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.
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...

Would the sound quality difference be audible though? Does this happen in Axe FX 2, with two amp blocks?

If it's not that bad, it might still be ok for rehearsals and gigs, but maybe not recommended for recording.
I think it could just show a warning that oversampling has been reduced, but still allow users to use it if they want to. I think that's fair enough.
I think some may believe that a tiny drop in audio quality is a small price to pay for the convenience of having only one Axe FX, that all guitarists in the band are connected to. A lot less gear to carry around and less money spent.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FreeMind said:
Would the sound quality difference be audible though? Does this happen in Axe FX 2, with two amp blocks?

If it's not that bad, it might still be ok for rehearsals and gigs, but maybe not recommended for recording.
I think it could just show a warning that oversampling has been reduced, but still allow users to use it if they want to. I think that's fair enough.
I think some may believe that a tiny drop in audio quality is a small price to pay for the convenience of having only one Axe FX, that all guitarists in the band are connected to. A lot less gear to carry around.
Click to expand...


You also have to think about Cpu though ,if 2 amp models is eating up say 30- 40%I I don
y know just guessing adding another you get up to 60 how much is left for things like cloud verbs , delays ,drive stacking etc ??
if Cliff said it not worth the ROI ,I think we have to understand and accept that .
 
Randalljax said:
You also have to think about Cpu though ,if 2 amp models is eating up say 30- 40%I I don
y know just guessing adding another you get up to 60 how much is left for things like cloud verbs , delays ,drive stacking etc ??
if Cliff said it not worth the ROI ,I think we have to understand and accept that .
Click to expand...

Not everyone piles up tons of effects over everything...
I'd say - if the person that uses the axe with three amp blocks runs out of CPU, that's his issue to overcome. If effects are really necessary, there is no shame in having a few physical pedals if you run out of CPU...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Randalljax said:
You also have to think about Cpu though ,if 2 amp models is eating up say 30- 40%I I don
y know just guessing adding another you get up to 60 how much is left for things like cloud verbs , delays ,drive stacking etc ??
if Cliff said it not worth the ROI ,I think we have to understand and accept that .
Click to expand...

The III seems to work like the II where one CPU is dedicated to amp blocks. That's why the number of amp blocks in use has (almost) no effect on the CPU% available for other blocks.
 
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...
Bummer! Oh well, now we can concentrate on more important things like getting the spectrum analyzer set as a screen saver!!:D;)
 
FreeMind said:
Would the sound quality difference be audible though? Does this happen in Axe FX 2, with two amp blocks?

If it's not that bad, it might still be ok for rehearsals and gigs, but maybe not recommended for recording.
I think it could just show a warning that oversampling has been reduced, but still allow users to use it if they want to. I think that's fair enough.
I think some may believe that a tiny drop in audio quality is a small price to pay for the convenience of having only one Axe FX, that all guitarists in the band are connected to. A lot less gear to carry around and less money spent.
Click to expand...

See post 398. The 3rd block has not been added. End of discussion, I think.
 
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.

It seems to me, In light of Cliff's statement of fact, that any further conjecture or debate on the 3 amp issue could be just "beating a dead horse", Yes?.
 
yek said:
See post 398. The 3rd block has not been added. End of discussion, I think.
Click to expand...

Hasn’t been added doesn’t mean won’t be added.

And we’ve been in situations when Cliff changed his mind about things.

The thing with oversampling isn’t something new, it was known from the beginning that oversampling rate would have to be decreased.
 
Cliff could reduce the oversampling and a bunch of people would play it and go “omg...my Axe has never sounded better, it sounds so real”.

What’s technically “better” and what we actually perceive can be two different things.

Power of suggestion is a great tone shaper. It’s the reason less than honorable guys can take a cheap Chinese pedal, rehouse it, charge $300, and people will rave about how it’s the most amazing OD or wah they ever owned lol.
 
vangrieg said:
I’m not sure it matters. More amp blocks - less oversampling. That’s how it works on the II, and why would it be different here?
Click to expand...
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.
 
iaresee said:
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.
Click to expand...

I look at it this way. The II can run two Ares amp blocks, albeit with considerably more aliasing. Nobody ever complained about amp blocks in the II sounding bad. Well, maybe some did, but most people were quite happy, and some even laughed when others suggested that a more powerful DSP would be great.

The III is more than twice as powerful than the II, so it appears reasonable to assume that it can run twice as many blocks with the same or better quality. But worse quality than the III with two amp blocks, obviously.

Looks like an option to toggle high quality/economy mode and choose number of possible amp blocks would be the best of both worlds.

Then we have Cliff who obviously doesn’t want to sacrifice oversampling. That’s a big hurdle to overcome, but not impossible. He also said it was impossible to port Ares to the II and look where we are now. At the time, it also seemed like the discussion was over. Turns out, these decisions aren’t always final. Especially when we’re talking about preference rather than technical challenges.
 
Probably how it works is more complex than how I see it, but since the axe III has more than double the computational power of the II, I assume 3 amp blocks would still run at a higher oversample rate than a single axe fx II amp block, and 4 amp blocks could basically run at "axe fx II quality".
Surely people wouldn't dislike to have that option.
Those who can hear the difference and can't stand the "detriment" could just stick with 2 amps.

EDIT: sorry @vangrieg, you wrote basically the same things while I was writing my post
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom