FM9 Firmware Version 5.01

What makes you think they'd make such a big jump from 5.1 to 6.0 beta? I was thinking more like 5.2 to fix out any existing bugs. FW 6.0 would have to consist of some major changes to be a monumentus upgrade and that doesn't happen overnight.

If gapless scene/channel switching is included in the next firmware revision that would definitely qualify in my eyes as a "major change". More than worthy of a major revision number.
 
You're absolutely right. And players like Guthrie Govan, Steve Stevens, Alex Lifeson and more don't seem to mind.

The only problem is when latency adds up.
I've played tube amps for 20 years and often on stages where the speaker was up to 6 metres behind me. That was a strange feeling and so wedges had to help out here. In the All Analogue era, it was just a question of sound. With the first digital consoles, wedges also had phase problems.

But what would have happened if I had used modellers instead of analogue amps back then? These 4 - 8 ms would have been added to the natural delay time and would have worsened the playing feel. So the comparison with the distance to the cabinet is technically correct, but is practically useless.

Nowadays I mostly play in-ear. And that is the right way. The days of 4x12 speakers and the destruction of your own hearing are over.
And I initially had an interesting problem with in-ears. The sound was too direct for me. When you've been used to natural latency all these years, the transmission in "zero time" was strange. In this respect, I don't mind the latency - as long as it doesn't get too high.

Ultimately, it's a question of application. I also have three different guitar transmitters in use. A Sennheiser ew100 G4, a Sennheiser ew-D and two Line6 G70s.

You might be wondering why. It also depends on the backline. When I'm subbing and the band isn't playing in-ear but with FRFR wedges or traditional cabinets, I use the ew100 because it has no latency.

With In Ear or in small clubs where the speaker is very close, I use the LIne 6 G70. This is the transmitter with the lowest latency of 1.5 ms (Line6 says so and I can confirm it with measurements)
But you can't use it in big shows with over 300 guests. As it transmits in the WLAN range, there are dropouts. In this case I use the Sennheiser ew-d. Very stable and only 1.8 ms latency. By the way. For In Ear I use the ew G4 from Sennheiser. IEM transmitter are not digital for a good reason ;-)

Any transmitter that adds more than 4 ms latency is nonsense in my opinion. So many Shure, Sennheiser transmitters that transmit in the WLAN range. Xvive is absolutely terrible in this respect.

The same applies to those that add several digital pedals to the FM9 loop. I have already seen pedalboards with 3 Eventide H9 pedals. And each one adds latency. In addition to the latency of the algorithms, you also have the latency of the DA-AD conversion.

The latency trap is lurking everywhere. Two years ago - I had just rebuilt my studio - I got a visit from my good buddy Thomas Blug from Bluguitar. I had just received the first FM9 and he had his AMP X prototype with him. So we connected both devices via my RME Fireface and Thomas started to play the FM9. He stopped immediately and said that the latency was too high and it didn't feel good. I then played and had to agree with him. Funnily enough, we also felt latency on his Amp X. Eventually we found out that my KS digital speakers (absolutely fantastic speakers by the way) had added 6 ms of latency. Then there was the latency of the conversion via the RME. So we stood 2 metres away from the speakers and in the end it added up to 10 ms.
The next day I sold my KS digital again and bought PSI Audio A21 speakers. Unbelievable linear speakers with an elaborate analogue crossover and phase correction. 0 ms latency.

And that's what I also like about the REDSOUND speakers. Great sound, very high-quality speakers and power amplifiers and an analogue crossover. No DSP. Okay, in my opinion the crossover could be designed even better, but that's a question of money. The design of an analogue crossover is so time-consuming that many users don't want to pay the extra price. Redosunds are the best choice for me at the moment. Apart from Meyer Sound. But unfortunately I'm not a millionaire.

So if this customer has realised that the latency is too high for them, this is important feedback. I'm sure that the non-resting developers at FAS are already working on an optimisation. And if they win one ms, that would be great. Then you can add something elsewhere ;-) And if not, that's good too. Because the sound is important. And it's fantastic. As Guthrie Govan can probably confirm ;-)
Very interesting post. In your opinion you recommend the Redsound. This interests me because I have the Elis 8's. I don't notice any real latency too much when I play.. Then again I'm in my studio standing 2 feet away from the speakers. What did you discover the latency to be in the RS's when you placed them 6-10 feet away from the guitar and fm9?
 
Last edited:
Very interesting post. In your opinion you recommend the Redsound. This interests me because I have the Elis 8's. I don't notice any real latency too much when I play.. Then again I'm in my studio standing 2 feet away from the speakers. What did you discover the latency to be in the RS's when you placed them 6-10 feet away from the guitar and fm9?
I really like REDSOUND because they are lightweight and absolutely great sounding FRFR speakers. Unlike other manufacturers, they don't use DSPs.

The REDSOUND speakers are virtually latency-free. If you were to connect an analogue amp to them, the only latency would be that of the speed of sound. Regardless of the environment. (Okay, not quite, but that would be splitting hairs). Playing the FM9 with the Redsound would be like moving the speakers 1.3 metres back due to the latency of the FM9. In other words, if you play a tube amplifier with real speakers on stage at a given distance, then move the Redsounds 1.3 metres closer to your position and the delay is equalised.

Example: In an analogue setup, your speakers are 4 metres behind you. To get the same "feeling", place the Redsounds only 2.7 metres behind you.

By the way. If you have the idea of buying an expensive H90 and looping it into the loop of your analogue amp because you really want to have this brilliant Eventide effect, then it feels as if you were moving your speakers another 1.8 metres backwards (H90 = 5 ms latency). With the FM9 setup it would be approx. 2.4 metres (DA-AD conversion).
 
Hi all. I am running the latest firmware version on my FM9. My scenes for my main preset are configured separately for clean and gain. There was a noticeable delay (less than a second but still a silent pause) when switching between my scenes. If there is a better way to me to configure, I'm all ears for some tips. Also after about an hour of playing, the level dropped by like 25% which was then resolved by rebooting. I used a Friedman ASM-12 as my monitor.
 
Hi all. I am running the latest firmware version on my FM9. My scenes for my main preset are configured separately for clean and gain. There was a noticeable delay (less than a second but still a silent pause) when switching between my scenes. If there is a better way to me to configure, I'm all ears for some tips. Also after about an hour of playing, the level dropped by like 25% which was then resolved by rebooting. I used a Friedman ASM-12 as my monitor.
It depends on what your needs are, but for my main preset, I use one amp, and then change the gain amount (to go from cleanish to higher gain) using scene controllers. I stay on the same amp block channel, and the gain knob just moves up/down between scenes as needed. I use a control switch to bring on a preamp boost (in the amp block preamp section) to take it over the top.

For example, I gravitate to the Friedman BE100 model, and with the gain at about 40% it cleans up nicely with guitar volume. All in, I run it at about 70% with a boost in the preamp and it has tons of sustain for leads, but I can STILL clean it up somewhat with guitar volume. Works great, with no gaps, and in my opinion sounds more authentic than changing multiple amps within a song. But that's just my opinion. You could also run two amp blocks and have access to 8 different amp channels to switch between, if you ant options galore. I'm pretty sure Cooper Carter did a YouTube video on how to set that up, and be basically seamless when switching. Good luck.
 
Hi all. I am running the latest firmware version on my FM9. My scenes for my main preset are configured separately for clean and gain. There was a noticeable delay (less than a second but still a silent pause) when switching between my scenes. If there is a better way to me to configure, I'm all ears for some tips. Also after about an hour of playing, the level dropped by like 25% which was then resolved by rebooting. I used a Friedman ASM-12 as my monitor.
Are you switching channels on a single amp block? Use two amp blocks in parallel and mute the one you don't need (i.e. mute the gain amp on the clean scene and vice versa). Make sure to set bypass mode to Mute Out.

Also, FWIW: The audio gap when switching channels is likely to be fixed in the next firmware update.
 
Are you switching channels on a single amp block? Use two amp blocks in parallel and mute the one you don't need (i.e. mute the gain amp on the clean scene and vice versa). Make sure to set bypass mode to Mute Out.

Also, FWIW: The audio gap when switching channels is likely to be fixed in the next firmware update.
Yes, I have separate channels with different amps and switching between both for each scene. Using a Diesel amp for the gain channel and a JP2-C for my clean. I'll give the two amp block method a try. Thanks.
 
Yes, I have separate channels with different amps and switching between both for each scene. Using a Diesel amp for the gain channel and a JP2-C for my clean. I'll give the two amp block method a try. Thanks.
The nice thing is the way the FM9 allocates CPU the second Amp block is essentially free. Gives you a lot of routing flexibility without necessarily worrying about what you have to cut.
 
Now things have calmed down with the AxeFx III releases. Let's wait another 2-3 weeks, then FM9 and FM3 will be the first beta versions.;)
 
Is that how the release cycle usually goes? A release on the FXiii, then a couple of bug patches, and when things calm down focus gets turned on the FM9/3?
 
Back
Top Bottom