Fractal Talk

[State of Epicicity]

The inability to send a MIDI command from the FC12 to the Axe-FX III without a MIDI loopback cable in the Axe is something I've wished for since I bought the unit. I love the things the FCs can do, but there are many things I've wanted to program that were outside the FC12's capabilities. At first I used an external footswitch plus Bome MIDI Translator into by PC in addition to my FC12, but I didn't want to depend on a PC and an additional pedal for gigs, so I just kept it to the FC12 and Axe-FX III only.

The other part is the number of steps. The original MIDI implementation allows for only 128 steps from minimum to maximum on a parameter, but MIDI 2.0 allows for 14-bit CC, which is over 16,000 steps, more than enough to control, e.g., an amp knob that goes from 0.00 to 10.00 in hundredths without compromise

But there is so much you can do within the parameters of how the FCs are designed, especially when you get into Layout Links. What I do is to plan first what I want to do with a particular preset, then try to make it fit in the paradigm of eight Scenes, four Channels (for most Blocks), six Control Switches, etc. I always find a way, but it's been far less straightforward than simply being able to add MIDI to the mix without any other cables or equipment.

I'm thinking in terms of points of failure, and maybe I'm going too far. Plenty of people gig with laptops, and more than one foot controller but I just never feel good about that.

In the end, it's worth it to me right now just to keep it simple. XLR cables are pretty robust, and I take good care of mine; the FASLINK II implementation is the fastest possible, the programming possibilities with an FC12 are still extremely powerful, and of course, with Axe-FX III, great tones are just a few turns of the knob away, so I do fine with what I have.

But when I think of the way I used to program tones with MIDI in my pre-Fractal days, I kind of miss it! But I'd rather have a one channel amp that sounds glorious and acts like the most dynamic thing ever than something that I can program faster without weird workarounds but always leaves me wanting for better tone.

 

[Rock Chalk]

The CS Midi capability is handy when you want to have a scene, channel, or effect on a momentary switch.

Of course for bypassing/unbypassing effects you don't even need the midi part.....

 

[laxu]

The inability to send a MIDI command from the FC12 to the Axe-FX III without a MIDI loopback cable in the Axe is something I've wished for since I bought the unit. I love the things the FCs can do, but there are many things I've wanted to program that were outside the FC12's capabilities. At first I used an external footswitch plus Bome MIDI Translator into by PC in addition to my FC12, but I didn't want to depend on a PC and an additional pedal for gigs, so I just kept it to the FC12 and Axe-FX III only.

The other part is the number of steps. The original MIDI implementation allows for only 128 steps from minimum to maximum on a parameter, but MIDI 2.0 allows for 14-bit CC, which is over 16,000 steps, more than enough to control, e.g., an amp knob that goes from 0.00 to 10.00 in hundredths without compromise

The FC controllers are by design "dumb" boxes only capable of sending values back to Axe-Fx and receiving values to set their displays to something. So MIDI cables at the Axe-Fx end was always needed.

128 steps is more than enough to cover the granularity of 99% of Fractal's controls. And even that 1% would be doable if Fractal offered better granularity for some of those. Like delay and reverb times being a range between a few ms to many seconds makes them awful to use when your desired range is in milliseconds. Having some toggle between "short/medium/long" would solve that. Meanwhile whether you can set the Amp block's Treble to 5.9 vs 5.892 is pretty irrelevant.

MIDI 2.0 has some good improvements but adoption has so far been pretty slow.

 

[State of Epicicity]

The FC controllers are by design "dumb" boxes only capable of sending values back to Axe-Fx and receiving values to set their displays to something. So MIDI cables at the Axe-Fx end was always needed.

128 steps is more than enough to cover the granularity of 99% of Fractal's controls. And even that 1% would be doable if Fractal offered better granularity for some of those. Like delay and reverb times being a range between a few ms to many seconds makes them awful to use when your desired range is in milliseconds. Having some toggle between "short/medium/long" would solve that. Meanwhile whether you can set the Amp block's Treble to 5.9 vs 5.892 is pretty irrelevant.

MIDI 2.0 has some good improvements but adoption has so far been pretty slow.

I think the steps are most noticeable if you, e.g. create a whammy pedal. Just set it to two octaves down and do a dive bomb with 128 steps. The end sounds like a video game.

And you’re right that still the FCs are just extensions of the Axe-FX III itself, that the request for the FC12 to control the Axe-FX III via MIDI is essentially a request for the Axe-FX III to send MIDI commands to itself. I mean, cool!

It boggles the mind that MIDI 2.0 is so slow, given that 1.0 was introduced in 1979! We should be at the point where we control synthesizers with neural implants by this point, but instead, for most devices, we're stuck at 7 bits.

 

[metropolis_4]

Wish - Inverse mode for Multiplexer block (or an IMUX block)

I really like the MUX block. Like...realllllly like it. It's simplified things so much for me when it comes to routing signals through many blocks controlled by a single expression pedal in my rig. One of the things I love about the MUX block is I can assign a single switch to step through the...

forum.fractalaudio.com

I wouldn't say it's a "big oversight" but it'd be a nice quality of life thing.

Thanks for the link! Hopefully that gets some traction.

It seems pretty big to me. Having a basic A/B switch is a pretty common need.

Thinking this through, if I just put a volume block at the start of the FX chain I’m going to get a jump in volume when I turn it on, so it would be better to put a volume block at the start of both paths and toggle them, but then I don’t have one to use as an actual volume pedal.

I guess I need to find some other blocks that don’t color the signal at all when on. Maybe one of the EQ blocks?

 

[DrewJD82]

You plebs, while you were all talking about MIDI commands I was banging hot models all weekend. You guys could probably bang hot models too if you stopped worrying about Fractal all weekend. Hot models are the most fun even if they cost me a lot of money because I like to hang out with hot models. I’m not sure if I’ll have time to post here as much because I’m spending a lot of time with hot models even though I retired at 30 and only work 6 hours from home, hot models take up a lot of your time.

 

[laxu]

You plebs, while you were all talking about MIDI commands I was banging hot models all weekend. You guys could probably bang hot models too if you stopped worrying about Fractal all weekend. Hot models are the most fun even if they cost me a lot of money because I like to hang out with hot models. I’m not sure if I’ll have time to post here as much because I’m spending a lot of time with hot models even though I retired at 30 and only work 6 hours from home, hot models take up a lot of your time.

But why male models?

 

[Piing]

You plebs, while you were all talking about MIDI commands I was banging hot models all weekend. You guys could probably bang hot models too if you stopped worrying about Fractal all weekend. Hot models are the most fun even if they cost me a lot of money because I like to hang out with hot models. I’m not sure if I’ll have time to post here as much because I’m spending a lot of time with hot models even though I retired at 30 and only work 6 hours from home, hot models take up a lot of your time.

You really know how to balance your time being a musician. We want to read you memoir!

 

[duzie]

You plebs, while you were all talking about MIDI commands I was banging hot models all weekend. You guys could probably bang hot models too if you stopped worrying about Fractal all weekend. Hot models are the most fun even if they cost me a lot of money because I like to hang out with hot models. I’m not sure if I’ll have time to post here as much because I’m spending a lot of time with hot models even though I retired at 30 and only work 6 hours from home, hot models take up a lot of your time.

Hahaha
What’s the frequency Kenneth ?
I know of where this has originated from…

 

[JiveTurkey]

What in the living h#ll was up with that thread? Someone was saying dude plays along to YT tracks with a producer or something completely, um;

 

[fretworn]

What in the living h#ll was up with that thread? Someone was saying dude plays along to YT tracks with a producer or something completely, um;

Someone dissected him pretty cleanly later on in the thread, right before it got locked.

Created another thread about being a u2 virtuoso beginner, who wanted to entertain people at weddings, with solo performances of u2.

 

[iaresee]

It seems pretty big to me. Having a basic A/B switch is a pretty common need.

There are other ways to achieve the behavior so, like I said, mostly a quality-of-life thing not a big, missing gap.

Thinking this through, if I just put a volume block at the start of the FX chain I’m going to get a jump in volume when I turn it on, so it would be better to put a volume block at the start of both paths and toggle them, but then I don’t have one to use as an actual volume pedal.

Why would you get a volume jump? A volume block doesn't boost the volume if you just set it to not boost the volume. Bonus: you can use a control switch on the volume control in the block to "fade" the parallel line in and out when you hit a control switch. Pretty cool trick.

If you run parallel effects you'll need to account for the level they add to the over all signal no matter how you bypass and engage them. You should make sure they're all set to 100% wet, of course, otherwise you'll be adding dry signal to dry signal when the parallel line is in use. And then use the block level controls to get the overall level right when they're engaged.

I guess I need to find some other blocks that don’t color the signal at all when on. Maybe one of the EQ blocks?

Sure. Use whatever you have a spare of: EQ, volume, filter...but a VOL block uses the least CPU of all the options.

 

[metropolis_4]

There are other ways to achieve the behavior so, like I said, mostly a quality-of-life thing not a big, missing gap.


Why would you get a volume jump? A volume block doesn't boost the volume if you just set it to not boost the volume. Bonus: you can use a control switch on the volume control in the block to "fade" the parallel line in and out when you hit a control switch. Pretty cool trick.

If you run parallel effects you'll need to account for the level they add to the over all signal no matter how you bypass and engage them. You should make sure they're all set to 100% wet, of course, otherwise you'll be adding dry signal to dry signal when the parallel line is in use. And then use the block level controls to get the overall level right when they're engaged.


Sure. Use whatever you have a spare of: EQ, volume, filter...but a VOL block uses the least CPU of all the options.

Glad it's no big deal for you, it sucks for me

I don't like the "if it's possible to hack a janky workaround then you don't need it" mentality. Is that really the standard we want with this gear?

I get a volume jump if I add more than one signal path. So with this signal path for example, if I have the volume block channel A set to Volume = 0.00 and channel B set to Volume = 10.00, and I toggle channels to turn the secondary path on/off I get a jump in volume. The only way to avoid that is to either add another Volume block at the start of the other signal path and mute that path when the FX path is active.

Also because I have to add more blocks I had to compromise and get rid of a drive block and an EQ at the end that was functioning as a gain boost. I suppose I'll need to split to two outputs and jumper ins/outs on the back to pull it down to another row.

Have you ever used the splitter in Helix? This makes me seriously miss that feature

 

[GTR37]

What in the living h#ll was up with that thread? Someone was saying dude plays along to YT tracks with a producer or something completely, um;

Lol I think the part that was most confusing was when Chris Fractal Alumni said please stop
DM’ing me

 

[JiveTurkey]

Lol I think the part that was most confusing was when Chris Fractal Alumni said please stop
DM’ing me

I saw that and I wondered what he was trying to get out of him

 

[yeky83]

Glad it's no big deal for you, it sucks for me

I don't like the "if it's possible to hack a janky workaround then you don't need it" mentality. Is that really the standard we want with this gear?

I get a volume jump if I add more than one signal path. So with this signal path for example, if I have the volume block channel A set to Volume = 0.00 and channel B set to Volume = 10.00, and I toggle channels to turn the secondary path on/off I get a jump in volume. The only way to avoid that is to either add another Volume block at the start of the other signal path and mute that path when the FX path is active.

View attachment 10339

Also because I have to add more blocks I had to compromise and get rid of a drive block and an EQ at the end that was functioning as a gain boost. I suppose I'll need to split to two outputs and jumper ins/outs on the back to pull it down to another row.

Have you ever used the splitter in Helix? This makes me seriously miss that feature

In that signal chain, why wouldn't you just set everything in the parallel signal chain to 100% wet and mute-bypass the phaser block? No need to play around with volume blocks.

IIRC the A/B splitter in the Helix does -3dB to each path. Some people hate that too.

 

[metropolis_4]

In that signal chain, why wouldn't you just set everything in the parallel signal chain to 100% wet and mute-bypass the phaser block? No need to play around with volume blocks.

IIRC the A/B splitter in the Helix does -3dB to each path. Some people hate that too.

Because then the mute state for the entire chain is bound to the phaser, which would mean I couldn't engage the path to turn on reverb and delay without also turning on the phaser. The phaser would always have to be turned on for the chain to be active.

What I want to do is set it like an effects loop where I can have any combination of those effects turned on or off and then use a single footswitch to engage that signal path and disengage it.

 

[fretworn]

Because then the mute state for the entire chain is bound to the phaser, which would mean I couldn't engage the path to turn on reverb and delay without also turning on the phaser. The phaser would always have to be turned on for the chain to be active.

What I want to do is set it like an effects loop where I can have any combination of those effects turned on or off and then use a single footswitch to engage that signal path and disengage it.

I am slow…… Probably missed something too… why not scenes?

 

[yeky83]

Because then the mute state for the entire chain is bound to the phaser, which would mean I couldn't engage the path to turn on reverb and delay without also turning on the phaser. The phaser would always have to be turned on for the chain to be active.

What I want to do is set it like an effects loop where I can have any combination of those effects turned on or off and then use a single footswitch to engage that signal path and disengage it.

Then just use one volume block, put it on the parallel chain, and use that as your effects loop on/off.

The main issue seems to me that you're not using those parallel effects with 100% wet mix, no?

 

[metropolis_4]

I am slow…… Probably missed something too… why not scenes?

I've been moving away from scenes and doing more manual switching because I like the additional flexibility it gives me to choose to engage/disengage certain things as needed depending on what I'm hearing.