• We would like to remind our members that this is a privately owned, run and supported forum. You are here at the invitation and discretion of the owners. As such, rules and standards of conduct will be applied that help keep this forum functioning as the owners desire. These include, but are not limited to, removing content and even access to the forum.

    Please give yourself a refresher on the forum rules you agreed to follow when you signed up.

why is there a limit for blocks...why not 3 pitch blocks or 3 amp or whatever

Semih Yanyali

Experienced
if i have 2 pitch blocks and still a good amount of free cpu power, why cant we just insert a third one?

wouldnt it be great to use the cpu power just the way we want? is it technicaly not possible?
 

Semih Yanyali

Experienced
u have 12 external controllers that u can program the way u want in axe....go to I/O, CTRL
i have mfc but i travel with my softstep cos its light...and i program the buttons on softstep this way...
so it cant be a reason not to be able to do what i am asking for.

What would the Bypass/Engage CC# be?
 

ALaz502

Inspired
The amp block issue is obvious. One entire core is dedicated to the amp simulation. When you have one amp block going, the whole cpu is utilized for hi resolution. When you have two amp blocks, only the one core is still used but the models default to lo resoution. A third amp block would have to cut into the second cpu which is used for effects and cab blocks.

Besides, the amp blocks have x/y switching, so you could still have 4 amps in one patch. I really have a hard time imagining a time when you would need more than 4 amps in one patch.
 

Semih Yanyali

Experienced
u are mostly true about the amp number but x/y still has a lag, and sound drop when u switch...

but there are times i need more of some effect blocks...why is this not possible?

The amp block issue is obvious. One entire core is dedicated to the amp simulation. When you have one amp block going, the whole cpu is utilized for hi resolution. When you have two amp blocks, only the one core is still used but the models default to lo resoution. A third amp block would have to cut into the second cpu which is used for effects and cab blocks.

Besides, the amp blocks have x/y switching, so you could still have 4 amps in one patch. I really have a hard time imagining a time when you would need more than 4 amps in one patch.
 

chris

Legend!
I really have a hard time imagining a time when you would need more than 4 amps in one patch.
I think the main reason people have is "why not."

There are always limitations to software/firmware and sometimes you need to build in limitations to prevent crashing, memory leaks etc.

Sure, if somehow they figure out how to have unlimited instances of blocks up to the CPU limit, I guess that would be cool.

But I'm sure there is more to why only 2 of this block and 4 of this block other than CC# like I mentioned. There is so much going on in the Axe, it's probably not simple to do.
 

ALaz502

Inspired
I think the main reason people have is "why not."

There are always limitations to software/firmware and sometimes you need to build in limitations to prevent crashing, memory leaks etc.

Sure, if somehow they figure out how to have unlimited instances of blocks up to the CPU limit, I guess that would be cool.

But I'm sure there is more to why only 2 of this block and 4 of this block other than CC# like I mentioned. There is so much going on in the Axe, it's probably not simple to do.
Lol, why not?

Cause we can have 4 amps per preset, and there are 376 presets. Which would give you the ability to utilize 1504 different amps total already. ;)
 

Semih Yanyali

Experienced
so what do u do if you need some psychedelic effects and need 3 pitch blocks in a row ?
obviously u dont need it, but i would like to have this freedom...it might be that its technicaly not possible, i am just wondering and asking...

defenders of the universe...ups sory defenders of the axe are here :)

Lol, why not?

Cause we can have 4 amps per preset, and there are 376 presets. Which would give you the ability to utilize 1504 different amps total already. ;)
 

chris

Legend!
i think the OP was more concerned with Effects type blocks like pitch, chorus, drive etc, but yes, i've seen many people request 6 amps in a preset so they don't have to change presets.... which i still don't understand why people don't want to change presets.

but i've seen more people request the use of 4 pitch blocks in a preset or 5 drive pedals etc.

the axe is great and is the best thing out there, but when you have the best piece of gear (and the company constantly updates it with ground-breaking features), i can see a natural tendency to wonder why and expect it to do even more. i'm sure that's both exciting and frustrating for the creators.
 

DJD100

Experienced
One reason might be related to parameter memory which stores all the block's settings. Some blocks have more params than others, so if more high param count blocks are allowed more memory would be needed, though that's just a guess?

The Axe Ultra at minimum does not have enough parameter memory when used for FX only, though you can still run 18 - 20 blocks depending on which effects are used. Regarding the Ultra if you're running a amp/cab block then you'll run out of CPU before you hit the parameter memory limits.

The Axe II with an additional core is of course a different animal entirely, though I'm looking forward to hearing the answer to this interesting question!
 

Zer0th

Inspired
I'll take a shot at this with some wild speculation...

I suspect that in order to minimise switching time and [many] other overheads... it isn't a case of 'oh, this newly selected preset uses a flanger, I'll create an instance of a flanger object' but rather that he instantiates all of the allowed instances of all the allowed block types in memory at power on and simply* switches the internal virtual wiring per preset. IOW, volatile memory constraints.

Well, that's my guess anyway.

[*] relatively simple... no dynamic destruction/creation of blocks required or memory management on a change of preset
 
Last edited:

DJD100

Experienced
Good call!

I'll take a shot at this with some wild speculation...

I suspect that in order to minimise switching time and [many] other overheads... it isn't case of 'oh, this newly selected preset uses a flanger, I'll create an instance of a flanger object' but rather that he instantiates all of the allowed instances of all the allowed block types in memory at power on and simply* switches the internal virtual wiring per preset.

Well, that's my guess anyway.

[*] relatively simple... no dynamic destruction/creation of blocks required or memory management on a change of preset
 

gpz

Experienced
+1 Zer0th

All blocks are probably statistically constructed/initialized at boot time. Their respective address as well as the total amount of memory needed are well known. This can lead to optimizations (or at least prevent a lot of indirections at runtime). As said by Zer0th, dynamically allocating and freeing memory is a notoriously slow operation.

The fact that bypassed blocks still consume the same amount of CPU power as if they were engaged is something remarkable too.
 

FractalAudio

Administrator
Fractal Audio Systems
Moderator
I'll take a shot at this with some wild speculation...

I suspect that in order to minimise switching time and [many] other overheads... it isn't a case of 'oh, this newly selected preset uses a flanger, I'll create an instance of a flanger object' but rather that he instantiates all of the allowed instances of all the allowed block types in memory at power on and simply* switches the internal virtual wiring per preset. IOW, volatile memory constraints.

Well, that's my guess anyway.

[*] relatively simple... no dynamic destruction/creation of blocks required or memory management on a change of preset
Exactly.
 
Top Bottom