Why not 2 amps, and zero fx possible?

[dbun]

Yeah, it seems like a design limitation really

Not really. To do what Line 6 are doing you have to 'dynamically' allocate CPU usage. This in it's own right requires more management of the software side and thus consumes precious resources.

It's not a design limitation but rather a design choice.

Whilst the Line 6 appears to do more, the basic algorithms are inferior to Fractal's and thus the end tone is not as good. Which would you choose? For me it's a no-brainer.

 

[Zelja]

Cliff has stated elsewhere that the AX8 has two chips: one dedicated to the Amps and another dedicated to FX. These lower priced and spec'd chip (relative to the Axe FX II) cannot do more than one amp at a time.

It's an architectural design limitation rooted in hitting a price point while maintaining the ability to deliver the same amp modeling in the Axe FX II.

I believe the other issue is that the lower spec'd chips can survive without cooling (i.e a fan). I guess it would be problematic to put a fan in a floor unit?

 

[NeoSound]

It was stated that one model used 90% of the amp cpu. The Fx cpu also handles system and house keeping duties which is probably more than the fx cpu can handle with an additional amp model loaded on it.

edit: of course this is all speculation on my part

The solution is buy and Axe Fx II

 

[DavidE]

Not really. To do what Line 6 are doing you have to 'dynamically' allocate CPU usage. This in it's own right requires more management of the software side and thus consumes precious resources.

It's not a design limitation but rather a design choice.

Whilst the Line 6 appears to do more, the basic algorithms are inferior to Fractal's and thus the end tone is not as good. Which would you choose? For me it's a no-brainer.

Ah, so you've seen and analyzed the code then. Cool.

 

[jageya]

If you need two amps, go with the AxeFX or another product that allows for more than one amp.

agree....if i had the $$ i would get just the axefx2xl+.

 

[FractalAudio]

Our algorithms are far more intensive. If you wanted two amp blocks you would have nothing else. No cabs, nothing. It would be possible but it doesn't seem worth it.

 

[Allan]

Our algorithms are far more intensive. If you wanted two amp blocks you would have nothing else. No cabs, nothing. It would be possible but it doesn't seem worth it.

Cliff, the cab 'accelerator' you talked a lot about, it's an part of the DSP or an standalone chip that does only cab processing?

 

[Rick]

And there you have it, from someone who has seen the code!

Different beast for a different purpose. I feel confident it will be an ultra-useful piece of gear, in large part because it isn't built to be everything to everyone. Its narrower focus is what will make it so fitting to its design.

And, of course, there is always the XL+ if you need more. Nothing but good in those two options!

 

[yek]

Cliff, the cab 'accelerator' you talked a lot about, it's an part of the DSP or an standalone chip that does only cab processing?

Cliff: "An accelerator is a DSP unit dedicated to performing a defined task. In this case it performs convolution. The difference is that a "DSP" as we commonly call them is really just a microcomputer optimized for Digital Signal Processing. The term DSP most correctly refers to any device that does signal processing using numerical computations. That device can be an FPGA, ASIC or fixed hardware unit. In the AX-8 it is a convolution processor."