Three Amp Blocks?

Would you actually use three amp blocks in a preset?

  • Yes

    Votes: 395 72.3%
  • No

    Votes: 151 27.7%

  • Total voters
    546
Status
Not open for further replies.
If people would rather just have three Amp Blocks to avoid audio dropouts then why bother having Channels if they are less preferable to having 3 separate Amp blocks? If you are using one for clean, rhythm and lead respectively then it looks like you are not going to need to use the channels.
Not everyone uses their Axe the same way. Some just need one clean, one rhythm and one lead tone. Others want four or five tones for a given song or style. Some want just one tone, and they're done.

What if you have a favorite rig/preset, and you have to cover classic rock, grunge and death metal? You'll probably want clean, rhythm and lead for each style. Bang! You just ate up nine channels across three amp blocks.
 
Last edited:
The intention, I believe, is not for 3 amps simultaneously. It is for selecting between 3 amps using the multiplexor for totally seamless switching. Using the multiplexor is faster than changing the amp channel.
This is exactly right.

I like the Channels, I really do.

But I like them a lot better on effects where you can use parallel routing, because if there's a slight dropout during the channel change, the parallel dry signal maintains a constant signal, with only the wet portion being briefly slient. Chorus, Delay, and Reverb all do well with this kind of routing.

I don't like Channels so much on Amp blocks. The reason is that, obviously, there's no parallel dry signal path. So when you change channels, it isn't perfectly seamless. And you can't do crossfading channel-changes, which are the Most Seamless Change Of All: Blending smoothly from the sound of one Amp Channel to another, over 500ms or so.

Now, with 3 Amps, I could have perfectly seamless instantaneous changes between them (or, jump perfectly seamlessly to a blend of two of them). That would be cool.

But, even more excitingly, I could apply 500ms of damping to their relative levels and assign them to scene controllers. That way, a single button press (changing the scene) would cross-fade me from one tone to another.

So, yes, there's a use for 3 Amp Blocks.

And, as much as I love Channels, yes, there are some scenarios which 3 Amp Blocks can handle, which cannot be handled by Channels.
 
The intention, I believe, is not for 3 amps simultaneously. It is for selecting between 3 amps using the multiplexor for totally seamless switching.

I haven't seen stated or confirmed that this is the sole reason behind "three amp blocks".

It might be the speed of switching. It might just as well be the availability to recall 12 amp sounds (3 x 4). Or running three amps at the same time (single or multiple signal chains). Or maybe a high-profile pro player asks for it. Or to differentiate the III even more from the competition. Etc.
 
I've already voted, but just to add - of course if there are three amp blocks, three cab blocks too please!
 
I would rather see more complex effects
Algorithms myself
This. Add auto wah without having to do all the leg work yourself. Add more drive pedals and delays/reverbs. More amps? We have plenty and with channels I don;t see the point?

The only really cool thing would be scenes and basically having one setup that could do anything. 3 amps with X/Y means 6 amps! That would do it for any situation for me!
 
Last edited:
I haven't seen stated or confirmed that this is the sole reason behind "three amp blocks".

It might be the speed of switching. It might just as well be the availability to recall 12 amp sounds (3 x 4). Or running three amps at the same time (single or multiple signal chains). Or maybe a high-profile pro player asks for it. Or to differentiate the III even more from the competition. Etc.
Who knows (I guess Cliff would). That is why I stated 'I believe'. I would think that the biggest use case would be for faster switching, but maybe not. That presumption is based on my seeing more feedback about the multiplexor switching amps than having 3 amps at the same time. Personally, I have no use for 3 amps simultaneously. Others may think differently.
 
This. Add auto wah without having to do all the leg work yourself. Add more drive pedals and delays/reverbs. More amps? We have plenty and with channels I don;t see the point?

The only really cool thing would be scenes and basically having one setup that could do anything. 3 amps with X/Y means 6 amps! That would do it for any situation for me!
Did you read the rest of the thread? Several people outlined different ways that this could be useful.

Also, there is no X/Y on the Axe Fx III... Channels replaces that and then some ;)
 
Add auto wah without having to do all the leg work yourself. Add more drive pedals and delays/reverbs. More amps? We have plenty and with channels I don;t see the point?

Exactly!! More exotic effect types would be a welcome addition. Perhaps effect "types" in the Filter Block would be good like Mooger Fooger, DOD and a Bass Balls also that Korg thing that The Edge uses for Mysterious Ways. It'd be great to see them emulated as types in the Filter block.
 
I haven't seen stated or confirmed that this is the sole reason behind "three amp blocks".

It might be the speed of switching. It might just as well be the availability to recall 12 amp sounds (3 x 4). Or running three amps at the same time (single or multiple signal chains). Or maybe a high-profile pro player asks for it. Or to differentiate the III even more from the competition. Etc.

YEK begins with "Y"

Yoda begins with "Y"

Coincidence, it is not, I think.
 
@FractalAudio

I got the official approval to have 3 channels on the board, for wet dry wet, and I want to use slightly different amps that compliment one another, for instance a Vox / Dr. Z / Twin or something such as that approach....

Have you decided yet, whether to implement this feature? Would all 3 amps be "FULL RES" or would you have to dumb them down to make it work with 3 at the same time?

Thanks
 
If the Axe-Fx III still operates by the rules of "Amp block gets its own dedicated processor, everything else gets the other one" then by adding 3 Amp blocks, you're effectively cutting the amount of Amp block CPU available per core (including CPU headroom accounting for all future updates) from about 50% to about 33%. That's quite the cut. I have no idea how much each Amp block uses now but if it's anything close to 33% of a single processor, it's probably not a good idea to add 3 Amp blocks.


If Fractal can guarantee no compromises to the sound of 2 Amp blocks or less on the grid, I'm good with it. If not? Pass.
 
If the Axe-Fx III still operates by the rules of "Amp block gets its own dedicated processor, everything else gets the other one" then by adding 3 Amp blocks, you're effectively cutting the amount of Amp block CPU available per core (including CPU headroom accounting for all future updates) from about 50% to about 33%.
It does not.
 
Neat! But how do you explain the CPU usage only going up a couple of percentage points when you add an Amp block to the grid?
Magic? CPU use reporting is an art, not a science? The devil is in the details? I found the cure to the plague of the 20th and now I’ve lost it?
 
Last edited:
Magic? CPU use reporting is an art, not a science? The devil is in the details? I found the cure to the plague of the 20th and now I’ve lost it?

Well to me, it's pretty obvious that the Amp blocks get their own processor that isn't monitored for the user while all the other blocks use the other one, and the CPU usage meter only tracks the use of that second processor. How else do you explain the Axe-Fx showing the Drive block consuming close to 10% CPU but the Amp block shows the CPU usage jump by like 1-2%? Either the Amp block only uses a fraction of the CPU the Drive block uses, or I'm right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom