Three Amp Blocks?

[yek]

Only Cliff knows the technical details. Everything else is speculation.

It’s been stated that the 3rd block will decrease quality. People will use that 3rd block and post recordings.

I promise you this: if those show the slightest bit of aliasing or whatever digital artifacts or lower sound quality, the Internet forums will go wild and accuse the III to be inferior. Nobody will pay attention to the “but it’s 3 instead of 2 blocks!” argument. That has to be taken into consideration.

 

[vangrieg]

@DLC86 nothing to be sorry about, the more people agree and write about it, the better!

 

[vangrieg]

People will use that 3rd block and post recordings. I promise you this: if those show the slightest bit of aliasing or whatever digital artifacts or lower sound quality, the Internet forums will go wild and accuse the III to be inferior.

People didn’t do it with the II.

Heck, people use and love Helix which has tons of aliasing.

 

[bradlake]

The reason I haven't added a third amp block is that I would have to reduce the oversample rate for all the amp blocks when three are in use and this would be detrimental to sound quality.

That being the case, I would hope everyone understands your concern for the highest quality for us users, and let us move on with our current wonderful 2 max amp blocks.....and also thanks for the clarification on the fixed number of User Presets, and I for one will do
All my future preset library management based on this .

 

[reclavea]

There's significantly more computational power in the III, that's why it might have been different. The offer may have been presented with the thought that it wouldn't need a reduction to make the implementation work. Facts changed between the poll being posted and now, hence the update from Cliff.

Interesting the FAS Poll in the first place? ....

Though admittedly I’ve yet to even try out my AxeIII....Seamless switching is all the rage with live performance.

A drop in quality negligible enough for seamless option?

I’m just trying to echo Admin M@‘s take

 

[vangrieg]

Seamless switching is all the rage with live performance.

A drop in quality negligible enough for seamless option?

I would certainly prefer an option to have seamless switching at the cost of more aliasing.

 

[Clockwork Creep]

Only Cliff knows the technical details. Everything else is speculation.

It’s been stated that the 3rd block will decrease quality. People will use that 3rd block and post recordings.

I promise you this: if those show the slightest bit of aliasing or whatever digital artifacts or lower sound quality, the Internet forums will go wild and accuse the III to be inferior. Nobody will pay attention to the “but it’s 3 instead of 2 blocks!” argument. That has to be taken into consideration.

I never seen the internet go wild over Axe FX 2 quality loss when two amp blocks are used, so I think your statement is unfounded.

But lets say it was true - People would do that. You can't blame people for being ignorant on how the axe works under the hood.
So, to fully prevent this, all that is required is that the Axe FX would show a warning that specifically says that quality is reduced, because three amp blocks are used.
If you claim, that people would try to delibirately sabotage the Axe FX name, and not because of ignorance, they don't need the third Amp block to do that.

 

[hippietim]

 

[lqdsnddist]

I never seen the internet go wild over Axe FX 2 quality loss when two amp blocks are used, so I think your statement is unfounded.

But lets say it was true - People would do that. You can't blame people for being ignorant on how the axe works under the hood.
So, to fully prevent this, all that is required is that the Axe FX would show a warning that specifically says that quality is reduced, because three amp blocks are used.
If you claim, that people would try to delibirately sabotage the Axe FX name, and not because of ignorance, they don't need the third Amp block to do that.

Good points

No one seems to mind 2 amp blocks in the II, running the “normal” reverb quality, the “economy” preamps etc, as it still sounds great

I get it would be a reduction, but I think the trade offs could perhaps be worth it, or at least having the option.

2 high resolution or 3 with some reduction, sounds like a cool choice to me, but I don’t know all the details, maybe it would be a huge drop on quality where it just feels not worth it.

I’m sure Cliff is giving it a good try though and I’ll certainly go with his final decision if it’s an acceptable trade off or not

Still would be cool though, nothing else can model 3 amps that I know of, and being it’s called the III, 3 amps would make sense, right?

 

[DLC86]

I never seen the internet go wild over Axe FX 2 quality loss when two amp blocks are used, so I think your statement is unfounded.

But lets say it was true - People would do that. You can't blame people for being ignorant on how the axe works under the hood.
So, to fully prevent this, all that is required is that the Axe FX would show a warning that specifically says that quality is reduced, because three amp blocks are used.
If you claim, that people would try to delibirately sabotage the Axe FX name, and not because of ignorance, they don't need the third Amp block to do that.

I agree, otherwise all advanced parameters and most features should be removed cuz, you know, if you crank preamp bias, power amp bias and speaker drive you get a shitty sound that could make people think the axe fx is inferior..

 

[fractalz]

The reason I haven't added a third amp block is that I would have to reduce the oversample rate for all the amp blocks when three are in use and this would be detrimental to sound quality.

Sounds like a good reason. Your transparency is to be admired!

I think the request still stands for more of the other blocks. However, I can see how that would have downstream effects on the FCs and the whole PC scheme and I'm sure other things. That said, for studio use, I'm not automating the Axe from the DAW - I just want the other blocks.

Of course, all of this can be accomplished with multiple "print" passes through the DAW, so there is a workaround.

 

[yek]

I agree, otherwise all advanced parameters and most features should be removed cuz, you know, if you crank preamp bias, power amp bias and speaker drive you get a shitty sound that could make people think the axe fx is inferior..

Seriously? Okay, I give up and I’m out.

 

[JoKeR III]

They asked if people wanted it.
Enough responded that they did so they tried.
They couldn't make it work to their standards.
Time to move on.

 

[GreatGreen]

The reason I haven't added a third amp block is that I would have to reduce the oversample rate for all the amp blocks when three are in use and this would be detrimental to sound quality.

In that case, please do not do this.

Well, it's your company, do what you want. But in my non-company-affiliated opinion, it would seem like you'd definitely want to make it completely clear to users that this is the compromise they'd be making. Like to the point of adding an on screen prompt telling users that "Placing 3 Amp blocks on the grid requires a compromise in sample rate and thus sound quality. Are you sure you want to add a 3rd Amp block?" message that needs to be OK'd via button press.

 

[vangrieg]

They asked if people wanted it.
Enough responded that they did so they tried.
They couldn't make it work to their standards.
Time to move on.

“They” routinely do it, I’m not sure what standards you are alluding to. Using two amp blocks on the II cuts oversampling dramatically, and there are settings for reverbs and mic preamps that slash it, too.

Cutting oversampling even by half in the III will still keep it well within Axe-FX II “standards” and probably above all competition still.

 

[DLC86]

Seriously? Okay, I give up and I’m out.

Sorry @yek, don't take it like a personal attack, I didn't want to sound harsh. I just expressed my opinion on what you wrote cuz I think it's unlikely something like that would happen.. but I may be wrong of course

 

[vangrieg]

They asked if people wanted it.
Enough responded that they did so they tried.
They couldn't make it work to their standards.
Time to move on.

There were a lot of people saying this about Ares on the II. They turned out to be wrong.

 

[vangrieg]

Sorry @yek, don't take it line a personal attack, I didn't want to sound harsh. I just expressed my opinion on what you wrote cuz I think it's unlikely something like that would happen.. but I may be wrong of course

Any Helix fanboy who has enough wits to figure out what aliasing is and how to measure it will know to avoid going into this discussion because he’ll know Helix won’t look pretty in comparison.

 

[DLC86]

Any Helix fanboy who has enough wits to figure out what aliasing is and how to measure it will know to avoid going into this discussion because he’ll know Helix won’t look pretty in comparison.

For the second time you read my mind
I was going to add that to my post, I'll also add that isolating aliasing is not a task that an average tgp user is able to do.

 

[yek]

Sorry @yek, don't take it line a personal attack, I didn't want to sound harsh. I just expressed my opinion on what you wrote cuz I think it's unlikely something like that would happen.. but I may be wrong of course

No worries