This post is about my request for more (or dynamic) memory.
I got some reactions from people asking me why I need that much memory or that many presets but I don't feel I should explain myself.
I need it. Period.
And I feel a controller in the price range of the LF or RJM should be able to provide it, considering the price of memory.
But I've been thinking about how a controller and the editor could (or should) work.
Lets first, to avoid confusion, talk about patches and presets.
In the Axe-Fx, a preset is just that. A collection of blocks. But these are sometimes called patches (although in the manual of the Axe-fx there's no mention of this word). But for the sake of clarity, I'll call them patches.
On the controller, a preset can be a patch of the Axe-Fx with one or more of the blocks turned on.
So for one patch on the Axe-Fx, you can have multiple presets on the controller.
This is the reason you can easily run out of presets.
There are users who used all or almost all three banks.
I like to make a preset for each song with the tempo for that song, specfic settings for harmonizers, delays, etc...
a sort of an initialising preset for that song.
I play over 250 songs.
Do I have to load them all into the controller?
Of course not.
But the way the editor and the controller work now, you can only have the same number of presets and songs in the editor as you can have in the controller.
The controller is a means to organize your performance and you don't need that many presets or songs.
The editor on the other hand should be able to store an unlimited number of presets and songs.
And you should be able to load only what you need.
The editor would include a sort of databank.
This way the editor should be able to synch with all the patches in the XL (768) but you would only be able to load 640 in the GT.
Or less if you need presets for songs.
Makes sense?
I got some reactions from people asking me why I need that much memory or that many presets but I don't feel I should explain myself.
I need it. Period.
And I feel a controller in the price range of the LF or RJM should be able to provide it, considering the price of memory.
But I've been thinking about how a controller and the editor could (or should) work.
Lets first, to avoid confusion, talk about patches and presets.
In the Axe-Fx, a preset is just that. A collection of blocks. But these are sometimes called patches (although in the manual of the Axe-fx there's no mention of this word). But for the sake of clarity, I'll call them patches.
On the controller, a preset can be a patch of the Axe-Fx with one or more of the blocks turned on.
So for one patch on the Axe-Fx, you can have multiple presets on the controller.
This is the reason you can easily run out of presets.
There are users who used all or almost all three banks.
I like to make a preset for each song with the tempo for that song, specfic settings for harmonizers, delays, etc...
a sort of an initialising preset for that song.
I play over 250 songs.
Do I have to load them all into the controller?
Of course not.
But the way the editor and the controller work now, you can only have the same number of presets and songs in the editor as you can have in the controller.
The controller is a means to organize your performance and you don't need that many presets or songs.
The editor on the other hand should be able to store an unlimited number of presets and songs.
And you should be able to load only what you need.
The editor would include a sort of databank.
This way the editor should be able to synch with all the patches in the XL (768) but you would only be able to load 640 in the GT.
Or less if you need presets for songs.
Makes sense?
