Announcing the New FM9 Amp Modeler/FX Processor

blackmoreguitar said:
I was just about to post a similar question. This would be amazing if it could be implemented.
Click to expand...
In the Edit Modifier window, we can currently set it so that the controller acts on 'All' or specific channels only. Maybe add extra options on that list where you can choose the uncontrolled state? 'Revert to saved value' or 'Revert to last value'. If it were possible of course...
 
Last edited:
yek said:
You can set-and-forget a setting with your expression pedal by changing the channel of the block.
Click to expand...

Suppose I had a volume block and a wah block and only one expression pedal. I have the volume block at 75%. I have it after the amp and it allows me to give some more volume when the band gets going. If I then swap the function of the pedal to control the wah, then the volume block is bypassed and the volume jumps to 100% which is not necessarily desirable. If there was some way for the volume block to stay at 75% when I repurposed the expression pedal to control the wah, that would be awesome.
 
unix-guy said:
True, but that's a specific pre-defined value and not "where it currently is based on the expression pedal".
Click to expand...

Nope, I meant this:

1. assign the pedal to a parameter in a block, and in the modifier menu select a specific channel (not: all channels)
2. operate the pedal
3. now use a switch, scene or whatever, to switch the block to another channel and use the pedal for something else
4. now switch back to the original channel of the block. At this point the parameter value should still be the same as before.

I think that's what Greg is asking for.
 
blackmoreguitar said:
Suppose I had a volume block and a wah block and only one expression pedal. I have the volume block at 75%. I have it after the amp and it allows me to give some more volume when the band gets going. If I then swap the function of the pedal to control the wah, then the volume block is bypassed and the volume jumps to 100% which is not necessarily desirable. If there was some way for the volume block to stay at 75% when I repurposed the expression pedal to control the wah, that would be awesome.
Click to expand...
In this specific example, that is already possible.
  1. Add another Volume block that is set to 75%. When you swap to the Wah, bypass Volume block 1 and activate Volume block 2.
  2. Or.. Instead of bypassing the Volume block, have it switch to channel 'B' where it is set to 75%. Set the controller to only work on Channel 'A'.
 
yek said:
Nope, I meant this:

1. assign the pedal to a parameter in a block, and in the modifier menu select a specific channel (not: all channels)
2. operate the pedal
3. now use a switch, scene or whatever, to switch the block to another channel and use the pedal for something else
4. now switch back to the original channel of the block. At this point the parameter value should still be the same as before.

I think that's what Greg is asking for.
Click to expand...
Well, kinda.

Imagine multiple blocks being controlled by the same pedal, say Wah control, Delay 1 time, and Reverb time. You cock the wah for a specific sound, want to keep it set there while adjusting the Delay time, then when it's where it sounds just right, switch to adjust the Reverb time, all while the Wah and Delay settings remains where they were. It'd be multiple blocks because the Expressionator can output to multiple pedals.

The Expressionator video shows flexibility beyond what we can achieve with a single controller right now and it'd be cool to have. Perhaps that'd be something for the Wish list, or a future firmware generation.
 
Moke said:
In this specific example, that is already possible.
  1. Add another Volume block that is set to 75%. When you swap to the Wah, bypass Volume block 1 and activate Volume block 2.
  2. Or.. Instead of bypassing the Volume block, have it switch to channel 'B' where it is set to 75%. Set the controller to only work on Channel 'A'.
Click to expand...

Thanks, that's interesting, but 75% was just an arbitrary number; what I really mean is that when I switch the function of the expression pedal to wah, the unit retains whatever value the volume block was set to.
 
blackmoreguitar said:
Thanks, that's interesting, but 75% was just an arbitrary number; what I really mean is that when I switch the function of the expression pedal to wah, the unit retains whatever value the volume block was set to.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you're seeing what I was asking about. The Expressionator is an interesting idea and opens up the use of a controller to do a lot of things we can't do right now.

It's important to watch the video and substitute their use of pedals for blocks in our world, and then imagine duplicating that functionality in the FM3, FM9 or FX3. Even with multiple switches I don't think we can get there.
 
An alternative way is to use an exp.pedal with two outputs (two channels) and a switch. Connect the two outputs to two exp.ports on the FMx. This lets you assign those channels to different functions. Use the switch to switch between them, the blocks will maintain their values.
 
Moke said:
I'm trying to wrap my head around the FM9 processor allocation.

I think that I read that the Reverb and Delay blocks are dedicated to one of the processors? IF so, does that include all of the Delay type blocks? 'Multitap-Delay', 'Megatap Delay', Ten-tap Delay; 'Plex-Delay'?

If it only includes the 2 Reverb and 2 Delay blocks, that will potentially leave a lot of unused CPU power on the table for many presets.

For example... If an FM3 preset had no 'Reverb' or 'Delay' block and was close to the CPU limit, would it still be close the the CPU limit of the FM9.

I've been getting emails from clients/customers asking for advice on what advantages are possible if upgrading from the FM3 to the FM9.
Click to expand...
Very interesting question Moke look forward to seeing the answer here
 
yek said:
Nope, I meant this:

1. assign the pedal to a parameter in a block, and in the modifier menu select a specific channel (not: all channels)
2. operate the pedal
3. now use a switch, scene or whatever, to switch the block to another channel and use the pedal for something else
4. now switch back to the original channel of the block. At this point the parameter value should still be the same as before.

I think that's what Greg is asking for.
Click to expand...
Works like a charm, as long as you don't bump the pedal after you switch back.
 
Can anyone with both an fm3 and fm9 do a few preset comparisons with regards to cpu?
 
L
Moke said:
I'm trying to wrap my head around the FM9 processor allocation.

I think that I read that the Reverb and Delay blocks are dedicated to one of the processors? IF so, does that include all of the Delay type blocks? 'Multitap-Delay', 'Megatap Delay', Ten-tap Delay; 'Plex-Delay'?

If it only includes the 2 Reverb and 2 Delay blocks, that will potentially leave a lot of unused CPU power on the table for many presets.

For example... If an FM3 preset had no 'Reverb' or 'Delay' block and was close to the CPU limit, would it still be close the the CPU limit of the FM9.

I've been getting emails from clients/customers asking for advice on what advantages are possible if upgrading from the FM3 to the FM9.
Click to expand...

I believe one core on one of the multi-core processors is used for reverbs (and delays?). Regardless it is an interesting question. Can one of you guys with both maybe throw together a preset that maxes out the FM3 CPU without using reverbs or whatever else is on that core then pet it to FM9 and see where the CPU is at?
 
And @Admin M@ or @FractalAudio can you please elaborate on what actually runs on the core the reverbs are on? Is it just reverbs? If delays as well, is it multiple delay block types?

Edit: I see the wiki says:
“The delays and reverbs on the FM9 each have a dedicated core DSP.”

This implies all the delay types imo but I could easily be wrong.
 
Last edited:
Deadpool_25 said:
L


I believe one core on one of the multi-core processors is used for reverbs (and delays?). Regardless it is an interesting question. Can one of you guys with both maybe throw together a preset that maxes out the FM3 CPU without using reverbs or whatever else is on that core then pet it to FM9 and see where the CPU is at?
Click to expand...
I asked something similar here, but an extensive comparison would be useful, I add @2112, maybe on the next video?


iaresee said:
View attachment 87824
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom