- Messages
- 5,136
Sure. I would expect TMP to be equivalent to QC in this regard. But I have no firsthand experience with TMP.
Scratch that.Many presets require you to scroll horizontally to reach an effect.
Sure. I would expect TMP to be equivalent to QC in this regard. But I have no firsthand experience with TMP.
Scratch that.Many presets require you to scroll horizontally to reach an effect.
Yeah that’s a big problem. But I’m sure they’ve got the sense to fix that.
Not following. Are you concerned about the need to use the footswitches and the possibility of turning them? I guess I wouldn't leave a parameter screen up while performing (I'd likely have saved the preset, in fact) but otherwise, this has never been a problem for me. And closing an edited block is as easy as tapping almost anywhere on the screen anyway.But you will have to close the edited block on the QC once done. No need to do so on the Helix.
What "chips" are we talking about, exactly? I wasn't aware the TMP was substantially (if at all) more powerful than FM9, Helix Floor, QC... I'm having trouble finding any specific information, except that the TMP runs "8 cores" - but that alone doesn't really tell you anything.Pure speculation but because of business and evolution of chips.
There are a number of somewhat quirky things they're doing, and for the life of me I don't understand why they're trying to reinvent the wheel in a solidly established market. Every one of the major players hosts their own forum-except Fender. Was this a bean counter decision? We don't know, and they won't admit it either way. They chose instead to set up a table in the corner at Discord.
What is "proper" support for 4CM? Meaning, how do you fail to have it when you have 4 FX loops?I think they're unware about the state of the art of amp modeling. Look at the way they don't even have proper support for 4CM, and their response made it sound like they've never heard of 4CM before. There's a fine line between thinking outside the box and being willfully uninformed.
What is "proper" support for 4CM? Meaning, how do you fail to have it when you have 4 FX loops?
What "chips" are we talking about, exactly? I wasn't aware the TMP was substantially (if at all) more powerful than FM9, Helix Floor, QC... I'm having trouble finding any specific information, except that the TMP runs "8 cores" - but that alone doesn't really tell you anything.
If you use an IR, the SIC is applied once. The issue arises when you use the cab block of the TMP And I understood Fender's answer much more optimistically than you did (as the SIC issue is said on the top of the list).Their cab/ir block applies an eq curve to simulate speaker impedance. That means when you're using 4CM method with a load box you get an SIC applied twice. The result sounds as terrible as you might think it would. When asked about it on the TOP, the Fender rep said they might someday look into adding support for 4CM, or as they put it "they have taken note of the request to add support for use with external amps". In other words, they didn't even consider one of the most important use cases for an amp modeler.
That say nothing except speculationIf the TMP had substantially more CPU power than everybody else, there would be no need to use a lower sample rate than everybody else. That should tell us a lot about the TMP CPU power.
Not following. Are you concerned about the need to use the footswitches and the possibility of turning them? I guess I wouldn't leave a parameter screen up while performing (I'd likely have saved the preset, in fact) but otherwise, this has never been a problem for me. And closing an edited block is as easy as tapping almost anywhere on the screen anyway.
no snapshot is needed at all,
Ehhh, I don't really care if making a basic patch takes me 1 minute or 25 seconds. I'm not participating in the patch making olympics speed category.Guys, I get the impression that you're trying to reproduce the workflow of your other devices (I must say "workaround" to provoke .. lol), forgetting that the TMP is far more powerful in these respects: no snapshot is needed at all, digital settings are much faster and exactly as precise with rotary switches, there are fewer layers of parameters than on other devices, and the on/bypassed effects display is perfectly clear (to my eyes)..... About many of the issues mentionned, I say to myself: "with the TMP we don't do it like that at all, it's even simpler".
About the missing parameters, it's only the sound that's the judge. I'll admit that I'd also like some additional parameters to the real pedals (typically mix in modulation fx). But it's very likely that this will happen in a very near future update.
I'll say it again: have a look at how long it concretely takes to make a preset on the TMP. As soon as you know the rotary switches associated with each parameter, it's almost instantaneous! As fast, simple and precise as if you had the hardware in front of you. I don't know the Helix. But on the modelizers I know, it's way fastidious
TMP is powerful enough to use presets, or one preset combining several activable amps. And with the 3 preset/switch config (which can do a bunch of things, x 3 presets buttons) you can have a pedalboard with 3 x 3 instant sounds. I like this config. Of course, you can stay with 6 presets (= 6 pedalboards of 8 switches).Please elaborate.
TMP is powerful enough to use presets, or one preset combining several activable amps.
This is what Fender overlooked. There's no way I want to make and manage several presets to achieve something that could be done easily within a single preset.So, you want to use a separate preset just to, say, activate a boost, an EQ and a delay with a single switching process, correct?
This is what Fender overlooked. There's no way I want to make and manage several presets to achieve something that could be done easily within a single preset.