the point where you'd like to reach for the bass control to adjust it, but that would just leave the sound with too little bass. in the HiRes clip, there's still bass, but it sits better. anyway, this just seems to confirm what we've been experiencing as well.
Click to expand...

can't wait to try it! :)
 
Could I double check something?

Can IR sample length be equated to "eq filter size" on "a popular" piece of tone matching software? Just trying to work out if tone matches via IR will indeed carry more detail?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom