Ultra | Dual tone stacks possible with single unit?

ZippoTragedy

ZippoTragedy

Member
Title is self explanatory. I want to run two independent virtual stacks (stereo rig setup) including head, cab, mic and effects specific to each stack. Similar to Pod X3 Live/Pro. Can I do this with one single Ultra processor, or would it require 2 units?
 
It all depends on how many effects you want.

I have max cpu on this kind of chain with only 1 amp and 1 cab

wah
comp
drive 1
drive 2
amp
cab
pan
phaser
delay
multidelay
pitch
reverb
filter
 
Thanks - precisely what I was trying to validate. Basicly you're running something similar to what I would run. For AxeFX to truly be a hardware replacement solution, it needs to have enough horsepower to run a typical effects / amp / cab / mic sim. If you're pegging the CPU with that setup, that would pose some difficulties. I run a dual stack setup (stereo) and sometimes a triple, including a pedal board + a bunch of other outboard effects. I'd have to buy 2 of the AxeFX to really be in-line whith replacing my current hardware-based rig.

The cost of the initial AxeFx-based system is very expensive. 2x AxeFx Ultra ($4000)FRFR system ($4-5k for twin 2-ways and a sub) and a midi controller board (if they ever come out - probably close to $800). The real cost of switching to an AxeFX-based system is bordering on $10k. Not a minor decision, and although the midi board isn't required, it sure helps if you're playing out or praciting iin a band that plays frequently.

I have been putting off buying my first AxeFX because I suspected that this was a problem. It seems rather...limiting that such a wonderful piece of electronic computer equipment should be throttled at the CPU level. CPU's are not that expensive. I'm sure that most people would rather have a system that is designed to be hardware upgraded for the amount of money required to acuire and use the equipment.

Until a newer model of the AxeFx Ultra is produced that is capable of running two loaded stacks at capacity, I'll only be an interested bystander. It's a bit of an unfair comparison, but if Line 6 can figure this out with the POD X3 Pro, Fractal should be able to as well. It may require some re-engineering, but it will be worth it.


voes said:
It all depends on how many effects you want.

I have max cpu on this kind of chain with only 1 amp and 1 cab

wah
comp
drive 1
drive 2
amp
cab
pan
phaser
delay
multidelay
pitch
reverb
filter
Click to expand...
 
ZippoTragedy said:
Thanks - precisely what I was trying to validate. Basicly you're running something similar to what I would run. For AxeFX to truly be a hardware replacement solution, it needs to have enough horsepower to run a typical effects / amp / cab / mic sim. If you're pegging the CPU with that setup, that would pose some difficulties. I run a dual stack setup (stereo) and sometimes a triple, including a pedal board + a bunch of other outboard effects. I'd have to buy 2 of the AxeFX to really be in-line whith replacing my current hardware-based rig.

The cost of the initial AxeFx-based system is very expensive. 2x AxeFx Ultra ($4000)FRFR system ($4-5k for twin 2-ways and a sub) and a midi controller board (if they ever come out - probably close to $800). The real cost of switching to an AxeFX-based system is bordering on $10k. Not a minor decision, and although the midi board isn't required, it sure helps if you're playing out or praciting iin a band that plays frequently.

I have been putting off buying my first AxeFX because I suspected that this was a problem. It seems rather...limiting that such a wonderful piece of electronic computer equipment should be throttled at the CPU level. CPU's are not that expensive. I'm sure that most people would rather have a system that is designed to be hardware upgraded for the amount of money required to acuire and use the equipment.

Until a newer model of the AxeFx Ultra is produced that is capable of running two loaded stacks at capacity, I'll only be an interested bystander. It's a bit of an unfair comparison, but if Line 6 can figure this out with the POD X3 Pro, Fractal should be able to as well. It may require some re-engineering, but it will be worth it.
Click to expand...

You really can't compare the POD X3 with the Ultra. Both are cars but one of them is a ferrari and the other is a lada ;)
 
That's true, and for me it's one of the compelling reasons to switch from Line 6 to Fractal. if the unit is designed to run stereo rigs (dual tone stack adn respective chains), then it should be capable of doing what it was engineered to do. It would not be capable of doing what I need it to do in that capacity. I cannot justify buying 2 of these because the hardware was not engineered to support the software. That doesn't make it a bad unit (clearly it's fantastic) - just not scalable as desingned.

Although there are not 1:1 direct comparisons with Line 6 in hardware and software quality, there are some interesting comparisons with another unit that has equavlent quality (and pricing) - that being the tc electronics Gforce. The Gforce has been around for decades now, and it has a similar issue, which is that it is a very expensive product that has some fantastic sounds and features - but sadly, cannot be hardware upgraded and has not seen a software or firmware update in eons. Anyone who has used one will attest to getting quality sounds out of it, but at $1500 it's a product that's been sitting at a stop light in front of the graveyard for close to 10 years.

And here's the quandry - what happens when a new hardware spec comes out? Well, you can't really charge more for what should have been done in the first place, but you have 1000's of other custonmers who have dead-end product - they'll want the new stuff, but can't upgrade their hardware - which immediately devalues their equipment and creates a flood of used product on the secondary market, which becomes a barrier for new sales because new customers who are price sensitive will scoop used units before new...and so the cycle contines. This means that there's very little incentive to upgrade hardware or to engineer it to be upgradable.

I suspect that this could be overcome in one other way, which is to "instruct" people on how to upgrade the co-processor themselves - if that's even possible. Aftermarket mods, especilly do it yourself ones are a viable path.

So if any engineering geniuses want to tell me how to crank up the CPU via replacement - feel free to share some of that expertise. i'll be waiting.
 
ZippoTragedy said:
That's true, and for me it's one of the compelling reasons to switch from Line 6 to Fractal. if the unit is designed to run stereo rigs (dual tone stack adn respective chains), then it should be capable of doing what it was engineered to do. It would not be capable of doing what I need it to do in that capacity. I cannot justify buying 2 of these because the hardware was not engineered to support the software. That doesn't make it a bad unit (clearly it's fantastic) - just not scalable as desingned.

Although there are not 1:1 direct comparisons with Line 6 in hardware and software quality, there are some interesting comparisons with another unit that has equavlent quality (and pricing) - that being the tc electronics Gforce. The Gforce has been around for decades now, and it has a similar issue, which is that it is a very expensive product that has some fantastic sounds and features - but sadly, cannot be hardware upgraded and has not seen a software or firmware update in eons. Anyone who has used one will attest to getting quality sounds out of it, but at $1500 it's a product that's been sitting at a stop light in front of the graveyard for close to 10 years.

And here's the quandry - what happens when a new hardware spec comes out? Well, you can't really charge more for what should have been done in the first place, but you have 1000's of other custonmers who have dead-end product - they'll want the new stuff, but can't upgrade their hardware - which immediately devalues their equipment and creates a flood of used product on the secondary market, which becomes a barrier for new sales because new customers who are price sensitive will scoop used units before new...and so the cycle contines. This means that there's very little incentive to upgrade hardware or to engineer it to be upgradable.

I suspect that this could be overcome in one other way, which is to "instruct" people on how to upgrade the co-processor themselves - if that's even possible. Aftermarket mods, especilly do it yourself ones are a viable path.

So if any engineering geniuses want to tell me how to crank up the CPU via replacement - feel free to share some of that expertise. i'll be waiting.
Click to expand...

Yes it can, but you have to be careful with resources. The Axe-fx already has one of the most powerful if the not the most powerful DSPs in a guitar processor. Early on, it could do more at once. However, the amp modeling and many effects algorithms have beed vastly improved. This has come at the expense of increasing processing requirements. Fractal has also came up w/ some more effecient algorithms that save some cpu power. By using some creative routing, you can usually get done what is needed. However, I have on occasion have run out of resources on the Axe-fx when using 2 efects lines.

What makes you say it was engineered to run 2 separate stereo lines. Just because it is capable to do so does not mean it was particularly designed to do so. People are using it that way. It was engineered to allow flexible routing and input outputs w/in it available resources. It allows you to allocate those resources very liberally.

No, the axe-fx is not hardware upgradable.
 
Why would you want 2 amps in the same preset, plus so many effects? :? Write down exactly what effects you want to have in the same preset, and I will check on my Ultra if it's possible.
 
ZippoTragedy said:
The Gforce has been around for decades now, and it has a similar issue, which is that it is a very expensive product that has some fantastic sounds and features - but sadly, cannot be hardware upgraded and has not seen a software or firmware update in eons.
Click to expand...


Jigga-WAH? Decades? Eons? :?

Hyperbole aside, wave after wave of DSPs have appeared, following the available technology and evolving concepts about how they can be used to create and shape music. The best of the legacy devices remain excellent (e.g. Eventide H3000) and have a sonic stamp and user interface/programming that are classic and appreciated by many artists and producers. FAS has created something unique and powerful. The strength of the units is grounded both in their engineering and design (including evolvability) and the outstanding support of Cliff and the FAS user community. There are limits to everything (physics, current technology) and the current implementation of the Ultra has limits....but they are certainly within the practrical boundaries of many.

Maybe not right for what you are doing right now. Maybe later?

I confess that I do not plsy, or have ever played, a rig with more than two amps/stacks (either live, in the studio or messing around at home or in rehearsals). I do use a relatively large number of effects as colouring agents for our music. My current project is an organ trio playing small rooms (50-300 person capacity) and recording. After factoring in an amp with reverb/trem/loop (Bogner Duende) AND a small rack containing a DMC System Mix Plus (for running a Boss SE-70 in parallel, for controlling output volume via cc, and for a post-line out cab sim to the board when necessary) an Axess CFX4 (midi control of trem and channel switching on the amp and to switch the SE-70) and a SE-70 (just for "out there" patches) AND a pedal bord with Midi foot controller (Control 8), filtered power and 8-9 pedals...that turns into a rather expensive "little big rig" that sounds GREAT but sometimes gets shoe-horned between monitors and organ stuff and drums on small stages. Some of the rooms have great sound and sensitive engineers that know their rig and room, but others are much harder to dig into. When we play outside (occasionally), my little big rig gets swallowed if I have to self-monitor and I have to bring out a head and cab in place of the combo and then re-balance everything I use...it chews up my time, interefes with reproducibility, and adds distractions to my main purpose: to play largely improvised psychedelic, heavy, jazz.

Hence the Ultra, a midi foot controller, and one FRFR powered monitor.

Maybe Cliff and the community here can help you reach your musical goals with a more compact, but POWERFUL rig in the Ultra. Do you need to self-monitor? Do you have to carry alot of room volume or can you rely on the PA. IEMs? Your list of needs is pretty large, but your situation may be quite different from mine (and pretty much everybody I know or see playing out around here).

Good luck!

BF3
 
Hey Zippo,
Virtually all of my patches are designed to have 2 different amps and cabs as well as a few effects. As others have written, the CPU load will depend on which types of effects you are using and how many. I've run into CPU overloads many times and have been frustrated by the "so close and yet so far syndrome." You find yourself saying, "if I could just add this one other effect it would be perfect." That will never change - even when the Fractal is capable of doing 10 times what it can do now. There's always a reason to keep pushing the limits.

In any case, it's entirely possible to get great dual amp tones and use an assortment of effects such as reverb, flange and delay etc. If you want instant access to more than 3 or 4 effects in order to switch them in and out in one preset you're better off making specific presets with just the effects you want to hear with the dual amps. That is the easiest work around, less tap dancing on your pedalboard as well.

You could also consider adding additional external effects that you know you will always want to be present in your signal path. You'll still end up with a smaller and more flexible rig than carrying multiple amps, cabs and effects. I know all about that believe me...

DZ
 
A PodX3 Pro can maybe do one or two more simultaneous effects in dual-tone mode. If quantity over quality matters then that's what you should buy.
 
Is it just me or has everyone missed the obvious?!?!? Why not just have two patches or several patches to accomplish what you're looking for?

Edit: it really wasn't specifies whether or not it was a dual amp tone or two amps that he's switching between... Why not post your pod x3 patch or screenshot your Line6 edit patch...
 
I run two separate head/cab/mic/effects chains in parrallel - and the same in a virtualized world. Oddly enough, I worked out what I wanted in the Pod X3 Live and built my primary hardware rig from that template. I've been very satisfied.

I run several "patches", but all in dual-tone mode. My setups are not overly complex (gate, comp, boost or dist, head/cab, eq, delay, reverb and a rotary w/horn, x2).

The equipment needs to "host" the amp/cab/mic and power sections, regardless, so what we're really talking about is incrementally adding to that baseline in a "dual-tone" setup. Capacity is capacity. If running 2x amp/cab/mic and power sections takes up a large % of the DSP horsepower as baseline, that means you "lose" features as a result.
Since my chains are "on" most of the time, this would necessitate a compromise by adding outboard equipment, or forcing me to drop primary components out of each of my signal chains. Either of those conditions would defeat some of the purpose of buying and running the equipment, and if I had to drop peices out of my chain, it would marginalize what I want others to hear. Obviously that's not the point, either.

In thinking on this some more, perhaps the product is not ready to do what I need it to do in a single unit - I'm ok with that explanation. Part of this thread is attempting to resolve "potential" from "boundaries". If the AxeFx positions itself as being capable of running "dual stacks" we should probably put that into the context of what's reasonably possible in a practical application. If that's a key selling point for someone like me, and I'm potentially dropping $2k thinking I can run dual stacks and chains, and I'm not able to, my response knowing that going into the situaiton will be vastly improved from finding that out after the fact.

If nothing else, this thread highlights this for others, but it shouldn't be interpreted as a criticism that marginalizes what's been created with the AxeFx. It's still the finest of its kind out there.

I use my "virtual" equipment about 10x more than my tube/vintage stuff, and it makes sense to stick with what is most comfortable. Going virtual has other "benefits": heat, power consumption, listening levels, recording, portability, as well as predictable consistent quality, and the ability to manipulate complex sound palletes. Those reasons still persist., and on those merits alone I could buy without remorse.

I've made a substantial investment in physical equipment; making a similar investment in the processing equipment and consolidated physical footprint (FRFR) shouldn't be a huge leap of faith if we're comparing apples to apples. It's important to recognize the boundaries of "possible" vs. realistic, however, and I think I have set some realistic expectations for myself now. If my specific requirements dictate purchasing 2 AxeFX Ultras, I can probably live with that.

Great community! Thanks for the support and dialog! :cool:

Best,

zt
 
Hello Zippo,
It sounds like the basic effects you're talking about would run fine on a single unit in a dual parallel situation. You might start hitting CPU overload with additional effects or use of modifiers on amp gain controls but otherwise it sounds like you could create that sound. You should at least try a Fractal out and hear it for yourself.

DZ
 
ZippoTragedy said:
I run several "patches", but all in dual-tone mode. My setups are not overly complex (gate, comp, boost or dist, head/cab, eq, delay, reverb and a rotary w/horn, x2).
Click to expand...

Gate active, 2 compressors (pedal mode), 2 filters for boost, 2 amps, 2 graphic EQs, stereo cab, 2 Delays, 1 Rotary, 1 Reverb uses around 84.5% CPU on the Ultra with the latest firmware (8.02). Changing the filters to drives is possible but close to the limit, almost 97%. Without doing that, a second reverb or rotary can be added, rotary leaving enough % for one drive. Removing one delay would save around 5%--one in stereo mode can act like a separate pannable mono delay for each signal. Is there a specific reason you need 2 reverbs? You can do various things with one like route in parallel at 100% mix and have a mixer block send different levels of each signal to it.

Here's a recent list of CPU usage per block if you want to do some more thinking:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=8561
 
It also depends on what amp sim or effects you're running. I run double's more often than not and usually have a drive, flanger , rev. delay, graphic eq, filter, and maybe one or two other things going. For instance I've found that the HAD & the CAE rhythm seem seem to hog some CPU usage as I sometimes have to pair down the amount of FX I run a little or only run one amp sim. Most are not a problem for me. When running a preset with heavy CPU demanding FX like quad chorusing, multi-delays, a couple rotaries you might hit a wall sooner than more basic FX. But when I'm doing that generally I don't miss not having one of my amp sims in there terribly (plus I don't think I run anything without two cabs sims).

I should also say that while I love blending a couple amps and cabs to fill the sonic spaces i like, to some extent the returns are somewhat diminished. Especially when running a bunch of effects which adds a lot of harmonic stuff into the mix, just as in it does in any situation, not just with the Axe-FX . Keep in mind you can also add a direct signal through FX as a second or third signal without using an amp or cab sim if you simply want some clean FX to blend in the mix. Don't forget most FX here are stereo and as Java mentioned can be used creatively along with internal mixers, parallel routing, internal FX loops , a single (stereo) cab sim, and such to good advantage.
 
ZippoTragedy said:
I run two separate head/cab/mic/effects chains in parrallel - and the same in a virtualized world. Oddly enough, I worked out what I wanted in the Pod X3 Live and built my primary hardware rig from that template. I've been very satisfied.

I run several "patches", but all in dual-tone mode. My setups are not overly complex (gate, comp, boost or dist, head/cab, eq, delay, reverb and a rotary w/horn, x2).

The equipment needs to "host" the amp/cab/mic and power sections, regardless, so what we're really talking about is incrementally adding to that baseline in a "dual-tone" setup. Capacity is capacity. If running 2x amp/cab/mic and power sections takes up a large % of the DSP horsepower as baseline, that means you "lose" features as a result.
Since my chains are "on" most of the time, this would necessitate a compromise by adding outboard equipment, or forcing me to drop primary components out of each of my signal chains. Either of those conditions would defeat some of the purpose of buying and running the equipment, and if I had to drop peices out of my chain, it would marginalize what I want others to hear. Obviously that's not the point, either.

In thinking on this some more, perhaps the product is not ready to do what I need it to do in a single unit - I'm ok with that explanation. Part of this thread is attempting to resolve "potential" from "boundaries". If the AxeFx positions itself as being capable of running "dual stacks" we should probably put that into the context of what's reasonably possible in a practical application. If that's a key selling point for someone like me, and I'm potentially dropping $2k thinking I can run dual stacks and chains, and I'm not able to, my response knowing that going into the situaiton will be vastly improved from finding that out after the fact.

If nothing else, this thread highlights this for others, but it shouldn't be interpreted as a criticism that marginalizes what's been created with the AxeFx. It's still the finest of its kind out there.

I use my "virtual" equipment about 10x more than my tube/vintage stuff, and it makes sense to stick with what is most comfortable. Going virtual has other "benefits": heat, power consumption, listening levels, recording, portability, as well as predictable consistent quality, and the ability to manipulate complex sound palletes. Those reasons still persist., and on those merits alone I could buy without remorse.

I've made a substantial investment in physical equipment; making a similar investment in the processing equipment and consolidated physical footprint (FRFR) shouldn't be a huge leap of faith if we're comparing apples to apples. It's important to recognize the boundaries of "possible" vs. realistic, however, and I think I have set some realistic expectations for myself now. If my specific requirements dictate purchasing 2 AxeFX Ultras, I can probably live with that.

Great community! Thanks for the support and dialog! :cool:

Best,

zt
Click to expand...

No, I think you are attributing things to the axe-fx that have never been claim. The Ultra has 2 of just about every block, 4 of a couple others, and a couple of just one. It was never engineered or designed to run them all at the same time, but to let you run any combination of them up to the processors limit. Some people have used that processing power to run 2 amps w/ separate lines, other complex routing of effects with one amp, some people something in between.

The axe-fx is not a semi-fixed algorithm effects processor like the PodX3 is which is always running the effects whether you use them or not (amp,cab, modulation, delay, reverb, etc.). The cost of that on the PodX3 is inferior effects that are not near as deep as the Axe-fx.

If the signal path you gave is set in stone and you need them all in one patch, then the Ultra will not be able to do that. At least not in the way you envision.

I run fairly complex 2 amp configurations a bit differently. when only one is in use at a time, I often will share effects from them. so if the use the same cab type, I can use only one cab. Same with delay, I will use my foot controller to automatically change the delay parameters (time, feedback, mix, etc.). Same with reverb. Although with in a song I usually will only want one reverb type anyway. Anyway, there a multitude of methods to squeeze the most processing power out of the Axe-fx. That being said, I have ran out of CPU several times.

With 2 Ultras you could process what you want and a whole lot more.
 
Bakerman said:
ZippoTragedy said:
I run several "patches", but all in dual-tone mode. My setups are not overly complex (gate, comp, boost or dist, head/cab, eq, delay, reverb and a rotary w/horn, x2).
Click to expand...

Gate active, 2 compressors (pedal mode), 2 filters for boost, 2 amps, 2 graphic EQs, stereo cab, 2 Delays, 1 Rotary, 1 Reverb uses around 84.5% CPU on the Ultra with the latest firmware (8.02). Changing the filters to drives is possible but close to the limit, almost 97%. Without doing that, a second reverb or rotary can be added, rotary leaving enough % for one drive. Removing one delay would save around 5%--one in stereo mode can act like a separate pannable mono delay for each signal. Is there a specific reason you need 2 reverbs? You can do various things with one like route in parallel at 100% mix and have a mixer block send different levels of each signal to it.

Here's a recent list of CPU usage per block if you want to do some more thinking:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=8561
Click to expand...

Keep in mind those CPU usage values are for the standard not Ultra. They will be ~20% lower on the Ultra.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom