Discussion in 'Digital & Modeling Gear' started by stratzrus, Jan 29, 2018.
Are signaling "NO III" with your latest avatar?
Ghostbusters III was a sequel that never got made... So I'm not sure what kind of message @nicolasrivera is trying to convey...
It became a chick flick..
I would think with digital time manipulation, pitch shifting, and comping anybody could play anything and stitch it together these days. But as you said, Time == $$
Pitch block, 7 scenes, 70% seems great to me. Much better than Axe-Fx or AX8 in my experience.
That's what we can do now with technology, even 15 years ago it wasn't the case. Whereas with my stuff I'd love a player to do it whom I could credit. "Fiendishly difficult guitar part written by self and played by X, who is a better player than me" sort of thing.
He ain't afraid of no hype.
Eh? So 70% on Axe-Fx III is equivalent to 73% on Axe-Fx II? 3% difference?
It’s not a real comparison... depends on the mode of the Cab block, mode of the Pitch block (more voices = higher cpu), etc.
Also, that 70% allows you do a lot more than the is possible with the II.
LOL that 70% on the III is 73% on the II.
Plus, don’t you have something like 4-8 channels? Versus 1 X/Y State per block?
Then add to the fact that Cliff already stated longer/better amp algorithms in the III versus the II which need more Hp to execute fully in the allotted time.
I also think the reverbs have been redone? Again with more horsepower, you could derive more complex/better reverb algorithms ... which I believe has been done.
So as previous posters have stated, It really cannot be an apples to apples comparison.
What are you talking about?
I don't think the differences between the two will really be apparent in brief preview clips at first. Maybe not for awhile. But isn't that the same way the II started alongside the original/Ultra platform?
Sure; it’s a platform. FAS writes software in constant cycle of continuous improvement. Clearly for most of FAS customers, this is a huge benefit and engenders loyalty.
And a STUPID chic flick at that!
Hey....that commitment is apparent (and attractive) even to non-current customers. I'm excited to see what Cliff does with all of that firepower. I sincerely doubt he's EOLing the IIXL just for a color screen and moderate clock cycle boosts.
I find that if I can figure it out, I'll do it but if I'm giving the reins over to someone else, I let them make it up and trials several versions and pick, mix, match what i like. Often its better than what I would have come up with, feel-wise. You know that sense of feel a great player with chops brings. Like if you have a seedy lyric and they not only play the notes but pump them for an added leering effect. You just get some brilliant ideas from others interpreting your music that you miss from the inside of the creation. Me anyways, haha.
He had a looper in the patch. After it was removed it was down to 58% or so..... What is up with the aim to tear down new products...any product for that matter. We are guitarists and the products are aimed at making our job of making/performing music easier, better and more consistent etc..... Trolls are gonna troll I guess....
You got my perspective -exactly- backwards.
I think that was a gross misrepresentation of how much more powerful the III is than the II however accidental.
The III can run circles around the II in ways people haven't even seen yet.