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 don’t see getting a Deluxe Reverb amp model into Mesa territory using just a channel on an amp block.
I don’t understand. A Channel is a completely different set of settings. You can change the Amp Type completely, you don’t need to try and make the settings of a Fender “sound like” a Mesa - you literally change to a Mesa.
 
Switching Cab blocks together with Amp blocks, without making use of presets or scenes, is a whole lot more difficult to “program” on a foot controller than just Amp blocks.

Couldn't you just use the multiplexer to split one path into three and then merge it back after the cab blocks? (writes someone who's never used that block :D).

Austin
 
I like adding Tube Pre or Buttery to soften/thicken up my single amp sounds. My one trick pony with 2 amp modeling is to do one amp for the mids and another for the highs / lows. I would use 3 amps, if available. Just make sure you include 3 cabs too!
 
I don’t understand. A Channel is a completely different set of settings. You can change the Amp Type completely, you don’t need to try and make the settings of a Fender “sound like” a Mesa - you literally change to a Mesa.
I see what you are saying. Still learning here.

I personally prefer the idea of dropping an amp model and being able to readily visualize on the grid how the rig is setup, what amp models and cabs are in the rig, etc. I think three amp models is a reasonable number too: clean, crunch and lead. Feels right to me and aligns to the mental model I have of the grid and rigs.

Is scene switching more “transparent” than channel switching?
 
Or the CPU to run AMP blocks is reserved and you’re not getting the full story when it comes to CPU use. You’re getting a guideline to adjust performance.
Whichever way it is, seems likely that the addition of an extra amp block would cause extra CPU usage, rendering less available total CPU headroom to the end user, no? Or am I misunderstanding things?
 
Whichever way it is, seems likely that the addition of an extra amp block would cause extra CPU usage, rendering less available total CPU headroom to the end user, no? Or am I misunderstanding things?
You're not. But that wasn't the point of contention. That one, single DSP is only available for AMP modeling was the point of contention.
 
I see what you are saying. Still learning here.

I personally prefer the idea of dropping an amp model and being able to readily visualize on the grid how the rig is setup, what amp models and cabs are in the rig, etc. I think three amp models is a reasonable number too: clean, crunch and lead. Feels right to me and aligns to the mental model I have of the grid and rigs.

Is scene switching more “transparent” than channel switching?
Scene switching can change Channels in blocks.

Muting/Unmuting is the cleanest way to change sounds, even with physical gear. That’s how your guitar hero’s have done it for years: multiple of the same amp rather than changing channels on just one.

But with the latest work from cliff on the Axe3, most channel changing in the Amp block is seamless. Try it before passing up on it.
 
Or your making an inference based upon an incomplete understanding of what is actually going on “under the hood” as evidenced by the reported CPU usage, of which we don’t fully understand. Is 10% really 10% or is it just 10% of an alloted percent of available resources which actually equates to just 2% of true resources. In other words, I don’t think we can really read too much into the CPU usage display.

I'm making my inferences based on multiple factors:

1. this is exactly how Amp blocks worked in the Axe-Fx II. The Amp blocks got one entire processor and everything else got the other one.
2. the addition of two processors over one as seen in the jump from the Axe-Fx Ultra to the Axe-Fx II (according to Cliff himself) introduced additional lag into the system, from around 1.0 ms lag to around 1.5 ms lag. From this information, it can be inferred that every time information is passed between two processors, additional lag is added to the system. Considering this, it would make the most sense to minimize the instances of information transfer between the processors. And the engineers at Fractal are smart people who would likely design the system this way.


So yeah, I'm making a guess that the Amp blocks get one proc and everything else gets the other, but it's a fairly educated guess based on the history of the product according to Fractal itself.

Based on this, I don't exactly think it's fair so shout "you don't know at all because it hasn't been explicitly spelled out and spoon fed to you! Using previous data to make predictions about current or future things is impossible!" because there's equally no reason to just assume that Fractal Audio would have completely abandoned everything they've learned about software development since the birth of the company either.
 
Last edited:
As everybody can see in the 3rd party MIDI specs, Cliff reserved ID_DISTORT3 and ID_DISTORT4 block identifiers.
Why would he if he hadn't in mind to add this ability one day?
 
I'm making my inferences based on multiple factors:

1. this is exactly how Amp blocks worked in the Axe-Fx II. The Amp blocks got one entire processor and everything else got the other one.
2. the addition of two processors over one as seen in the jump from the Axe-Fx Ultra to the Axe-Fx II (according to Cliff himself) introduced additional lag into the system, from around 1.0 ms lag to around 1.5 ms lag. From this information, it can be inferred that every time information is passed between two processors, additional lag is added to the system. Considering this, it would make the most sense to minimize the instances of information transfer between the processors. And the engineers at Fractal are smart people who would likely design the system this way.


So yeah, I'm making a guess that the Amp blocks get one proc and everything else gets the other, but it's an educated guess based on the history of the product according to Fractal itself.
Different hardware architecture, difference processor type. I think you're making a lot of assumptions.
 
After receiving my Axe III I could not bare to sell my Axe II mk1 that has been so good to me for almost 10 years. So I have the Axe II in the loop of the Axe 3 and guess what - the 2 makes a fantastic dedicated harmonizer (bare with me I'm getting to the point).

After lots of fiddling I've concluded there is only one way to make any harmonizer sound decent with distorted tones, and that is to have each generated harmony voice run through its own dedicated distortion blocks (drive/amp). With Axe II in the loop of the 3, I've got each harmony voice running through it's own comp,eq,drive,amp,cab,chorus,delay. Sounds better than any other harmony generation I've heard.

So - 3 Amps - Ya! - 2 for the two other harmony voices - and one for me! - then I'll sell my 2.
great idea, I just cobbled a preset based on this idea, my guytron in the loop, but same deal...sounds awesome.Screen Shot 2018-09-21 at 5.07.25 PM.png
 
Scene switching can change Channels in blocks.

Muting/Unmuting is the cleanest way to change sounds, even with physical gear. That’s how your guitar hero’s have done it for years: multiple of the same amp rather than changing channels on just one.

But with the latest work from cliff on the Axe3, most channel changing in the Amp block is seamless. Try it before passing up on it.
Definitely will. It is a tool in the toolbox after all, right? The more I think about this, I think my personal preference is about how I have conceptualized a virtual rig.

If Cliff provides an additional amp model I will use it too. It will be another tool in the toolbox.
 
great idea, I just cobbled a preset based on this idea, my guytron in the loop, but same deal...sounds awesome.View attachment 49666

Cool! -

Makes sense when you think about it - two or three guitarists playing in harmony would not likely want to send all their signals through one distorted amp channel, or use a "pre distorted" signal as input to their guitar. Each voice having its own signal path is really the only logical way.

Interesting that harmonizer gear conversations and advertising never seems to explain this - and I've seen tonnes of really crappy sounding harmoniser demos playing multiple voices (or generated voice + guitar signal) through a single distorted amp channel.
 
I hadn't previously considered it, but given the number of different outputs available and how easy it would be put together a sort of w/d/w rig but using different amp heads would be cool. I don't feel any limitation with the present setup, but I'd definitely give it a try. I can see the utility if you were running multiple players through one AxeFx (gtr, bass, etc.).
 
Yes I think most of the 'why would you need it when you can just X' comments are not thinking about how bands may want to use multi inputs to 3 diff amps at once....you could have 2 guitarists and a bass player all getting their own path each with a sep. amp.

I'm also new and may be wrong but my vote is YES gimme a 3rd amp.
 
Last edited:
I vote YES!!

I just received my Axe FX III yesterday, loving it so far.

But my traditional signal chain in the past was two different amps in stereo (panned left and right) with an additional output to a Bass amp. I'm using Output 3 direct into a Bass amp at the moment (using a pitch block+EQ+COMP) but would absolutely love to have a third amp block to provide more flexibility with my bass tones.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom