Announcing the New FM9 Amp Modeler/FX Processor

[dean701]

attached is a thrown together kitchen sink preset that I use. This taps my fm3 out at 85% which causes drop outs. I don't use all of the effects simultaneously but just to get them into the preset was quite difficult.
Can someone kindly blast this into their fm9 and see if it functions and at what cpu percentage. It would be a tremendous help. Cheers

 

[Tritium3H]

attached is a thrown together kitchen sink preset that I use. This taps my fm3 out at 85% which causes drop outs. I don't use all of the effects simultaneously but just to get them into the preset was quite difficult.
Can someone kindly blast this into their fm9 and see if it functions and at what cpu percentage. It would be a tremendous help. Cheers

Just curious, Dean.

What are you putting in hardware loop, between the amp and cab block?

 

[Rafa Diaz]

Realistically when will this become an option in Europe?

Will this be a wait list like the FM3 that was almost a year or have you planned to launch within 2021 for example?

Thanks

 

[ak301]

Realistically when will this become an option in Europe?

Will this be a wait list like the FM3 that was almost a year or have you planned to launch within 2021 for example?

Thanks

I think it'll be in the new year. I doubt it'll be anywhere near as long as the FM3 as they're shipping in the US already.

Are you on the G66 waitlist? Even if you're not 100% decided on one then get on the list. You can always say no when they email you to say it's available

 

[dean701]

Just curious, Dean.

What are you putting in hardware loop, between the amp and cab block?

Nothing. The send and return are used only because of space limitations on the same line.

 

[peteri]

Nothing. The send and return are used only because of space limitations on the same line.

I've looked at your preset - firstly in terms of your question, I'm in the UK so still on the FM3 but check Leon's youtube where he recently showed how much power the FM9 has, honestly - amazing change.

In terms of this one on the FM3 - do you use both delays at once? Because if not that will make a massive difference to power.

When I loaded the preset it shows 84.1, if I combine the two delays (using channels on one delay block) I got the CPU down to 78-79% - because by reducing down to one delay you can get rid of the two lines and therefore the send/return. I also removed all the shunts.

Even if you want both delays, removing all the shunts saved maybe 1-2%

There's a lot of other CPU saving you can do, reduce the echo density on the Reverb - which with 2 delays in front you won't notice, pulling that down to 4 makes all the difference, shunts removed and echo density reduced and the CPU usage is 77% - no other changes.

Take that 77% and change the two delays to one gives me 75%

Or another approach

Take your current preset

Instead of using the TS808 in the drive block with the drive at zero, use the 808 in the pre-amp of the Amp block. This lets me get everything on one line (I delete the drive block), I do nothing else than that, and put the echo density of the reverb down to 4. And in scene 1 I have a CPU usage of 67%.

Hope this helps and sorry to thread/topic jump

 

[dean701]

I've looked at your preset - firstly in terms of your question, I'm in the UK so still on the FM3 but check Leon's youtube where he recently showed how much power the FM9 has, honestly - amazing change.

In terms of this one on the FM3 - do you use both delays at once? Because if not that will make a massive difference to power.

When I loaded the preset it shows 84.1, if I combine the two delays (using channels on one delay block) I got the CPU down to 78-79% - because by reducing down to one delay you can get rid of the two lines and therefore the send/return. I also removed all the shunts.

Even if you want both delays, removing all the shunts saved maybe 1-2%

There's a lot of other CPU saving you can do, reduce the echo density on the Reverb - which with 2 delays in front you won't notice, pulling that down to 4 makes all the difference, shunts removed and echo density reduced and the CPU usage is 77% - no other changes.

Take that 77% and change the two delays to one gives me 75%

Or another approach

Take your current preset

Instead of using the TS808 in the drive block with the drive at zero, use the 808 in the pre-amp of the Amp block. This lets me get everything on one line (I delete the drive block), I do nothing else than that, and put the echo density of the reverb down to 4. And in scene 1 I have a CPU usage of 67%.

Hope this helps and sorry to thread/topic jump

Thanks for the free lesson. My presets certainly aren't streamlined but in all honesty, I shouldn't have to. Which is why I was curious about an apples to apples comparison.
The reason for the 2 simple delays was for independent panning capabilities. If I use the ts808 in the preamp of the amp block then I lose the tone knob which is a personal preference. Having said that, I didn't realize that the shunts were stealing cpu, so just removing those and putting the echo for reverb from 8 to 4, it is now down to 80%.

 

[peteri]

Thanks for the free lesson. My presets certainly aren't streamlined but in all honesty, I shouldn't have to. Which is why I was curious about an apples to apples comparison.
The reason for the 2 simple delays was for independent panning capabilities. If I use the ts808 in the preamp of the amp block then I lose the tone knob which is a personal preference.

No problem, and no lesson intended - just trying to help.

I'm not sure I follow you saying 'you shouldn't have to streamline' - I think you always have to, even with the III - if you don't want to compromise though the FM3 certainly isn't the one (I used an external reverb for ages with mine because I felt the same - doing that in your preset pulls it down to 71% btw), but I got to love the compromise

Looking forward to seeing what your preset looks like on a FM9 - should be cool

 

[dean701]

No problem, and no lesson intended - just trying to help.

I'm not sure I follow you saying 'you shouldn't have to streamline' - I think you always have to, even with the III - if you don't want to compromise though the FM3 certainly isn't the one (I used an external reverb for ages with mine because I felt the same - doing that in your preset pulls it down to 71% btw), but I got to love the compromise

Looking forward to seeing what your preset looks like on a FM9 - should be cool

Thanks very much. My lesson comment was genuine and not intended to be snarky. I did perform some of your suggested changes. I didn't realize that the shunts were stealing cpu, so just removing those and putting the echo on reverb from 8 to 4, it is now down to 80%.

 

[peteri]

Thanks very much. My lesson comment was genuine and not intended to be snarky. I did perform some of your suggested changes. I didn't realize that the shunts were stealing cpu, so just removing those and putting the echo on reverb from 8 to 4, it is now down to 80%.

Not a problem, thanks!

I stole the echo density thing from Marco F, makes an amazing difference - and the amount of CPU I've wasted on shunts over the years....

 

[iaresee]

attached is a thrown together kitchen sink preset that I use. This taps my fm3 out at 85% which causes drop outs. I don't use all of the effects simultaneously but just to get them into the preset was quite difficult.
Can someone kindly blast this into their fm9 and see if it functions and at what cpu percentage. It would be a tremendous help. Cheers

Zero modifications. Dragged and dropped it on the the editor.

 

[dean701]

View attachment 88008
Zero modifications. Dragged and dropped it on the the editor.

Thanks very much. Greatly appreciated.

 

[peteri]

Likewise - thanks, very useful

 

[blaggers]

View attachment 88008
Zero modifications. Dragged and dropped it on the the editor.

Thanks - so with a little tidy up of shunts and removing send/return due to bigger grid it would be about 65%. That gives me confidence I could add a second input for vocals with EQ, compressor, delay and 2nd reverb without having CPU issues. Cheers!

 

[HarrySound]

I think it'll be in the new year. I doubt it'll be anywhere near as long as the FM3 as they're shipping in the US already.

Are you on the G66 waitlist? Even if you're not 100% decided on one then get on the list. You can always say no when they email you to say it's available

That long really?
That’s kinda ok with me because it gives me a chance to upgrade all my computer stuff after 10 years and put a bit aside for this.

G66 say it’ll be a number of weeks so I was expecting late October or sometime in November but the logistics situation in Europe is a mess right now. If I could arrange a parachute drop that would be great.

 

[Tritium3H]

View attachment 88008
Zero modifications. Dragged and dropped it on the the editor.

WOW! That is a 20% difference...the FM9 utilizes 20% less CPU to run the exact same preset, compared to the FM3. Also, if I recall another FM9 comparison video, you could switch the reverb setting to Ultra, while incurring an insignificant impact to CPU utilization (perhaps <2%).

 

[TheDought]

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.

Also very interested!

I've noticed ever since Cygnus most of the presets I purchased from your site are over the CPU limit. Definitely excited to have more power with the FM9.

 

[unix-guy]

the FM9 utilizes 20% less CPU to run the exact same preset, compared to the FM3. ).

Not exactly... The FM9 has more total CPU power so use of the same amount of resources will show as a lower percent of the total.

 

[Tritium3H]

Not exactly... The FM9 has more total CPU power so use of the same amount of resources will show as a lower percent of the total.

Yes, good point, and you are correct. I probably shouldn't have made the comparison, as they do use different CPUs.

It would be interesting if @iaresee might check the cpu usage if the preset's reverb is switched from Economy to Ultra, ceteris paribus...if the spirit moves him.

 

[iaresee]

It would be interesting if @iaresee might check the cpu usage if the preset's reverb is switched from Economy to Ultra, ceteris paribus...if the spirit moves him.

It adds a few percent. 2'ish.