The audio quality suffers at the lower sample rate, so the only reason anybody would use a lower sample rate than the competition would be if your cpu can’t keep up when running at 48kHz.
Fender Tone Master Pro: Episode IV - A New Hope
- Thread starter jellodog
- Start date
The audio quality suffers at the lower sample rate, so the only reason anybody would use a lower sample rate than the competition would be if your cpu can’t keep up when running at 48kHz.
Sascha Franck
Rock Star
- Messages
- 4,334
Well, I wouldn't bet on that. At least not when it comes to something humans would perceive. There's countless tests being done over the last decades and most of them ended up in people not being able to tell the difference between sample rates as long as it's about plain summing. And once any processing is involved, once proper oversampling is introduced, there's no discernable differences anymore either - with the upside being that you can decide to not run everything in oversampling mode instead of wasting CPU power just because you're running the entire thing at higher clockspeeds.
Also, the difference between 44.1 and 48 really isn't huge to start with.
If anything, if you go pretty high with the sample rate, you might be able to reduce the device's latency. The Boss GT-1000 (running at 96kHz) *might* prove that - but otoh, the GX-100 (running at 48kHz) kicks in at pretty much the same low latency, at least given Leo Gibsons tests.
In a nutshell, there's possibly not much to win with higher sample rates, so personally, I wouldn't use this as a point against the TMP - simply because we just don't know how things are dealt with internally.
The last time I talked about sample rates on a forum it didn't end well. :-)
But the reason for the 44.1k vs 48k is according to Fender (but also Cliff) the processor architecture. On this base, it's possible to double the clock (I'm not talking here about algo oversampling) but not to simply go from 44.1k to 48k.
If you want you can. If not you don't need to. Very flexible on this point
laxu
Rock Star
- Messages
- 3,769
While some of the scene/snapshot workflows exist due to preset switching delays, the other reason is that they just allow you to do a lot inside one preset.
With scenes you can simply program all your changes - blocks on/off, parameter changes etc into a single scene, then switch to that. With the TMP you need to assign all your on/off toggles to a footswitch and I am not sure if you can assign parameter changes to the same footswitch if it already has on/off toggles on it. IMO it's a system that works fine for simple things like "turn on the overdrive and delay" but falls apart when you also want to do something more complex. Scenes/snapshots are more flexible in that sense.
I agree with what others have said about the touchscreen UI. It requires more swiping around than it should and does not use its screen space well. It feels dumbed down compared to say the Quad Cortex which is more abstract but does have things like EQ curves on screen and is generally one tap away from editing any block. TMP requires a lot of zooming in/out and scrolling. The graphics are kinda cluttered where showing some stupid grillcloth graphic adds nothing. IMO Fender went too far up the "looks like the exact amp/pedal modeled" street.
The problem with anyone wanting to bring a high end modeler to market is that the established players have a decade of progress built in already, so without any real differentiating features it's a case of playing catch up to the big dogs. By the time the TMP (or QC for that matter) is up to scratch, we are probably already looking at the next gen from Line6 and Fractal which build on their already vast feature set.
Sascha Franck
Rock Star
- Messages
- 4,334
Pardon? No, I don't want to waste an entire new preset just to have a lead variation of the same sound.
I know that you can possible toggle multiple blocks with one switch, but see laxu's reply for a more detailed explanation.
SeeD
Roadie
- Messages
- 744
- Messages
- 3,809
But this simply isn't true (bringing us back around to the importance of firsthand experience.)
On QC, you can have one block open, editing its parameters, then tap on another block and continue editing that one's parameters. (Yes, I'm testing this right now.) You may have read me complain that you can't re-order blocks while an edit screen is up. (Something that can and should be easily fixed.) And of course you can't select blocks you can't see on account of the edit screen obscuring all but one lane. But for most practical cases - including the most common one where you're flipping between OD pedal and amp contexts trying to dial in gain just so, it works perfectly.
I agree 100%; in fact, I was just thinking about this the other day. The closest commonly available solution is something like Fractal's Performance Mode, where you can cherry pick the most important or commonly used parameters and map them to one screen according to your personal needs. The "problem" with this solution is that you need to pre-program that interface in advance for each of your presets - which realistically will consume more of your time in the long run than simply selecting blocks as needed, per the "out of the box" functionality.
Well, the main problem is in presenting contextual information for the block/ parameters in question while the main screen is dedicated to consistently presenting the preset architecture. In terms of hardware design, the TMP is in the best position to solve this problem through effective use of scribble strips. Unfortunately, its use of the main screen is not very effective.
- Messages
- 3,809
I see. In fairness, 4cm with load box is a subset of 4cm use cases. But the EQ/SIC fudge appears to have been a significant misstep. And having a customer rep who wasn't previously familiar with the term "4cm" is certainly not a good look.
Sascha Franck
Rock Star
- Messages
- 4,334
Hm, how does that work when the screen is covered completely with the contents of one block (say, the cab block)?
True. There should be something like that in each and every modeler (quite some synths offer similar things, Logic has it as generic thing, etc.) and it should be the easiest thing on earth to assign these performance controllers (which it unfortunately often isn't).
- Messages
- 3,809
I'm all for simplicity (see my ongoing support for the "dumbed down" QC for evidence), but it is possible to go too far. Sometimes you have to look at two paradigms (e.g. Presets and Scenes) and <insert why not both meme>.
There's much more to Scenes than just getting from one sound to another without gaps. If nothing else, they're a boon in terms of organization. My typical workflow is to dump all of the devices I need for a given song/ project into one complex Preset, and then switch bypass states and parameter settings with Scenes. This can get pretty involved. If I did the same with a half dozen presets and then decided I didn't like one of the amps I'd used, I'd have a half an hour of homework in front of me. No thanks.
laxu
Rock Star
- Messages
- 3,769
I think that's one of the few exceptions and that's so you have space to move the virtual mic around. Mostly the editing section covers the bottom of the screen and shows two rows of blocks up top (which depends on if your edited block is on the top 2 or bottom 2 rows).
The second problem is that it still requires some menuing to move between sets of controls so it's still not the same as "grab a knob and edit". IMO the QC does the best job for this because it's so fast to tap a block and turn the knobs/switches. Very quick once you get the mental mapping in your head.
On Fractal another issue with Performance view is that it requires planning ahead because you can only assign the controls from Axe-Edit.
- Messages
- 3,809
Everyone says "fast", but I agree that's not exactly the point. What is the point is not being distracted from playing music any longer, or with any more frustration, than is absolutely necessary. If I can get the job done on one device by reaching to my right and dragging a block from one place to another with my index finger, where another device requires that I start menu-diving, I'm going with the former.
To be clear: if I were using these things as set-and-forget, single-lane, guitar-only processors for live performance, I probably wouldn't give a s***, either. But using them in the home studio as Swiss Army knives, where their configuration has to change frequently and quickly, UI/UX becomes a very big deal.
- Messages
- 3,809
I'd slow down with memes like this, @SeeD. You are aware that this is exactly how most TGF members see us QC fans, right?
MirrorProfiles
Shredder
- Messages
- 2,238
So much of this.
With a new product going to launch, there should be a LOT of attention on how users typically use competing products, and what their expectations are. There’s been quite a few examples recently where companies have just ignored reading the room on stuff that should be painfully obvious:
- Line 6 Metallurgy ignoring the importance of marketing, slick+modern UI, artist and brand associations
- ToneX almost completely neglecting direct models (which were initially totally inaccurate), and 3rd party IR’s which still only have the most basic support (and the whole thing about input levels *cough* which has only got worse)
- Tonocracy releasing half finished software without making ANY impact on social platforms
They can say things like “well you’re not the intended customer” but then they’ll be making excuses as to why other products or companies have products that are continuously successful while their effort and investment either never reaches its potential or gets overtaken by something better.
Having a slick approach to snapshots, external control, 3rd party IR’s, 4CM with load boxes might not be things all users use all the time. But if too many of these features get brushed off as redundant or “too advanced” then it basically means everyone will have a feature they care about missing. The things above aren’t particularly new, exciting or groundbreaking and if the competition offers those as standard then it seems crazy to ignore them.
Sascha Franck
Rock Star
- Messages
- 4,334
Seriously, for many of the live jobs I'm doing, quick and easy UI access is more important than in any other situation.
At home, I usually have all the time in the world.
In general, I guess we can just agree that on complexed devices, UIs are a huge deal.
Of course you can. Your critics seems based on false informations. Based on my 3 months experience, the TMP as it is doesn't need a scene mode. We all have different needs but I haven't read a single good reason here.
- Messages
- 3,809
I hear you - although in my case, I don't feel like I have enough time anywhere. :)
All I'm saying is that I think a lot of users consistently run one guitar into these devices, through one path, and out to some kind of conventional monitoring solution. (Possibly two monitoring solutions, i.e. PA and guitar cab.) "Consistently" is the key word here, because those users are putting in a little bit of work up front - in terms of Global settings or templates - and moving on. I can see where they'd read posts from someone like myself, who's under the hood all the time adding processing for vocals, synths, etc., and think, "Why are you so obsessed with UI??" The answer is simple: when the UI sucks, I lose a lot of time, and get almost nothing done.
See my previous post about this having less to do with being "faster" and more to do with being less frustrating/ distracting.
Last edited:
Sascha Franck
Rock Star
- Messages
- 4,334
Uh-oh. let's rather not get into this... at a certain age, well, you get it, I'm sure.
Fwiw, excuse the very lame mockup, but this would be what I'd like to see (we could argue about the built in EXP pedal, but it's not relevant):
Anything inside the red frame would be detachable from the unit and then automatically stay connected via whatever wireless protocol (it should rather be 16 knobs, but maybe 12 would do fine, too). You could then nicely place it wherever you feel like, there'd have to be mounting options for mic stands and some feet kinda things to just place it on your desk slanted. On the display, the parameters and values of both rows of encoders should be displayed (pretty much as is on the Helix). Basically, the display would show the entire signal path pretty much always, with a bunch of exceptions, though (maybe draggable mics and such, maybe draggable EQ curves). Size of display and knobs should be somewhat increased (and in case of the Helix, the knobs needed a lot more friction), but all these are irrelevant details.
With this, you could just leave everything in place for situations when you just know you'd only bow down once or twice (soundchecks, gigs) or grab it and put it somewhere within hand's reach. You could of course as well use it as a performance tool (think Korg Chaos Pad).
This is also why I'd prefer a ready-to-roll solution over a mobile editor (which could still exist parallely), the user experience must be reliable.
