[not possible] Okay, I'll say it... a second Amp block!

[Morphine]

I think then that it’s maybe a gimmick of the cheaper modelers to allow for two amps on their cheapest devices after learning about Cliff.

Sounds to me, based on what's been said/linked/pasted in this thread, that it could be done but with a significant sacrifice in audio quality that isn't worth it (for Fractal) in the end. Some products on the market are less concerned with sounding the absolute best they can and more with being able to produce the longest feature list at the lowest price point regardless of what sacrifices are made along the way.

 

[GlennO]

It was rejected by Cliff. He is the final arbiter of what is acceptable for his products.

I don't have a link but I remember the conversation.

You're probably right, but he apparently altered his views on the matter since then. He added a quality setting recently to sacrifice amp quality for better latency/performance. It stands to reason that could be used to make room in the processor for a second amp block.

As somebody mentioned above, it might not be a technical issue at all, but rather a marketing one, to keep a clear distinction in the product line.

 

[Zender]

If dual amp blocks were to be included in the FM3, it's almost an FM9, with less physical buttons and less CPU power. Where would the up-sell to the FM9 be then? From a marketing perspective I totally get it. I was on the fence between an FM3 turbo and and FM9 turbo. Ended up with the FM3 as I don't need the extra amp or buttons. Here in Europe that's a 700 euro ($760) price difference.

Now if they were to put the FM9 processing power in the FM3, as well as the dual amp option, and maybe the two reverb blocks. It would be the perfect little platform for me. But that would mean less sales for the FM9.

 

[Chromatizm]

Where would the up-sell to the FM9 be then?

It is still twice the overall power and twice overall functionality - from IO to number of blocks in the preset. And even number of presets During the performance, there is still no substitution to having many switches available, no matter how flexible FM3 setup can be with only 3 switches.

Most likely nothing will change from FM9 selling POV. Very few people need two amps and nothing else. Well, and if some do - it's still a good thing they wouldn't go to competitors to get two cheaper pedals or some other product which does dual amps, isn't it? Looking at GOT presets, you don't see everyone using dual amp setups, so here you go, even pros don't always need it.
And also, just like tube amps having upsells once people try them in Fractal Land, some who tried two amps in FM3 can decide he can't live without it anymore and will go for FM9. Me personally would never go for FM9 simply of the dual amp option - until I try and love it.

 

[supersonic182]

Where would the up-sell to the FM9 be then?

With the understanding that two amp blocks on an FM3 would mean almost no other blocks? the FM9 sells itself just as it always has. Just like the Axe 3 sells itself in light of the FM9.

 

[fcs101]

 

[Chromatizm]

 

[∞Fractals]

If you want dual amps with an FM3, simply buy two of them.

 

[yek]

FAS has stated in the past:

"We could potentially do two amp blocks but at reduced quality and I don't want to do that. Part of the problem with other modelers is that they don't oversample enough (and use single-precision in places where you need double-precision). Then you get complaints of artifacts and ear fatigue and all the other things associated with inadequate sample rate and word length. The vast majority of users only use one amp block so we wanted to make something with one very high quality "Ares" amp block."

 

[Greg Ferguson]

And even number of presets

The FM and FX3 Mk I units have 512 presets. The FX3 Mk II units have 1024.

 

[Greg Ferguson]

He added a quality setting recently to sacrifice amp quality for better latency/performance. It stands to reason that could be used to make room in the processor for a second amp block.

It's not clear which unit you're referring to. The Amp modeling quality setting is in the FX3.

I think it takes the full CPU power to get the FM3 to where it is now. Cliff said:

"We removed all the superfluous stuff (bias tremolo, dynamic presence/depth, etc.) in order to get the core amp modeling to run on the slower processor." [10]

So, he already took stuff out just to get a single Amp to fit, and that makes me think adding a second Amp block would require an additional core, or an additional CPU. Repurposing a core in the current model would kill whatever blocks run in that core or require moving and sacrificing other blocks and maybe even features because the UI, USB and FC run in a core.

Adding a CPU would require more than squeezing the chip into the board, it'd need a bigger power supply and the board would probably have to be adjusted to handle the power. People should just buy an FM9 at that point because the changes to a FM3 to do that would take a while to hit the market.

All in all I just can't imagine it happening no matter how much people want it.

 

[GlennO]

It's not clear which unit you're referring to. The Amp modeling quality setting is in the FX3, not the FM units.

Sure, but the point remains. In the years since Cliff wrote the comment that people are quoting, he has demonstrated a willingness to compromise on modeling quality, specifically oversampling, in order to achieve other important goals.

P.S.: BTW, cutting the oversampling in half in order to make room in the cpu load for a second amp block is exactly how the AxeFX II works (and maybe the AxeFX III?).

 

[Greg Ferguson]

P.S.: BTW, cutting the oversampling in half in order to make room in the cpu load for a second amp block is exactly how the AxeFX II works (and maybe the AxeFX III?).

He rejected that after all the complaints from the other side of the fence when he implemented it.

He did implement a setting on the FX3 to allow less latency or better quality. From Axe-Fx III Firmware Release Version 19.02:

It selects between two different interpolation/decimation kernels. Best Performance yields the least aliasing and best phase response at the expense of latency. This is the kernel used in prior firmwares. Min. Latency trades aliasing and phase response for reduced latency. The Amp and Drive block have about 0.5ms less latency each when using Min. Latency. You can achieve total latency of around 1.5ms or less when using Min. Latency.

Cliff is very careful to not specify how much oversampling is performed, or how many samples were sacrificed to reduce the latency, but since the FX3 has CPU power to spare it probably doesn't make much difference in the quality.

Again, because the FM* units had to remove features to get the Amp block to run, and it takes a core to process it, unless they can run an acceptable number of oversample loops I doubt we're going to see dual Amp blocks in the FM3. At that point we're just as likely to see four in the FM9 and FX3.

Yes, he allowed it before, he regretted it and said in various ways he wouldn't do it again, but did it, but I think those "hot chainsaw through a sorority girl" CPUs in the FX3 have a lot to do with it.

 

[robbarker88]

I think fractal loses just as many sales as it gains for not having a compact dual amping option. If fm3 or some future alternative could do just 2 amp blocks I literally wouldn't want or need it to do anything else and a lot of people are in the same use case. See Line 6, Boss, Ampero, etc

 

[JTI]

So much money left on the table

 

[chris]

with all the people sharing presets for Axe3 and FM9, the ones i see never use 2 amps at the same time and rarely have 2 amp blocks.

of course the features of the higher end units are wished for in the lower priced units, but i'm not sure that's deterring a large amount of customers.

 

[skolacki]

with all the people sharing presets for Axe3 and FM9, the ones i see never use 2 amps at the same time and rarely have 2 amp blocks.

of course the features of the higher end units are wished for in the lower priced units, but i'm not sure that's deterring a large amount of customers.

If someone wants 2 amp blocks then buy the units that have that. The FM3 is very capable as is for the price especially now with gapless switching at little to no cpu cost.

 

[yyz67]

I think fractal loses just as many sales as it gains for not having a compact dual amping option. If fm3 or some future alternative could do just 2 amp blocks I literally wouldn't want or need it to do anything else and a lot of people are in the same use case. See Line 6, Boss, Ampero, etc

Great point, but also FAS has a certain vision or mission regarding accuracy.

BTW, cutting the oversampling in half in order to make room in the cpu load for a second amp block is exactly how the AxeFX II works (and maybe the AxeFX III?).

If in all devices allowed settings of 1/2 (= 2x amps) and 1/4 (= 4x amps) oversampling, and there were users who didn't mind the degradation, it could be a win in terms of sales. (Edit: Of course processing overhead/bottlenecks might not allow adding amps in inverse proportion to sampling.)

Just call the two worse settings something like...
"Marginal (Brand N) Quality" / "Shite (Brand L) Quality" or
"Really??" / "Don't Do That."

 

[chris]

yeah but if the amp quality could be reduced, people could do the comparisons to other things with the lower amp quality and not really mention that. amp modeling is the primary feature of these units and what other companies are striving to perfect as well. having it present its best foot forward always is a good way to keep comparisons honest.

 

[GlennO]

I'm unaware of any Axe-FX III comparisons that suffered because somebody turned down the quality setting, so it doesn't seem like offering that setting has caused FAS any harm.

Making that feature available on the FM3 might permit a 2nd amp block, I'm not sure. I'm just saying there's a precedent for having a variable amp quality setting on FAS modelers.