This new firmware sounds great...

Status
Not open for further replies.
GuitarDojo said:
Right. The high resolution mode is on when there is only one amp block used.
Click to expand...

Damn. Is there any possible configuration in a preset that could free up enough processor to run a dual high res amp setup? Maybe down the road in future firmware?
 
rsf1977 said:
Damn. Is there any possible configuration in a preset that could free up enough processor to run a dual high res amp setup? Maybe down the road in future firmware?
Click to expand...
It would be nice but for now you can X/Y your bad boys with one amp. * It sounds amazing! Bottom end is tighter than a *Insert "tighter" ennuendo here* and no "shrill" highs. (and I am talking high gain amps) BEEF BEEF BEEF.
 
Dr_EvilTXB.jpg


:lolohhhhh... I can't wait to try this!:lol
​
 
GuitarDojo said:
It would be nice but for now you can X/Y your bad boys with one amp. * It sounds amazing! Bottom end is tighter than a *Insert "tighter" ennuendo here* and no "shrill" highs. (and I am talking high gain amps) BEEF BEEF BEEF.
Click to expand...

Bummer I use a stereo dual amp setup. Oh well it'll be cool for tracking
 
I know I mentioned it already, but I'm still wondering what, if any, audible effect the new sampling rate (on its own) is going to have. Human hearing very rarely exceeds 20khz, and guitar's harmonics certainly don't extend that far up, so 48k seems quite sufficient. Whatever is produced by nonlinearity above 20k can, and should, be filtered out using oversampling filters (which is what is already done, as I understand it.) What's left to achieve?
 
Last edited:
FreaqyFrequency said:
I know I mentioned it already, but I'm still wondering what, if any, audible effect the new sampling rate (on its own) is going to have. Human hearing very rarely exceeds 20khz, and guitar's harmonics certainly don't extend that far up, so 48k seems quite sufficient. Whatever is produced by nonlinearity above 20k can, and should, be filtered out using oversampling filters (which is what is already done, as I understand it.) What's left to achieve?
Click to expand...

That's not what this type of improvement means. It's not "extending the upper frequency ceiling," it's "improving the total resolution of the entire currently available sonic picture."

Cliff is basically doing the equivalent of taking a computer monitor and increasing the display rate from 60 to 120Hz (or 120 to 240Hz depending on your current opinion of the Axe-Fx :D ). He's not extending the colors into the microwave and ultraviolet ranges.
 
Last edited:
I hope this decision clears the way for amps or techniques that might someday outrun the dual amp setup in other ways, so certain amps would only be usable by themselves. Dual amps as it is are already somewhat near to maxing out the one CPU, so it would not be an unimaginable and it would be a shame to keep the "dual" as a must just out of principle. So I hope I may applaud this in more way than one! TYVM :)
 
GreatGreen said:
That's not what this type of improvement means. It's not "extending the upper frequency ceiling," it's "improving the total resolution of the entire sonic picture."
Click to expand...

That's not really how Nyquist works for digital audio. There is no greater resolution to be had in the audio passband by extending the frequency range, because the function of sinc interpolation along with the reconstruction filter ensures that, within the representable bandwidth, what goes in is what comes out. If this were not true, sample rate conversion between any two frequencies which aren't exact multipliers of one another would not be possible, because the samples wouldn't line up.

Oversampling is a virtue in my book mostly because of the ability to noise-shape dither and other undesirable sounds out of the audio passband, and then filter it out before coming back down to 48/44.1 for CD.
 
Can you hear a difference?

I attended a seminar few years back ( think it was by RADAR) where they played back a well-recorded jazz session, recorded at 3 different samplerates, 48, 96, and 192, and stating all other factors were equal.

My subjective opinion was that there was a noticeable difference between 48 and 96, and a much finer difference between 96 and 192, not surprisingly.

Although it wasn't a blind test, so some of my perception may have been due to the power of suggestion....

I am looking forward to replicating the test now, on my own setup, under more controlled conditions and with the ability to repeat it as many times as I want.

Thanks Cliff...for the chance and the tool to see for myself if the whole 192 thing is tangible or if it's HPFM...
(Hocus Pocus F'in Magic).

More FUN from Fractal!

Lou
 
Mhhh... as I got, the code rewriting has not to do with filtering or extending passband, but with the accuracy at which the engine elaborates the amp simulation at any given signal input. Double the speed in understanding what's coming in, double the speed in determining how to treat it and double the speed in actually processing the input before... it's too late. Simply speaking, it's like having more time for processing a signal, so more accurate (and computing-time eating) functions can be used in the real time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom