Is there a current modeler...?

Discussion in 'Digital & Modeling Gear' started by lilbman, Mar 4, 2015.

  1. lilbman

    lilbman Member

    Messages:
    189
    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2010
    Any one have any suggestions?

    Looking for any Amp/FX modeler that allows for FX spillover during preset change w/o any loss or drop out of audio on the FX tails. And allows for a reoccurrence of the same effect without any interference from the previous preset.
     
  2. Will Chen

    Will Chen Member

    Messages:
    5,580
    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Location:
    Allen, TX
    If you absolutely have to go all FX in one unit, Boss GT-10 probably comes closet to filling those requirements. But reverb spill at the sacrifice of amp model quality is backwards thinking to me. I think the Kemper had reverb spill and does multiple instances of most effects, hard to remember.
     
  3. lilbman

    lilbman Member

    Messages:
    189
    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2010
    Really? Because they have been saying the exact same thing now for almost 30 years. Are you sure about the GT-10? The Axe FX 2 XL + can't even do this yet. It's preset change time is brilliantly fast but there is still an audible drop out of the audio during preset change.
     
  4. Baba

    Baba Supporting Member

    Messages:
    5,677
    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2002
    Location:
    Marlton, NJ
    I'm pretty sure my GSP1101 does this. No dropout whatsoever (I don't tolerate that), and has FX spillover.

    Although, come to think of it, I rarely ever go from one delay preset to another delay preset, I'll have to check that out.
     
  5. lilbman

    lilbman Member

    Messages:
    189
    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2010
    Yes, delay and reverb tails. There are few FX only units that can actually do this but I haven't seen it in a modeler yet. It's not the spill over that is the problem. It's the "glitch" loss of audio. As well as the ability to reuse the effect in the next preset in an un-bypassed state with a different setting w/o interference from the tail of the previous preset. In this day and age, with the advancements in technology since the beginning of guitar processors, this is no longer acceptable. We have always been told that more dsp was required to achieve this since the beginning. So, you try and do everything within a preset to avoid this but you still are very limited as to the size of the preset you can create. Dsp keeps increasing but they still only give you the same limited instances of FX algorithms you can use per preset. Ton of musicians have griped about this very thing for years and have always had to make exceptions. Isn't about damn time now that should be a common feature with any modeler now days? From now on, anything less than this is unacceptable and should be considered amateur. This **** is getting old real fast!
     
  6. lilbman

    lilbman Member

    Messages:
    189
    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2010
    They keep repackaging, recycling the same regurgitated **** over and over again. The same design concept. And as far as sacrificed modeling tech for the sake of FX tails is ********. Modeling has gotten significantly better through the years and the answer is always the same crap. Soon there will be another new guitar amp, FX modeler that will use even more dsp for even greater algorithms but you'll still run into the same damn problems that have reoccurred on every other damn one created before it. Don't worry, they will just continue to do the same ****. They have been doing it for years.
     
  7. Digital Igloo

    Digital Igloo Member

    Messages:
    3,350
    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Location:
    Woodland Hills, CA
    There's only one way to truly achieve seamless patch switching, and that's to dedicate half of your DSP resources to an inactive preset. Yes, this means that if you didn't need seamless patch switching:
    • Your signal flow could have twice as many simultaneous blocks (including dual amps on dual paths)
    • Your models could take up twice as much DSP and potentially sound notably better
    If the majority's willing to give those up, then sure.

    Delay (or reverb) spillover is less of an issue, as you need to dedicate only enough DSP to accommodate the largest delay/reverb. The bad news is that all of the presets that spill from one to the other must have the same delay/reverb model; you can't seamlessly blend from a plate into a room (unless, of course, you dedicated enough DSP to accommodate both reverbs, which again, means you're running fewer blocks and/or worse-sounding models. That said, we have some ideas...

    Bypass trails—that is, turning a delay, reverb, or FX loop block off and hearing a natural decay within the same preset—is a piece of cake, and take no additional DSP resources.

    tl; dr: No free lunch.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2015
    Nevets likes this.
  8. lilbman

    lilbman Member

    Messages:
    189
    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2010
    Believe me Digital Igloo, I am well aware. I am probably older than you and have been buying amps/FX modelers/ processors for a long, long time...... It's always the same crappy answer. Even now that the processing power is extremely greater then that of legacy products. It is inexcusable in this day and age anymore. If this is always going to be the answer to this problem, then it's about damn time to change and rethink the design and approach to Amp/multi FX modelers to incorporate this as a standard feature. There is no reason for it not to be.
     
    MrDavidJSmith likes this.
  9. lilbman

    lilbman Member

    Messages:
    189
    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2010
    Lets put it this way DI....

    Amp simulation is good enough for me that I'd rather pay the extra expense to have the dsp resource to allocate for this with yesterdays modeling, rather than have the latest and greatest, shiny new modeling that didn't allow for it. Know what I mean?
    Really, how many pods could fit in a TigerSHARC, or even better 2 TigerSHARC's?
     
    MrDavidJSmith likes this.
  10. jimfist

    jimfist Member

    Messages:
    1,331
    Joined:
    May 17, 2012
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    an axefxII allows for proper spillover and multiple discrete instances of identical effects, but the rub is that you need to use Scenes, not presets, to accomplish this (with extremely low, if any, latency). Presets in the AxeFx are essentially complex virtual "rigs" consisting of multiple instances of amp & cab sims and effects, and Scenes are programmed within the preset to turn effects blocks, amps, etc. on or off depending on the desired tone or effect. Scenes act as a sort of "preset within a preset". You can have up to 8 Scenes per preset. The idea is that you change presets between songs or when there is a small break in your playing. You then engage the various Scenes for immediate, seamless changes, for example, within a single song.

    Since this was implemented as a feature in the AxeFxII, it's all but made spillover issues a moot point for all but the most complex and demanding sound /routing creations in the axefxII, IMHO. If you have a modeler that doesn't have this amount of flexibility or processor power, and you must rely on presets, then yes, you may be unhappy with the current state of affairs without dedicating a specific piece of extra gear for the task of echo/reverb spillover. JMHO.
     
  11. Digital Igloo

    Digital Igloo Member

    Messages:
    3,350
    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Location:
    Woodland Hills, CA
    Maybe, but it's validated by user input. If you ask 1,000 people whether they want preset spillover—or—better-sounding models and more simultaneous amps/effects, preset spillover will always lose, for better or worse. Again, you'd be dedicating half of all horsepower to one particular feature. That's a tough sell.

    We have some ideas, but it's far too soon to talk about them.

    It's not unlike the DAW latency wars. Some (myself included) have always wanted low enough latency to always monitor full throughput in real time with sub-3ms latency. Computers get faster and audio driver code gets better, but with that come more complex and demanding DAW software and plugins that suck up any extra CPU headroom. The latency doesn't really get much lower; you just get better softsynths and VSTs. And decades later, we're STILL stuck with redundant interface control panels, input monitoring, constant fiddling with audio buffer sizes, and similar compromises.

    So I feel your pain.
     
  12. VCuomo

    VCuomo Member

    Messages:
    15,377
    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2003
    Location:
    Southern California
    DI - Didn't the Vetta have spillover?
     
  13. lilbman

    lilbman Member

    Messages:
    189
    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2010
    I agree to a certain extent. Scenes is awesome and is a awesome approach to the solution rather than just programing your midi controller to control bypass states as well as other things. But you're still limited with instances of amps and high cpu effects, ir's you can use. X, y kinda makes up for that but still not the same as what you could have with twice it's power. Quality wise for seemless switching between complex tones.
     
  14. Digital Igloo

    Digital Igloo Member

    Messages:
    3,350
    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Location:
    Woodland Hills, CA
    Vetta's reverb was global, so yeah.

    DT25/50 has a global reverb as well. Not sure why PODs have always eschewed it; probably because they've had so many different-sounding reverbs, it'd be a shame to force someone to choose just one for all their presets.
     
  15. lilbman

    lilbman Member

    Messages:
    189
    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2010
    I'd have to disagree because consumers are never "given" the choice. And, such things such as "scenes" in certain products would never see the light of day. It's always a "take it or leave it" scenario and always heavily influenced by the developers/ manufactures. Not consumers.
     
  16. lilbman

    lilbman Member

    Messages:
    189
    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2010
    Believe me when I say, consumers want this. Have always wanted this since day one. It has always been an issue. And probably, no matter what, the answer will be- "well, it will take double the amount of dsp to do this." I call shenanigan's! It's time to start rethinking the way you design multi FX modelers/ processors!
     
    MrDavidJSmith likes this.
  17. Digital Igloo

    Digital Igloo Member

    Messages:
    3,350
    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Location:
    Woodland Hills, CA
    Our feature set is largely based on extensive interviews, sit-downs, surveys, and more recently, IdeaScale. Preset spillover's already on there; you should definitely vote it up. I just did.
    Well, it's literally my job to listen to those consumers, plead their case to the company, and design their requested features into products, so either I'm collecting a paycheck for doing nothing, or Line 6 is listening.

    Scenes are cool, but you're right—it's not the same as transitioning between two meticulously designed presets.

    When I was at Roland, the new (at the time) Fantom-G had this really cool Live Set feature where the user could layer up to 8 parts, hold the sustain pedal, and seamlessly transition into the next Live Set. Worked great, except people kept complaining that they couldn't layer the full 16 parts. There was a place they could layer 16 parts—Performance mode—but then the same people complained that Performances wouldn't seamlessly transition. Sigh...
     
  18. iaresee

    iaresee Member

    Messages:
    3,824
    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    Location:
    Cali
    You know, self-professed old man, if you think it's inexcusably easy, you could just solve the problem yourself. Think of how rich you'd be??? CONSUMERS WANT IT!

    :drink
     
  19. speedyone

    speedyone Supporting Member

    Messages:
    2,947
    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2008
    Location:
    Papillion, Nebraska
    Yup, NOT being able to have fx spillover makes a set-up sound AMATEUR...and I don't wanna hear the stupid, "Yeah, well you just have to time it right when you change presets" excuse. I've had rack gear and many years experience. It IS a pain in the butt to not have spillover; and it is jarring to people who want to expressive their creativity without limitations have an audible drop-out between sounds.

    Sure, you CAN have multiple amp set-ups, AbY and various mixers and stomp boxes to do this, but sheesh, there HAVE to be pros and gigging folks and amateurs too who want a multifx unit to do this!!
     
  20. speedyone

    speedyone Supporting Member

    Messages:
    2,947
    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2008
    Location:
    Papillion, Nebraska
    I don't assume it will be easy, technically, I just wish SOMEONE offered it.
     

Share This Page