Why are different amp channels treated as different models?

Ugly Bunny

Ugly Bunny

Power User
Why couldn't, for instance, the JP2C+ model simply contain the green, yellow, and red channels accessible with the flip of a switch? Why do these need to be different "amps?" This goes for some of the pedals as well that have different modes or toggles. Why not just include that toggle or mode in the pedal (Timmy, for instance, rather than having two Timmy pedals).

I guess it doesn't really affect anything, since you'd most likely have them all on their own Block channels were you to use, say, the JP2C and all its channels in a preset, but it's curious. The Helix does the same sort of thing. The only thing I've ever seen have the "full" amp in one model was Amplitube. The Helix has all the toggle positions in one block, but it still tends to break up all the amp channels into their own amp models.

I get it if, for instance, only one or two channels of a given amp are modeled, but when the whole thing is, it just seems like the whole amp should be in one amp model. Is there a practical reason why companies do this? Would the file inside the firmware be too big or unruly to work with or debug/improve?

Just curious :)
 
It’s just the hierarchy or “unit” of having each sound. Where would the “amp channel” control go? How would it be changed?
 
chris said:
It’s just the hierarchy or “unit” of having each sound. Where would the “amp channel” control go? How would it be changed?
Click to expand...
Just another parameter, I would think. Put it on the "Authentic" tab and label it "Amp Channel" and, for the amp mentioned, the three options would be Green, Yellow, and Red. And it would switch between the three respective amp models. I don't know - I was just musing :D
 
I think what chris alluded to is that block channels are conceptually the best fit for amp channels. Of course you could add a new parameter in the block itself and then attach a modifier to it but that would not work as well with scenes etc.

Another reason is IMO that it makes a lot of things easier both from a modelling and coding perspective. Modelling a full amp with all of its channels as one block is inherently more complex than modelling a single channel. The channel switches of real amps engage different circuitry, modelling that as one big block and then disabling most of it because you only use one channel simultaneously would be a waste.
 
+1 on the coding... Some of it comes down to programming, and making an interface that can work for a multitude of different amps. Thats my guess.
 
What @l4mpi and @dpeterson said.

From a software design perspective, one needs to choose between stronger coupling (larger, more complex components ~> integrated computational units) and looser coupling (smaller, simpler components ~ less integrated but more flexible). This also means that a "simpler" AMP block can evolve in features & accuracy rather than by putting more channels into it.

Also on a real-time processing unit with a limited CPU bandwidth, smaller computational units makes more sense. The Axe's generic channels (A-D) allows one to simulate channel-switching, but it's also more general across almost all blocks.
 
Most of the software sims have decent interfaces for navigating the amp and it's various features. Only AxeFX does it in the most difficult way possible. My best guess, I thought they were each IR's and they haven't created a better interface to group the file together with a corresponding UI mapping. To do so, would require a lot of UI coordination which they haven't prioritized. For me, it's crazy. I love most things about the Axe FX 3 but when it comes to choosing an amp/cab it's a real nightmare -- my least favorite part. I solved the cab choosing by piping it into a Two-Notes Torpedo hardware and sounds amazing and I spend minutes choosing a cab vs hours/days on the AxeFX 3. That's one area I really hope gets improved in the future.
 
Lotta good insight here, thanks! Pretty much confirmed my suspicions.

@shawnb - I'm not really sure what you were getting at, but I don't use any of the stock IRs either - I have a few ML Sound Lab & OwnHammer (r)Evolution IRs that I use for everything that require basically zero tweaking :)
 
@shawnb - I'm not really sure what you were getting at, but I don't use any of the stock IRs either - I have a few ML Sound Lab & OwnHammer (r)Evolution IRs that I use for everything that require basically zero tweaking :)
Click to expand...

I think it's different when using 3rd party IR's. We usually know what they sound like and buy them for that reason. The ones with the unit, tho, take a lot of "using our ears" to finally find it. I'm not complaining. It is what it is. But I am saying it's the least user-friendly UI for choosing an AMP/Cab among all the modelers/processors/simulators I've used.
 
@shawnb Agree in principle, and as you said it would require more complex UI and metadata for the Axe (and/or AE).

In software (e.g. plugins), there's a lot more flexibility, existing tools, and memory available versus a custom FPGA-like hardware unit. Axe-Edit could handle an AMP -> CAB/IR association, but it would add a level of maintenance and complaints: "why default to that IR and not this IR?". With 200+ AMP models combined with 1,000s of stock vs. retail vs. custom IRs, what is the right default AMP+IR for every amp? What about amp heads meant to be used with any cab?
 
shawnb said:
but when it comes to choosing an amp/cab it's a real nightmare -- my least favorite part. I solved the cab choosing by piping it into a Two-Notes Torpedo hardware and sounds amazing and I spend minutes choosing a cab vs hours/days on the AxeFX 3. That's one area I really hope gets improved in the future.
Click to expand...
how is it harder on the axe vs a torpedo? Is it the number of IRs? If you’re using the torpedo just to “keep an cab the same” while you choose an amp, can’t you do that with the cab block? Can you elaborate a bit?
 
chris said:
how is it harder on the axe vs a torpedo? Is it the number of IRs? If you’re using the torpedo just to “keep an cab the same” while you choose an amp, can’t you do that with the cab block? Can you elaborate a bit?
Click to expand...

I don't know exactly what the essence of it is. It takes me an exceptionally long time to figure out which cabs I want to use on the Axe and nearly no time at all on the Torpedo. Even tho Two-Notes requires us to choose from a long list, also. But somehow I come to my preferred sound very quickly that way. I still prefer my AFX3, tho. There's just something about the way to choosing which amp/cab that doesn't resonate with me.
 
shawnb said:
I don't know exactly what the essence of it is. It takes me an exceptionally long time to figure out which cabs I want to use on the Axe and nearly no time at all on the Torpedo. Even tho Two-Notes requires us to choose from a long list, also. But somehow I come to my preferred sound very quickly that way. I still prefer my AFX3, tho. There's just something about the way to choosing which amp/cab that doesn't resonate with me.
Click to expand...
Gotcha. Yeah different interfaces work for different people. I don’t know what the torpedo workflow is, but I just pick a cab from the cab block list and go. Not sure how it could be improved. Honestly in most cases, I can choose literally any cab randomly and it sounds “good.” From there I might try a few others just to see.

with anything I think you have to spend some time trying a bunch, note some favorites and then just use those the next time. I don’t think I’ve changed cabs in years.
 
shawnb said:
Most of the software sims have decent interfaces for navigating the amp and it's various features. Only AxeFX does it in the most difficult way possible.
Click to expand...
I don't understand this claim.

To avoid any misunderstanding: I'm not trying to criticize you for saying something that literally isn't true (i.e. AxeFX could easily make changes that would make navigation harder than it is now); I assume that's just using a colloquial (rather than technical) tone-of-voice.

No, I'm just confused as to why you'd think that the AxeFX navigation is particularly difficult as opposed to different.

Now, I admit to sometimes being overwhelmed by the AxeFX. But what overwhelms me is the vast array of options and tweaks. Something with fewer options would certainly be easier; but the only way to make something with so many options equally easy is to hide some of them. But keep in mind that, in making such comparisons, you must compare oranges to oranges. It will not do, to take an amp modeling system with half as many parameters and options as the AxeFX has, and compare its navigation to the AxeFX, and say, "The AxeFX requires more steps to navigate to Option X, therefore, it's unnecessarily difficult."

Again, not trying to criticize and of course you're entitled to your own opinion! But if you are comparing AxeFX to something equally powerful, then I'm just unsure how it could be made much easier, without sacrificing capabilities.

Do you have a proposal, or a particular comparison, in mind?

UPDATE: While I was writing this, you replied to some other, similar questions. Gimme a bit to read over those....

UPDATE AGAIN: Okay, it seems like it's not comparing apples to oranges, but maybe tangerines to oranges. Stuff like TwoNotes could have every bit as many params as AxeFX, but, with a dedicated hardware UI plus separate software, it's still going to be easier. But it's tricky to achieve the same thing if you're in AxeFX and doing everything from the front panel. And then there's the question of prior familiarity with one vs. the other. So even before we ask "How many thousands of cabs are we selecting from, and how many params to tweak in each?" the mere separation of concerns gives TwoNotes a workflow advantage.
 
Last edited:
Dr. Dipwad said:
I don't understand this claim...
Click to expand...

The way I used "Difficult", means (to me), how long it takes to get what I want. How much Google I have to use. How much looking up the manual I have to do. How much looking up the Fractal Wiki I have to do. And the same for other devices/tools. For those, I don't have to do any. For AxeFX I'm still at the point where I have to do all those things.

Understand also that I don't have a lot of experience in what things should sound like. I don't have a lot of experience tweaking AFX3. But I didn't have a learning curve with any other thing I used. I do with this. It's not good. It's not bad. It's just different. But it makes things more difficult -- or rather, more prone to frustration and uncertainty. That's all.

It's not technically difficult. It's user-friendly difficult (to me). And it is the ONLY aspect of the Fractal experience that I truly don't look forward to interacting with. I live with it because it's an amazing unit. And in a few years after I've mastered it I'll be defending it, also. But as a complete newbie I find it difficult/frustrating to work with that one aspect of the device.
 
Last edited:
hmm, the process of selecting cabs is simple: click the cab block, click the Picker and choose from the pop up list. that part shouldn't be more difficult than any other product.

from there, yeah there are a lot of cabs, and you'll just have to spend some time going from cab to cab to see what you might like. as i mentioned earlier, after i did that, i just stuck with a few cabs and moved on. i honestly don't spend any time in the cab block anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom