Dyna-cab on FM3?

It seems there's an increase of 2 or 3% cpu compared to IRs, considering we had same increase of cpu consumption on the last beta firmware, things are getting quite complicated...
 
CAGOPOCO said:
It seems there's an increase of 2 or 3% cpu compared to IRs, considering we had same increase of cpu consumption on the last beta firmware, things are getting quite complicated...
Click to expand...
Unless you use rather basic presets like I do. It would be nice to have the option at least. But we have to see if they can bring the CPU usage down and how those 2-3% translate to the FM3.
 
I’m just wondering if a Dynacab IR could be exported as a single IR that could run on anything that uses IR’s. Including the FM3. 2-3% isn’t too bad. Depends on how big an improvement it is over what we have now.
 
CAGOPOCO said:
It seems there's an increase of 2 or 3% cpu compared to IRs
Click to expand...
Speculation has it that it translates up to 10% on FM3 which is a big deal - but as long as a player can decide if he wants to use it or not, that's totally fine. Even 15% will be fine if this migration is not mandatory.
 
Chromatizm said:
Speculation has it that it translates up to 10% on FM3 which is a big deal - but as long as a player can decide if he wants to use it or not, that's totally fine. Even 15% will be fine if this migration is not mandatory.
Click to expand...
10% of what exactly?
because the cpu usage of the cab block depends on a lot of things, ultra, 2 cans or not, options, preamp etc.

As it’s implemented on the Axe III you can either run legacy or Dyna-Cab.

I’m ok to sacrifice reverb quality and density for some better irs. Irs is the main backbone of the tone
 
On the Axe-FX it adds somewhere around 3-4% to the cpu usage per slot.

If (that's a big if) limited memory is an issue and constrains the availability of this feature on some models, or the size of the DynaCab library on others, one could imagine a approach where the DynaCab library resides on your computer instead of on the device. That way you'd only need a small amount of memory on the device to store the single interpolated IR in the scratchpad while editing, and in nv memory when you save your preset.

You'd only be able to edit a DynaCab cab block with the editor app with that approach, but if it means only a small amount of memory on the device would be required (and no additional cpu), that might be worthwhile.
 
Also, I'm guessing DynaCab mic positioning will be added to CabLab, so if there's a memory/cpu issue with the FM3, the solution for FM3 owners might be to use CabLab. Even if you could load the DynaCab library into the Axe-FX/FM device, you might prefer not to. In other words, I can see advantages to using a computer app like CabLab or Axe-Edit to do your cab block mic positioning and storing your DynaCab library on your computer.
 
2-3% decrease of very powerful CPU on AXE FXIII could lead to very high % loss on FM3. Sure, FAS people know what they do and already improved a lot on FM3, but last beta shows +3-4% again, so one day we will come to the limit… I still enjoy and prefer FM3 for its size and options it already has to offer, even in case it nor possible to implement DynaCabs. But lets wait for FAS statement
 
More idle speculation : Processing power may not be the issue, but storage memory might? Could be that FM3 users may have to choose between Legacy cabs or Dyna Cabs, but can't have both? That might explain the separate firmware implementation...
Don't mind me, just thinking out loud here 🤣
 
Just wondering: maybe that huge CPU usage might be linked to the 4 dyna-cab module, isn't it? If so, I'm ready to accept to use a single Dyna-Cab for our FM3 :D
 
Not realistic to expect all the bells and whistles with the bottom unit. Next year I’ll be moving up to the FM9 but really enjoying what I’m getting out of the little guy. Waiting to hear more feedback on how much better this is. In the end, it’s still just IR’s. Or am I wrong?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom