JiveTurkey
Goatlord
- Messages
- 16,625
"NO RACK EFFECTS FOR YOU!"
Should flagship modelers keep up with the latest standards?
- Thread starter James Freeman
- Start date
- Messages
- 1,438
bubble ui???? you mean the pictures of amps and effects etc?
I play a fractal, and if I tried a TMP or whatever, I'd end up returning/selling one of them. It's not so much because I can't afford to keep them as because...it just feels wasteful. Maybe it's a personal thing, but I'm not a collector and would like to be a bit of a minimalist in at least certain areas. I can see the desire for a backup if playing guitar is actually a significant part of your livelihood...but in that case, I can't fathom why your B rig wouldn't be an exact copy of your A rig.
That being said...some of the directions of flagship modelers don't really appeal to me. Maybe I'm the weird one.
^^ I like this idea. ^^ But...you can pretty much already do that, right? You can with Fractal. I'm pretty sure you can do it with most things with a 3rd party MIDI controller.
Scribble strips and more switches would be cool. But...there are a lot of really awesome MIDI controllers out there that can do anything I'd want. At various price points. And many of the (relatively) cheap ones can do awesome things. I'd almost rather have a zero-footswitch box with more power in a smaller enclosure and be forced to buy a separate foot controller...but with it still on a pedalboard instead of having to move to a rack + board setup.
Anyway....
I don't know what the "next thing" would be, but 2 of the "big" recent things don't appeal to me: virtual mics and touch screens.
The whole virtual mic approach is cool, and I get why people like it. But, it's so much more complex to take a real cab and generate that format than to generate a few IRs that you like....I just don't see it a worthwhile use of people's time as opposed to making IRs. The reason I never bought an Ox wasn't that I couldn't afford it...it was that there weren't enough cabs I cared about in it...and AFAIK they never added more.
Touch screens are just a hard pass for me. If you can turn the touch screen completely off and still navigate the device with physical buttons, fine. But if there's anything you can only do on the device with the touch screen, I'm not buying it. Even if that means I have to go back to amps eventually. Hell, I'd rather only be able to edit things on a computer editor than have to deal with another damn touch screen. I hate them.
laxu
Rock Star
- Messages
- 5,499
Big part of that is not having the tools to make 3rd party virtual mic cabs. I would assume e.g York Audio or Ownhammer already owns a Dynamount robot to accurately move a mic around, then it comes down to having the software to make e.g Fractal Dyna-cabs. But Fractal Cab Lab 4 is still not out.
Line6 does not offer any tools for 3rd party cabs and fat chance of UA ever offering even a simple IR loader because their approach is "we know best what you want."
Most systems that offer virtual mics still offer a standard IR loader so you don't have to choose one or the other.
This I don't get. Physical button navigation is a chore on every current gen modeler.
If you take e.g the Fractal user interface, and made it possible for you to tap different rows to swap between sets of controls, or tap on blocks in the layout grid, it would be much faster to operate from the front panel. Now because it has awful button placement, it's a lot of back and forth between the nav keys and the under screen knobs to the point that many just use the big knob + nav keys because it's closer and less cramped.
This does not change that you can always use the computer editor with a keyboard and mouse.
Now touchscreen UIs can of course be made badly. To me the Boss GX-100 UI for example sucks for editing the signal path because you have a cramped scrollable list of blocks and you have to painstakingly drag them to place them. By comparison something like a QC or TMP does not have this problem, both are pretty straightforward.
Sascha Franck
Rock Star
- Messages
- 6,188
Nah. Preselecting "sub parts" (as I do in my separate loops) based on presets for just that very loop is impossible on any all-in-one modeler.
As an example, here's what's happening on my board:
In one of the pre-amp loops, there's an MS-50G. I use that for the occasional modulation effect and what not (also serves me fine in case I don't want to bring a separare acoustc board). Typically, I have between 2-4 patches set up so I can cycle through them (which is absolutely fine as I never have to cycle mid song).
Pretty much the same is happening in my post-amp loop with the HX Stomp in it. I use that for all spatial FX. And just as with the MS-50G, I preselect a snapshot between songs and that was it (ok, I sometimes switch some oddball longer feedback delay on inmidst of a part, but that doesn't change things in general).
Can't operate any modeler that way.
You can setup similar things within kitchen sink presets (which is what I used to do on the Helix Floor), but you'll be running out of switches in no time (especially given that I needed most of them for drives already).
I know that Fractal has that preset per block thing going, but that's still quite different as I want sub-presets of multiple (!) blocks.
- Messages
- 9,737
One of those popped up for $800 at the GC next to me, the only person I ever saw using one was Kiko from Megadeth as a practice rig.
Yeah....that's a good thing. And it is just code. As long as IRs don't get removed (which there's no reason for), I won't complain about having the option.
I just disagree. It's a general thing that's been true since the iPhone came out and touchscreens became so widespread. When you interact with a touch screen, your hands are covering up the thing you're interacting with, a significant portion of the visual feedback the screen gives you, and some or all of the GUI elements below the thing you're touching (or in whatever direction your hand/wrist are coming from).
That's a design flaw that people have just gotten used to. For a phone, with part of it's main use case being watching videos as big as possible on a device that fits in your pocket....the trade-off makes sense. Some of the apps (e.g., text messaging) still use the screen in a halfway reasonable way where you have the "control" part of the UI separate from the "feedback" part, so it matters less that you're covering it up....but there's still no tactile feedback like there is with a physical keyboard....which either slows you down or increases error rate. And some of them that need both a lot of control and a lot of visual information (like maps) are just plain terrible.
For a floor modeler, having the nav buttons and soft knobs separate from the screen is just better, IMO.
And you can actually do that on the Fractal....just not with the fractal foot controllers, at least not without jumping through some hoops.
If you can make the changes you need with scenes, then it's largely a question of how many switches you need and how much space you want to dedicate to it. If you can't do it with scenes or the included "commands" that you can assign to a footswitch...then you would need to use MIDI. But the Morningstar MIDI controllers (as an example) can do exactly what you're talking about.
You can set up switches to "do" all the things you want: pick a scene to start with, change the channels of however many blocks, change the settings of some of them, bypass/unbypass at will, change the layout of the MIDI controller if you want...and still have others that just toggle a block on or off. It's not simple, but it is totally possible.
I believe that the Voes and RJM controllers can do the same kinds of things....it's just a question of how many MIDI commands it can send out from one switch press.
Whether they can do it on a Helix or not, I don't know. I haven't dived into them that deep. But, the Fractals can.
ETA: this is why, as I've said elsewhere, my "ideal" fractal device would probably be an FM0 - something with all the power of an AF3T, but with zero footswitches and a smaller foot print - and just let me buy my own MIDI controller with the right amount of switches for what I want to do. Or, you know, an AF3T and deal with having another thing to carry. But, I'd rather put it all on a pedalboard...less stuff to carry and simpler setup/teardown.
Sascha Franck
Rock Star
- Messages
- 6,188
This is precisely what I don't want. I don't want to preconfigure and preprogram any scenes. I also don't need endless switches.
See, that's an oxymoron already. Because part of why I'm doing things the way I do them is *because* it's simple.
It's really not about whether and how I could sort of (and really just sort of) emulate something. I want it to be easy, too.
And yes, I'm pretty experienced in all these kinda things, my digital device user background is rather strong. I just don't want to go through hoops anymore.
laxu
Rock Star
- Messages
- 5,499
Majority of things you would select on a modeler are one tap things - pick a block, pick a model etc.
I can agree that e.g adjusting virtual knobs directly on screen is generally terrible because your finger covers the knob, but slider type UIs are better for touchscreens for that reason. The touchscreen for selecting, encoders for adjusting pattern works well because both are close together and work best for their own things.
Majority of issues on e.g Fractal's onboard UI are related to navigating it. You have to switch rows, page a lot, tons of different views, inconsistent behavior between them for what buttons do etc. If it was turned into a touchscreen driven version without any other changes, you'd simply tap what you want and turn the big knob to adjust it.
Eagle
Rock Star
- Messages
- 3,811
If you get chance it’s worth playing just for reference.
- Messages
- 9,737
My main “irritation” with modelers is that the architecture is based on tying everything to presets…so no way to change to a different amp sound..while keeping your time effects “as is”. Sure..there’s scenes, locks (kemper), switching between amps/lanes….but that come close to the flexibility you get from an old school multi channel amp combined with an efx unit with presets.
I‘d love a unit where you can run…let’s call it “virtual modelers”…for argument sake..4 modelers tied in a chain.
On modeler 1 I’d run input level..and change the preset when I switch guitars to compensate for pup outputs…global block.
On modeler 2 I’d run my drive pedals …maybe I’d also put my amps there…and have presets for the gain levels I need.
Modeler 3 would handle my time effects…I’d probably have 5-10 presets in there.
Modeler 4 would hold a global eq and routing to outputs..sort of a global block.
Add functionality where a patch recalls a combination of presets on all modelers, a switchboard where you can recall patches….but also alter presets per virtual modeler within a patch…..and I’d be buying that machine
If I remember right, your issue is exactly why Cliff created the Scene Ignore function in the Fractals.
yeky83
Roadie
- Messages
- 979
As mentioned, can basically be run on an Axe-Fx III preset with some work…My main “irritation” with modelers is that the architecture is based on tying everything to presets…so no way to change to a different amp sound..while keeping your time effects “as is”. Sure..there’s scenes, locks (kemper), switching between amps/lanes….but that come close to the flexibility you get from an old school multi channel amp combined with an efx unit with presets.
I‘d love a unit where you can run…let’s call it “virtual modelers”…for argument sake..4 modelers tied in a chain.
On modeler 1 I’d run input level..and change the preset when I switch guitars to compensate for pup outputs…global block.
On modeler 2 I’d run my drive pedals …maybe I’d also put my amps there…and have presets for the gain levels I need.
Modeler 3 would handle my time effects…I’d probably have 5-10 presets in there.
Modeler 4 would hold a global eq and routing to outputs..sort of a global block.
Add functionality where a patch recalls a combination of presets on all modelers, a switchboard where you can recall patches….but also alter presets per virtual modeler within a patch…..and I’d be buying that machine
1: input level block
2: channels for gain levels
3: scenes for tone effects
4: output eq block
Will Chen
Roadie
- Messages
- 234
My main “irritation” with modelers is that the architecture is based on tying everything to presets…so no way to change to a different amp sound..while keeping your time effects “as is”. Sure..there’s scenes, locks (kemper), switching between amps/lanes….but that come close to the flexibility you get from an old school multi channel amp combined with an efx unit with presets.
I‘d love a unit where you can run…let’s call it “virtual modelers”…for argument sake..4 modelers tied in a chain.
On modeler 1 I’d run input level..and change the preset when I switch guitars to compensate for pup outputs…global block.
On modeler 2 I’d run my drive pedals …maybe I’d also put my amps there…and have presets for the gain levels I need.
Modeler 3 would handle my time effects…I’d probably have 5-10 presets in there.
Modeler 4 would hold a global eq and routing to outputs..sort of a global block.
Add functionality where a patch recalls a combination of presets on all modelers, a switchboard where you can recall patches….but also alter presets per virtual modeler within a patch…..and I’d be buying that machine
Your way over thinking it. Even something like the FM3 could handle it pretty much all this with some additional switching added, not really all that complex of a setup.
laxu
Rock Star
- Messages
- 5,499
How do you feel about the audio interface capabilities of current modelers?
Helix Floor/Rack, Kemper, Headrush Prime, QC and Fender TMP all feature at least one mic preamp now, so Fractal is the odd one out in this sense.
Most of them are pretty average for roundtrip latency but above all, most of them are terrible for managing I/O levels. On most units this stuff is buried and you are expected to control it all from within your DAW, or it's inconveniently setup somewhere in the guitar-centric UI. Changing USB audio routing is often not flexible on the unit itself.
Things like dedicated physical headphone level knobs are welcome. Same for mic preamp gain, or being able to easily setup which inputs are routed to which outputs. I have to dedicate Out1 on my Axe-Fx 3 to headphones so I can use Out2 to my studio monitors only because the headphone amp and Out1 hardware are tied together with no separate volume control for the headphone out.
I feel like rack/compact modelers could easily be do-it-all audio interface solutions as well that would work well enough for all but the pro studio workers. Just need the right I/O (IMO the QC is pretty spot on for most users' needs) and better mixing/routing capabilities when outside the guitar signal realm.
Helix Floor/Rack, Kemper, Headrush Prime, QC and Fender TMP all feature at least one mic preamp now, so Fractal is the odd one out in this sense.
Most of them are pretty average for roundtrip latency but above all, most of them are terrible for managing I/O levels. On most units this stuff is buried and you are expected to control it all from within your DAW, or it's inconveniently setup somewhere in the guitar-centric UI. Changing USB audio routing is often not flexible on the unit itself.
Things like dedicated physical headphone level knobs are welcome. Same for mic preamp gain, or being able to easily setup which inputs are routed to which outputs. I have to dedicate Out1 on my Axe-Fx 3 to headphones so I can use Out2 to my studio monitors only because the headphone amp and Out1 hardware are tied together with no separate volume control for the headphone out.
I feel like rack/compact modelers could easily be do-it-all audio interface solutions as well that would work well enough for all but the pro studio workers. Just need the right I/O (IMO the QC is pretty spot on for most users' needs) and better mixing/routing capabilities when outside the guitar signal realm.
Sascha Franck
Rock Star
- Messages
- 6,188
Can only speak for the Helix (ok, and the Boss GT-10 and Zoom G3, but I guess they're not exactly flagship modelers anymore...) and it's pretty bad. Which is sad as it could be incredibly nice.
Latency values are abysmal (way worse than even the cheapest interface, even if you'd be running it via Core Audio or Asio4All), mic preamp is cheap stuff and apparently there's quite some risk of damaging things should you ever switch around with phantom power (which, as I knew this beforehand, rather avoided entirely).
As said, this is a sad affair, the Helix could be a great "studio central" device if things were different, but not being able to even remotely check out software amps due to the horrible RTL of 16.9ms (at 44.1 and 32 samples buffersize) makes that a no-go. Let alone doing any serious work utilizing software monitoring.
Had that been any better (and I'm not even talking about RME-alike RTL numbers, just something decent between, say, 5 and 7 ms), I might've kept the Helix Floor as an interface, even if it was not going to be part of my live rig anymore.
What I would've liked as well would be independent Mic In access, without any need to route it within the hardware - but in that case, I perfectly understand why it's nothing trivial. Would be nice, though, simply because I don't want to modify patches all the time just to record a mic signal.
It says right on the Axe-FX product page that it's the center of your music workstation, but it falls short of that because of missing features you'd find in a good audio interface. It has good latency, converters and i/o. But it needs sample rate conversion, phantom power, and a decent routing UI. Helix has good latency if you don't use the driver. TMP is missing spdif. With a little effort, they could be very capable audio interfaces.
Sascha Franck
Rock Star
- Messages
- 6,188
No. It's average at best (under macOS at least). And not using the driver results in certain things to not work well (such as working at various sample rates or running different apps at different sample rates).
