The Genius Loci
Member
Basic development of the Axe.
cliff designed the original standard around teh best available DSP chip - a 500Mhz TigerSHARC. Shortly before - or just after the Axe was released, a new version of the TigerSHARC was released. It was the same chip design, but with a faster 600MHz speed - and more memory onboard.
Cliff took advantage of this chip - as it was esy to do so (same basic chip design). He used it to add things the original Axe was not capable of due to chip limitations.
Cliff evolved G2 sims - but they needed mroe power to run. At this time he didnt see a way of using multi chips to share the load - and there were no more powerfull chips availalbe.
Cliff solved the "miulti chip" issue enabling him to use dual chips. One for the sims so he could run his G2 modells - and another for FX. As a buy product this leaves moads of processing power to fine tune the sims, irs or more FX.
As the "multi chip" tech would work for 3 or 4 chips - but cliff has not used them its a fair guess its because:
a. The Lag of more chips it too much
b. Its too costly - given the chips are $300 each - a 4 chip processor would have a cost price $600 more than the AFX2.
c. While its possible, there is no gain from it. He can run everything he wants too with 2 chips.
So - the future. If a new TigerSHARC comes out at a greater speed - cliff "could" just drop those into the AFX2 to produce an AFX Ultra 2 - however Why? its not like the Standard, where there were things missing that he wanted to include. Alternatively a new processor family is developed. In this case it will be a new arcitecture, and new code. Cliff would have to start from scratch (which he didnt do in the Ultra - or even the AFX2). This would mean a development time somewhere between the times for the Standard (5-10 years) and the AFX2 (3 years).
Upshot? an AFX Ultra 2 would be possible ONLY if a faster TigerSHARC was released - but it would not add the functionality the Ultra did, and would take a year AFTER the chip is released (and there is no known developm,ent of such a chip). An AFX3 wopuld also be possible but would be 4-6 years after such a chips specs are released (or an actual chip for cliff to work with). Again no such chip is currently "known about" (at least by us mortals).
So - my take. No AXE Ultra 2 as there is space on the AFX2 to add anything cliff feels the need to add - and no AFX3 for 4-6 years.
The Caveat is - Ive been wrong beforeI didnt think the AFX2 was an option when the countdown started - primarily cos cliff had stated using two chips wouldnt work. So its cliffs fault I was wrong cos he hadnt provided us with the correct/up to date information
In fact I think Paul's analysis above is rather complete.
We should remember that there is no Axe-Fx "Standard", meaning a "basic" machine and then a "pro" version (Ultra). Not like, e.g., the POD HD with the marketing-derived artificial versioning (300/400/500, where the 400 just exists to sell 500s
). In the same vein there will be a "II Ultra", or whatever, should the need and the opportunity arrise. In my book, and based on what info is available now, I should not be needing an "Ultra II" for a number of years. On the contrary, I didn't buy a "gen 1 Ultra", although I had the opportunity, because I was waiting for a number of features available in II.
To give an example, I use a RME FF400, for the last 5-6 years. I have yet to outgrow it and don't see it happening. I bought it and knew it was overkill for me, then. I really like Cliff's mentality in providing an overengineered product, this is why I'm on the waiting list.
Fractal is going to continue pushing the envelope of digital guitar sound. This much is more than certain. OTOH I'd suggest we enjoy our Axe-I or Axe-II because they will be on top of the world for a number of years to come, IMHO.
