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.
DLC86 said:
None of us designed an Intel CPU either, but despite that most of us know that you can run much more instances of a certain VST plugin on an i7 than on an old pentium.
Click to expand...

You can also overclock cpu chips ... is it a best practice? Likely not. And yes, I understand how they are made and sorted.

Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. (Although I’ve overclocked a few CPU’s.) ;)
 
chris said:
Because none of us designed the Axe-Fx?
Click to expand...

Surely none of us did, but we've seen oversampling before, both in Axe-FX and plugins, right? And why do we need to assume that Axe-FX would behave unlike any other digital device with regard to it, including its predecessor? I mean, okay, that's possible but there's nothing that points to it, so we are talking about imaginary things that don't happen anywhere else. Why?
 
vangrieg said:
Surely none of us did, but we've seen oversampling before, both in Axe-FX and plugins, right? And why do we need to assume that Axe-FX would behave unlike any other digital device with regard to it, including its predecessor? I mean, okay, that's possible but there's nothing that points to it, so we are talking about imaginary things that don't happen anywhere else. Why?
Click to expand...

So, you don’t trust Cliff’s evaluation. I get it.
 
∞Fractals said:
So, you don’t trust Cliff’s evaluation. I get it.
Click to expand...

What indicates that I don't trust his evaluation?

That's what he wrote:

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...

There's nothing about "too detrimental", "worse than the II", "impossible", or anything that suggests that it would be different from any other digital processor that does oversampling, including the II.

Yeah, you increase number of blocks, decrease oversampling, nothing is free. That's been obvious all the time. And Cliff never seemed to like the idea exactly because of this. But there's absolutely nothing in his words that points to any uniqueness of the situation. Also note the text in bold. That's only about the situation when three blocks are used. Just like with the II or any other digital processor out there. When something's not used, it doesn't consume resources, no need to reduce oversampling.
 
vangrieg said:
What indicates that I don't trust his evaluation?

That's what he wrote:



There's nothing about "too detrimental", "worse than the II", "impossible", or anything that suggests that it would be different from any other digital processor that does oversampling, including the II.

Yeah, you increase number of blocks, decrease oversampling, nothing is free. That's been obvious all the time. And Cliff never seemed to like the idea exactly because of this. But there's absolutely nothing in his words that points to any uniqueness of the situation. Also note the text in bold. That's only about the situation when three blocks are used. Just like with the II or any other digital processor out there. When something's not used, it doesn't consume resources, no need to reduce oversampling.
Click to expand...
Just ask Cliff directly in this thread already. You’re only arguing at this point.
 
chris said:
Just ask Cliff directly in this thread already. You’re only arguing at this point.
Click to expand...

Ask about what? He'll chime in if he feels like it, nothing can force him to if he doesn't. And it's not like I see anything mysterious in what he said, that's pretty reasonable and expected stuff, known from the beginning.
 
∞Fractals said:
So, you don’t trust Cliff’s evaluation. I get it.
Click to expand...
Discussing about this doesn't mean we don't trust Cliff's evaluation or work (we wouldn't be long time customers and users on this forum if that was the case), but his evaluation probably goes way beyond strictly technical details and what we have discussed here.
That's why he will decide what to do and we'll be fine with that anyway (I at least will).
But, as much as I love Fractal products, I would never get defensive with arguments out of any logic
∞Fractals said:
You can also overclock cpu chips ... is it a best practice? Likely not. And yes, I understand how they are made and sorted.

Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. (Although I’ve overclocked a few CPU’s.) ;)
Click to expand...
No one's talking about overclocking here anyway.. Otherwise we would be discussing about 6 amp blocks :tonguewink:
 
vangrieg said:
Ask about what? He'll chime in if he feels like it, nothing can force him to if he doesn't. And it's not like I see anything mysterious in what he said, that's pretty reasonable and expected stuff, known from the beginning.
Click to expand...
ask him to add it. ask him to add 3 amp blocks.

otherwise what is all this bickering for? if you "win" this discussion, you still need him to add it. so ask. in this thread.
 
DLC86 said:
Discussing about this doesn't mean we don't trust Cliff's evaluation or work (we wouldn't be long time customers and users on this forum if that was the case), but his evaluation probably goes way beyond strictly technical details and what we have discussed here.
That's why he will decide what to do and we'll be fine with that anyway (I at least will).
But, as much as I love Fractal products, I would never defensive with arguments out of any logic

No one's talking about overclocking here anyway.. Otherwise we would be discussing about 6 amp blocks :tonguewink:
Click to expand...


Feels like we are discussing how many angels can sit on the head of a pin.
 
chris said:
ask him to add it. ask him to add 3 amp blocks.

otherwise what is all this bickering for? if you "win" this discussion, you still need him to add it. so ask.
Click to expand...

This is what this thread is about, asking him to add it. I asked that earlier, too. He knows a lot of people know it, that's why he created the poll.

He commented, said he hasn't implemented it, stating reasons that are well known, and he's been saying these things like always.

Then a lot of people started turning it into a "you shouldn't want it" thread, inventing stuff that hasn't been said, to the tune of "he tried, it didn't work", "the detrimental effect will be too great", or even "this will hurt future improvements". Where these come from I have no idea.

How am I bickering I also don't know. I'm not attacking anyone here, not questioning Cliff's judgment, and I haven't even criticized the decision really. All I've been saying is that IMO a lot of people will be happy with the option to have more blocks at lower oversampling, pointing to Axe-FX II, Helix, and saying there are tons of other examples.
 
vangrieg said:
This is what this thread is about, asking him to add it. I asked that earlier, too. He knows a lot of people know it, that's why he created the poll.

He commented, said he hasn't implemented it, stating reasons that are well known, and he's been saying these things like always.

Then a lot of people started turning it into a "you shouldn't want it" thread, inventing stuff that hasn't been said, to the tune of "he tried, it didn't work", "the detrimental effect will be too great", or even "this will hurt future improvements". Where these come from I have no idea.

How am I bickering I also don't know. I'm not attacking anyone here, not questioning Cliff's judgment, and I haven't even criticized the decision really. All I've been saying is that IMO a lot of people will be happy with the option to have more blocks at lower oversampling, pointing to Axe-FX II, Helix, and saying there are tons of other examples.
Click to expand...
my point is, since he's basically said "no", people are arguing why he's saying no.

have you asked him to add it since he's posted no? that is what i'm saying you should do. all i'm seeing is arguments about Cliff's reasoning.

Cliff started the thread asking if we would use 3 amp blocks. that's what this thread is about. from there, we've gotten an update saying he won't implement this.

from there, if you want it, ask him to add it. though it seems he already said no. further discussion about why he said no is basically pointless.

if you want 3 amps, ask for it. give reasons why you want it. don't discuss why he didn't do it.
 
chris said:
have you asked him to add it since he's posted no?
Click to expand...

I did actually, I wrote that an option would be nice, having reduced oversampling and more amp blocks.

chris said:
further discussion about why he said no is basically pointless.
Click to expand...

So don't participate in it if you find it pointless?

chris said:
though it seems he already said n
Click to expand...

It seems so, but he didn't say he wouldn't do it ever. And there were cases when he said he wouldn't do things and still did them.
 
In fairness, Cliff has said no to things at one time or another and then ended up adding them, finding a different way to make soemthing work, and sometimes just changing his thoughts on a matter.

Cliff said “no” to authentic amp controls for years, and then decided to do it after all.

No means no of course, but sometimes no means “for now”, and maybe future developments will make it possible or he will have a new reason to try it (maybe Metallica will ask nicely etc lol)

People can respectfully acknowledge his choice for the time being, but doesn’t mean it can’t be brought up every now and then in the future.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom