![]() ![]()
#HEADRUSH AMP MODELS EXPLAINED CODE#When inMusic made that acquisition, they got the source code for 11 Rack. In 2012, I believe, inMusic purchased M-Audio in 2012 ( ). Headrush is an inMusic brand, just like Akai, M-Audio, Numark, Rane, Alto, etc. InMusic is the company that owns Headrush. But that may just be confirmation bias on my part, because this would explain why it seems to be such a Helix clone. #HEADRUSH AMP MODELS EXPLAINED SOFTWARE LICENSE#My interpretation was that it was someone with a software license who built a hardware solution to sell it in. The way they explained their interaction with the owner made it sound like Headrush is a one-off entity with just the one product. The guys on the Andertons YouTube channel reviewed it and, somewhere toward the beginning, mentioned that Eleven Rack gave or licensed their code to the owner of Headrush. ![]() then does the housekeeping of clearing/unloading the other 'half' of the DSP capacity in the background, readying it for the next swap.ĭSP pool A -> DSP pool B -> A -> B etc. #HEADRUSH AMP MODELS EXPLAINED PATCH#I submit that a massive percentage of the processing - theoretically near enough to half (after allowing for the OS/housekeeping of the system itself) is actually dedicated to the job of 'redundancy' - so, rather than the DSP having to unload the current processes, then load up the new ones, I suspect the HR system loads in the 'empty' half (quicker as a result), gets that running, allows spillover because the previous patch is actually still there with all input cut-off the moment the preset button was engaged. Hands-on reports popped up a number of places where some interestingly complex patch creation has run into the wall seemingly quite 'early' in the game. I have this theory, but I'd have to actually have some hands-on to actually test this, and I'm not all that motivated to do so =]īut anyway HeadRush is explained as having the first quad-core processing power - fair enough. ![]() ![]() I know it has proven to be an unpopular idea on the forum but I would still love to see future generations of the Helix include a touchscreen. However, there will probably always be room in the market-place for throwing all the DSP power at flexibility and pushing the limits of resolution and complexity on amps/cabs and effects much as the Helix is currently designed. I prefer the Helix approach, particularly since the addition of snapshots, but I look forward to modeler designs in the future with cheaper more powerful multi-core DSP chips that may be able to provide a compromise that offers more flexible signal chains, high-res complex modeling, and also gapless switching. Helix went the other way and dedicated both DSP chips to allowing a more complex signal path and perhaps more DSP dedicated to amp and effect models. I don't pretend to know the internals on the Headrush but perhaps what they did was dedicate two of the four cores on their four-core DSP processor to switching and two to the signal path. So in return for far less flexibility and what looks to be less blocks allowed in a preset you get gapless preset switching. I believe there is a maximum of 11 spaces available for effects and amps/cabs. From what I saw the flexibility to load blocks on the Headrush is much more limited. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |