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.
vangrieg said:
“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.
Click to expand...
FractalAudio said:
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.
Click to expand...
For the cheap seats, Fractal's standards. The key word that seems to be glossed over in what @FractalAudio said is "detrimental". Not simply a lower quality nor High or Ultra vs Normal but detrimental.

This latest conversation really amazes me. Do what it takes to give us what we want even if it's "detrimental" to the tone. I'd be willing to wager that if they introduced the 3rd block, the next day would be thread after thread of "why doesn't it sound as good?" or "what happened to my tone?".

It's easy to say it can be done and will be well within the "standards" when you don't have to do the work and it's not your name on the product. It's not out of the realm of possibility, and it wouldn't surprise me, that Fractal eventually figures out how to implement a 3rd block, but at the moment it appears that the cons outweigh the benefits to them.
 
NeoSound said:
Quality not quantity imo
Click to expand...

Choice is good though, as maybe some would prefer quantity over quality.

Own 1 great guitar, or own several good guitars which let you do some different things ?

High resolution reverb and less blocks, or normal resolution reverb and ability to run other things ?

Different strokes for different folks
 
JoKeR III said:
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

What, are you saying you can’t stand the added aliasing and always used only one amp in Axe-FX II? :) If yes, you’ll be able to use fewer blocks in III without the detriment to quality if this request is implemented. Nobody is losing anything.
 
vangrieg said:
What, are you saying you can’t stand the added aliasing and always used only one amp in Axe-FX II? :) If yes, you’ll be able to use fewer blocks in III without the detriment to quality if this request is implemented. Nobody is losing anything.
Click to expand...
I'm saying "Whatever man, here's my stick. Continue beating the poor animal".
 
What was that extra IR player block you made? Just basic one IR and no extras. Could you do an amp block that way? Just basic features exclusive to that amp with no advanced pages?
 
vangrieg said:
What, are you saying you can’t stand the added aliasing and always used only one amp in Axe-FX II? :) If yes, you’ll be able to use fewer blocks in III without the detriment to quality if this request is implemented. Nobody is losing anything.
Click to expand...

Normally I agree with a lot of your posts. But on this one I must ask, how do you know?

@FractalAudio said it would be too detrimental. I trust that he knows more than you do about the topic.

Iirc, on the III, the amp processing goes to 64 bits on critical fp operations. It might not scale and deliver to FAS standards. And, who knows what the AxeFx II actually does deep down? Perhaps stays at 32 bits? Do you know? I’m being completely serious, not confrontational.
 
∞Fractals said:
Normally I agree with a lot of your posts. But on this one I must ask, how do you know?
Click to expand...

How do I know what exactly? The information about oversampling in the II slashed by half or so - IIRC it’s from the wiki, quoting Cliff.

It was also said that using just one block raises the oversampling block.

So I simply assume something like that could be done on the III, and people who need the highest oversampling rates can run fewer blocks and have the highest quality.

I also know that the II’s aliasing performance is considerably worse than III’s so there’s less oversampling going on even in the highest settings. That’s from Cliff’s own analysis he posted here a while ago.

We also know that Ares models run on the II, and it’s arguably a weaker DSP with lower oversampling, nobody’s crying over it.

Now, do I think that more oversampling is better? You bet I do. I would of course love to have as much as possible. But gapless switching is simply more important, so I’m more than willing to pay the cost. As I’m sure a lot of people will be, just like they are with the II.
 
vangrieg said:
How do I know what exactly? The information about oversampling in the II slashed by half or so - IIRC it’s from the wiki, quoting Cliff.

It was also said that using just one block raises the oversampling block.

So I simply assume something like that could be done on the III, and people who need the highest oversampling rates can run fewer blocks and have the highest quality.

I also know that the II’s aliasing performance is considerably worse than III’s so there’s less oversampling going on even in the highest settings. That’s from Cliff’s own analysis he posted here a while ago.
Click to expand...

But the III is sold as a greatly improved guitar processor over the 2. Compromise doesn’t appear to be on the roadmap at this early point in the III’s lifecycle. I’m not privy to such views so speculation is just that. <shrugs>

Thanks for your thoughts on this.
 
∞Fractals said:
But the III is sold as a greatly improved guitar processor over the 2. Compromise doesn’t appear to be on the roadmap at this early point in the III’s lifecycle. I’m not privy to such views so speculation is just that. <shrugs>

Thanks for your thoughts on this.
Click to expand...

It still will be improved.

Cliff says it would be detrimental (not “too detrimental”, as some rephrased it) when all three blocks are used.

So I don’t see how it would hurt anyone who chooses not to use three.

All the stuff people say about “he tried and it didn’t work” or “it would be in the way of future improvements” or even “he won’t do it” is pure speculation which doesn’t follow from anything that’s been said.
 
chris said:
Maybe the quality loss would be even worse?
Click to expand...

Why would that be the case? How is that even possible? We have the II with lower oversampling rate than III, it drops by half, nobody notices. Here we have higher oversampling rate, increase the CPU consumption by a third (we're not talking about doubling the number of blocks), and even if that leads to reducing oversampling by a half, it'll still be higher than in the II.

Surely there's always a possibility of something else happening we don't know about, but what's the point inventing them out of thin air?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom