Chaining 2 FM3's

D

dschaaf

Experienced
Hi All,

I have had my Axe FX III for quite some time and did buy an FM9 when the first waitlist became available. I ended up selling the FM9 within a week as I felt it was just to similar and possibly redundant with the III. That said, I wish I did hang onto it due to the waitlist now :)

I also ended up buying an FM3 (which I love) as I really do prefer the pedalboard format and wished there was a FULL Axe FX III in pedal format....but nevertheless, just wondering of anyone had chained 2 FM3's together to essentially double up on the ability to offload certain blocks on each device and potentially get slightly more connectivity due to the combination?

Thanks,
Derek
 
dschaaf said:
Hi All,

I have had my Axe FX III for quite some time and did buy an FM9 when the first waitlist became available. I ended up selling the FM9 within a week as I felt it was just to similar and possibly redundant with the III. That said, I wish I did hang onto it due to the waitlist now :)

I also ended up buying an FM3 (which I love) as I really do prefer the pedalboard format and wished there was a FULL Axe FX III in pedal format....but nevertheless, just wondering of anyone had chained 2 FM3's together to essentially double up on the ability to offload certain blocks on each device and potentially get slightly more connectivity due to the combination?

Thanks,
Derek
Click to expand...

All the power...with 2X the latency. Honestly...I don't run out of power in presets but that's likely because I build more targeted rather than trying to make each preset do everything all at once.
 
ah great point! To be honest, I don't really run out of DSP either when using my existing FM3 anyway so maybe I should just stick with it as is :)
 
I run two. Not in series, though. I found running them in parallel as a wet/dry config
was a dynamite solution for me. I assumed the FM9 would be all that and a box of candy,
but I found I like the versatility of two fully independent signal chains that I can make wet/wet,
wet/dry, or dry/dry as needed.
 
la szum said:
I run two. Not in series, though. I found running them in parallel as a wet/dry config
was a dynamite solution for me. I assumed the FM9 would be all that and a box of candy,
but I found I like the versatility of two fully independent signal chains that I can make wet/wet,
wet/dry, or dry/dry as needed.
Click to expand...
awesome, thanks for the info!
 
If I was to run two, I'd use an active A/B/Y splitter and run them in parallel to keep latency to a minimum. I'd also either use an FC-6 or 12, or a MIDI footswitch system, so the two FM3s can act as separate units. If using an FC, one would have to be designated the master, and the other the slave, with MIDI on the master controlling the other. The two could process two similar presets, or different, complementary, presets.

I don't see that there'd be any real advantage over an FX3, as it is roughly the equivalent of four FM3 as far as CPU goes, based on Cliff's comments:
"The FM3 is not as powerful as an Axe-Fx III. The Axe-Fx III has at least four times the processing power." [17]
Click to expand...
"The III uses (1) dual-core Texas Instruments DSP. The FM3 uses (1) dual-core Analog Devices DSP. The FM9 uses (2) dual-core Analog Devices DSPs. The TI DSPs are much more powerful than the Analog Devices DSPs per clock and run at around twice the clock speed as well. So one TI DSP core is about four times more powerful than one Analog Devices DSP core. If we normalize processing power to the III it would be:
  • Axe-Fx III: 100%
  • FM9: 50%
  • FM3: 25%
So why not use the TI DSPs in everything? Power. The TI DSPs use more power and generate more heat requiring active cooling. They are also more complicated to use requiring dedicated clock generation units, multiple power supplies with specific sequencing requirements, etc." [32].
Click to expand...

In my opinion, it'd be trading a single unit that can do it, for complexity in programming two systems and the MIDI to make them cooperate and additional wiring and fiddling and power demands. Plus, wiring up foot-controllers, can't forget them….
 
Greg Ferguson said:
If I was to run two, I'd use an active A/B/Y splitter and run them in parallel to keep latency to a minimum. I'd also either use an FC-6 or 12, or a MIDI footswitch system, so the two FM3s can act as separate units. The two could process two similar presets, or different, complementary, presets.

I don't see that there'd be any real advantage over an FX3, as it is roughly the equivalent of four FM3 as far as CPU goes, based on Cliff's comments:



In my opinion, it'd be trading a single unit that can do it, for complexity in programming two systems and the MIDI to make them cooperate and additional wiring and fiddling and power demands.
Click to expand...
All fair points - I think my personal interest is having a built in backup that you run as a single unit in the event that one FM3 had issues or went down. I've never had any issues with any of my Fractal units as long as I've been a customer, but I have a strong need for preparedness for "just in case" scenarios, particularly in live playing.
 
Cam Heiliger said:
Can you give some examples of signal chains that you use and how you set up the two units independently? Do you use an ABY splitter? Thanks!
Click to expand...
20210807_212650.jpg


I tried various ABY pedals and they all either tone sucked, or induced ground loop hum and noise. So I took an EHX
Deluxe Memory Man, and remembered it had true bypass (unlike the older ones), and also a Direct Out. So I run
through that and then out to each of the FM3s, from the FM3s into a Stereo Looper, and then out of the Looper
into separate FX Returns of 2 Tube Amps paired with their own cabs. I am still getting all the touch sensitivity and
dynamic control I could ever want.

Since I have individual footswitch control of each side of a stereo rig I can run either side wet or dry, add drives or phasers,
and/or just leave it all alone. No need for added switching in my use case. Those 3 switches (6 combined) do all I need.

It's just a super simple, unconvoluted path with minimal moving parts/add ons. Oh, I run my Wah and a Whammy DT in front
of the Memory Man as well.

I couldn't be happier. :)
 
That is a super interesting setup - I'm not well versed in stereo or wet/dry rigs as I have always run mono with my Fractal products (I'm the rhythm player, so it really isnt necessary) but I really enjoy seeing people use these devices in unconventional ways. I'm pretty reliant on my FC6 so I'm not sure I could make due with your setup completely, but I would be really interested to see how you use it in a live context. Very cool!
 
Cam Heiliger said:
That is a super interesting setup - I'm not well versed in stereo or wet/dry rigs as I have always run mono with my Fractal products (I'm the rhythm player, so it really isnt necessary) but I really enjoy seeing people use these devices in unconventional ways. I'm pretty reliant on my FC6 so I'm not sure I could make due with your setup completely, but I would be really interested to see how you use it in a live context. Very cool!
Click to expand...

At the price point of the FM3, and the lack of availability of the FM9, I am kind of shocked
more people are not finding unique and creative ways to run dual FM3s. :)
 
la szum said:
At the price point of the FM3, and the lack of availability of the FM9, I am kind of shocked
more people are not finding unique and creative ways to run dual FM3s. :)
Click to expand...
I think it's fantastic idea! Maybe not as much when the FM9 becomes available again, but 2 new FM3's are about what a 9 would cost you right now.
 
Greg Ferguson said:
@Joe Bfstplk has the most integrated system I've seen mentioned 'round here.
Click to expand...

TY. Works pretty well using the FM9 and some extra switches to control it and the FX3. Signal is sent from one to the other via SPDIF. Same principles would work for linking the pair of FM3s.

Program Change is a no-brainer to keep them on the same preset number, so you can set up presets for each side that work together.

Scene MIDI can let one control the other's scenes, so you can keep that in sync between them.

CS MIDI lets you send MIDI CC messages from your control switches, so they can control things in both units.

The only thing missing that I would want is the ability to switch channels via MIDI easily (i.e., no sysex coding needed)....
 
Joe Bfstplk said:
TY. Works pretty well using the FM9 and some extra switches to control it and the FX3. Signal is sent from one to the other via SPDIF. Same principles would work for linking the pair of FM3s.

Program Change is a no-brainer to keep them on the same preset number, so you can set up presets for each side that work together.

Scene MIDI can let one control the other's scenes, so you can keep that in sync between them.

CS MIDI lets you send MIDI CC messages from your control switches, so they can control things in both units.

The only thing missing that I would want is the ability to switch channels via MIDI easily (i.e., no sysex coding needed)....
Click to expand...
Excellent, thanks Joe. I didn't even think about the SPDIF option but will definitely look into that :)

D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom