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.
I have some presets where I use two amps in stereo but I don't switch between them. I have ran two amps in parallel but if you have one bypassed for one scene and then the other bypassed for the next you get a straight signal with no amp running with the other that sounds like a clean amp running with a a high gain amp. If I run them in series and switch between them with either bypassed states or even control switches I get thumps and pops between amps. So what is the best way to run more than one amp black and switching between them? I would love to do the the 3 amp block setup if it were smooth.
 
REDD said:
I have some presets where I use two amps in stereo but I don't switch between them. I have ran two amps in parallel but if you have one bypassed for one scene and then the other bypassed for the next you get a straight signal with no amp running with the other that sounds like a clean amp running with a a high gain amp. If I run them in series and switch between them with either bypassed states or even control switches I get thumps and pops between amps. So what is the best way to run more than one amp black and switching between them? I would love to do the the 3 amp block setup if it were smooth.
Click to expand...
You need to say Bypass to Mute and run in parallel.
 
I have built guitars with multiple outputs, so more amp blocks would be great. Magnetic, hex (synth), and piezo come to mind.

CPU usage would increase but options are always good. That's why I chose Fractal.
 
I have a couple of questions about the concept.


1. CPU usage - As the two currently available amp blocks exist on their own processor, how would a third amp block effect CPU usage in a patch?

2. How would this impede other future innovations?


If the impact to these areas is minimum, then heck yeah I'd use them. 3 absolutely seamless sounds per patch AND 12 amps total per patch would probably reduce my total need for patches to like... under 5?

If the CPU usage would increase significantly or if you're planning other developments that need the room, then probably not.
 
Last edited:
GreatGreen said:
I see. I assumed it's this way because the CPU usage increases only very slightly when the Amp blocks are added to the grid.
Click to expand...
Yeah... I know the Axe Fx II was that way, and the III might be, too. Just never seen it officially mentioned.
 
Not necessarily something I'd put on the top of the wishlist but if it can be implemented then I don't see why it shouldn't be done even if I or many users don't use it much.
 
I love the idea because it would benefit my (admittedly lazy) workflow. My main recording patch has both my guitar and bass rig, and I leave both plugged in at the same time so I can just pick up and go. It would be nice to have a third amp and cab sim so I could plug in a second guitar and quickly track the two guitars and a bass without ever switching around anything IRL or in the DAW.

It would also be nice for a quick reamping workflow, and would let a typical band's string section record in fewer takes.

So yeah, I'd love this.
 
The Axe 3 gives you the chance to do the same thing in different ways. It's up to your imagination. So why not having the chance to add 3 amps in the same patch instead of using channels? Maybe the final results could be sonically the same but who cares when our goal is "THE SOUND"?. And Cliff has enough experience to program the Axe III in order to use the right amount of CPU without doing any sacrifice in terms of numbers of effects or complex chains we all love to play.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom