Dave Merrill
Axe-Master
So is that the same as the III?It has twice the DSP cores of an FM3. Four SHARC+ DSP cores. So it has about twice the processing power.
So is that the same as the III?It has twice the DSP cores of an FM3. Four SHARC+ DSP cores. So it has about twice the processing power.
First Easter Egg found!OK. Cooper stepped on a switch and it changed his guitar. Now THAT's what I want!!
Same core count, but the DSPs aren't quite as powerful as in the Axe-Fx III.So is that the same as the III?
See post 70; waitlist@g66.eu ; I emailed with FM9 in the subject and got a thank you for joining the waitlist reply. A few minutes before that I had also emailed G66 and asked if they would put me on the waitlist, so I hope I am covered
Plus, doesn't the III have other chips dedicated to other support processes like GUI, USB, etc...Same core count, but the DSPs aren't quite as powerful as in the Axe-Fx III.
I go at it from a different direction. Having followed EVH's example from an early age, all my "standard" tuned guitars are actually tuned a half step down. As a result, I like the way the guitar behaves when it's juuust a little looser. If I need to be in E I'll use the pitch block to bring me up a half step.If you check out Brett Kingsmans video of the Fm9 he clicks into Eb tuning while playing and it sounded very good to me. I can’t say for sure but it sounded better than the fm3 pitch block
No. 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.So is that the same as the III?
The fm9 clearly fills the gap between both gen3 devicesNo. 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., etc.
No. 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., etc.
YesDoes the FM9 have the same grid size as the Axe III?
I'll just pick up a 2nd FM3 on the aftermarket when this thing drops. Problem solved....
Sean Meredith-Jones