Wish 2 PITCH blocks, 1 ON at a time

[BobXX]

It could be a very good enhancement to allow to design a preset with 2 PITCH blocks placed in different positions in the chain,
e.g. a typical one with a Virtual Capo/Octaver near the input and an Harmonizer after the AMP,
but allowing only one of the two to be activated in the same time.

NOTE:
It's not clear why FM9 hasn't enough power to manage 2 Pitch blocks, it seems because there's only 1 pitch detector,
if this is the case I think everyone could accept to share pitch detector point, but allowing 2 pitch blocks in different places in the chain.

 

[dbonilla28]

Have you seen Moke's moving pitch block?

 

[BobXX]

Have you seen Moke's moving pitch block?

Now with gapless switching I prefer to double AF3 presets to FM9 with Pitch in two positions, easier to maintain compared with this solution.
But it's very creative and nice indeed ! Tricky to maintain, but very nice.

 

[steadystate]

It is my understanding that processing resources are allocated when an effect is instantiated, whether bypassed or active. If true, then bypassing one would make no difference.

Also if true, then I'm not exactly sure why quality settings on some blocks would affect CPU use, nor why the option of having two is not offered if one is willing to sacrifice other blocks in a preset. Resource management is complicated.

 

[BobXX]

It is my understanding that processing resources are allocated when an effect is instantiated, whether bypassed or active. If true, then bypassing one would make no difference.

Also if true, then I'm not exactly sure why quality settings on some blocks would affect CPU use, nor why the option of having two is not offered if one is willing to sacrifice other blocks in a preset. Resource management is complicated.

I tried to understand the reason of that FM9 limitation,
another similar one is 1 source per modifier allowed, instead of AXE FXIII's 2,
when FM9 can manage 32 modifiers at once (mostly tipically unused...) !

These are the two main incompatibility issues that make me crazy transferring the presets between AXE3 / FM9.
that forced me to never use 2 sources per modifier even in the AXE FXIII (what a pity),

but 2 PITCHes is a clear need for a lot of people, e.g. 1st as a CAPO and 2nd as an HARMONIZER),
unfortunately they are both named PITCH.

This limitation doesn't appear (to me...) to be due to CPU limitations, FM9 turbo power is just say 30% less than AXE3.

I was told unofficially that the reason could be that FM9 has 1 pitch detector instead of AXE's 2.

So we could share the same pitch detector, E.g. placed at the input, or placed by default at PITCH1's input for both).
People will very happy all the same, maintaining the possibility to place 2 PITCHes in a preset, in different positions.

It could be also OK to limit the possibility to use max 1 harmonizer and max 1 virtual capo, but both in a preset.

Cannot 2 PITCH be activated simultaneously because of reasons we don't know ?

In my wish to allow 2 PITCH in a preset 1 ON at a time, I understand that probably the CPU resources allocated will be for both,
but it could be an anyway an acceptable option for the user, that will also maintain a good design compatibility with the AXE FXIII.

 

[rcm78]

I purchased a drop pedal for this reason.

 

[Bodde]

I purchased a drop pedal for this reason.

Yes it's too bad in itself that people have to buy an external pedal along their FM9 to do this. Still don't understand why there is only one pitch block in the FM9. Don't think Fractal made a statement about that? or I might have missed that. For me that's a deal breaker and the main reason I haven't bought a FM9. The whole reason to buy this is so I don't need to lug around external gear.

 

[BobXX]

I think FAS is familiar with this issue, it has been asked several times for FM9.
On the other side I didn't find crear explanation about this limit, this fact may give some more hope...

I also don't think is a marketing differentiation. In my experience with FAS I have realised that they are always happy to give people the most out of each product.
The clear demonstration of it are their continuous improvements they apply in AXE, FM9 and FM3.
I think they really try to stand by the musicians and do their best to meet their needs.

Perhaps their first reaction is protective 'we don't think it's that useful', also to keep low people's expectations... but then - surprise! - you find it in an update. Like happened with gapless switching .

So at the moment I think we can keep hoping for a possible surprise of two PITCH for FM9,
then you can buy it and a lot of people will be happier !

I too will be happy for FAS, because I think this will put FM9 in the right market position it deserves.
In my own small way, as in this thread, I try to give some unusual ideas/perspectives that might make things easier.

 

[Bodde]

I think FAS is familiar with this issue, it has been asked several times for FM9.

Maybe they don't see it as an issue? I am sure they have a good reason to not include 2 pitch blocks. But I think it's strange that a piece of gear of this magnitude (and price) doesn't have two pitch blocks. Even the Axe fx II has two pitch blocks and I think that has less power than the FM9?

 

[unix-guy]

Maybe they don't see it as an issue? I am sure they have a good reason to not include 2 pitch blocks. But I think it's strange that a piece of gear of this magnitude (and price) doesn't have two pitch blocks. Even the Axe fx II has two pitch blocks and I think that has less power than the FM9?

To be fair, you can't really equate the power between current and previous generations because the code being run is not the same.