Closed Another amp block

Status
Not open for further replies.
Deadpool_25

Deadpool_25

Fractal Fanatic
I can't remember why it doesn't allow two now, so maybe it's not even possible. The amp block doesn't use up much CPU so....maybe? Yes? No?
 
Probably won’t happen. It would reduce the quality of the amp blocks. It was discussed a lot when the FM3 was initially announced.
 
chris said:
Probably won’t happen. It would reduce the quality of the amp blocks. It was discussed a lot when the FM3 was initially announced.
Click to expand...

Ah. Maybe that's what I was remembering. A friend was asking why it only had one and I couldn't give a proper answer. It's interesting because the amp block doesn't seem to take up much CPU. Maybe something to do with the programming architecture or something.
 
Deadpool_25 said:
I can't remember why it doesn't allow two now, so maybe it's not even possible. The amp block doesn't use up much CPU so....maybe? Yes? No?
Click to expand...

Isn’t the amp block the most CPU part of the modeling ? Previous units allocated one cpu to the amp block and the rest of the effects on a second one. I would assume this is because the amp modeling used a lot more processing than a chorus block, etc, no ?
 
lqdsnddist said:
Isn’t the amp block the most CPU part of the modeling ? Previous units allocated one cpu to the amp block and the rest of the effects on a second one. I would assume this is because the amp modeling used a lot more processing than a chorus block, etc, no ?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure. With just an input and output block connected by shunts, a patch sits at ~20%. Adding an amp block pushes that up to 21%. Add a cab and it's at ~24%. But I don't know that the CPU load is the only consideration.
 
Deadpool_25 said:
Ah. Maybe that's what I was remembering. A friend was asking why it only had one and I couldn't give a proper answer. It's interesting because the amp block doesn't seem to take up much CPU. Maybe something to do with the programming architecture or something.
Click to expand...
it doesn't show CPU usage because another CPU is dedicated to the Amp block and doesn't report it. the Cab also uses a different CPU, so it doesn't report much either.
 
chris said:
it doesn't show CPU usage because another CPU is dedicated to the Amp block and doesn't report it. the Cab also uses a different CPU, so it doesn't report much either.
Click to expand...

Wait, now I'm confused. I'm saying CPU but that's maybe not the right terminology? The FM3 has a single DSP (what I was calling a CPU). If I'm reading it correctly that single DSP has three cores (2x SHARC, and 1x ARM). In addition to the DSP, there's one GPU. Is that correct? If so, are you talking about the cores? So one core is handling the amp block, one is handling the cab, and one is handling effects (with the understanding that some "other" functions might be spread out)? Something along those lines?
 
Deadpool_25 said:
Wait, now I'm confused. I'm saying CPU but that's maybe not the right terminology? The FM3 has a single DSP (what I was calling a CPU). If I'm reading it correctly that single DSP has three cores (2x SHARC, and 1x ARM). In addition to the DSP, there's one GPU. Is that correct? If so, are you talking about the cores? So one core is handling the amp block, one is handling the cab, and one is handling effects (with the understanding that some "other" functions might be spread out)? Something along those lines?
Click to expand...

That is my understanding based on what I remember from older threads when the FM3 was still in development. This is also why there is only one reverb block. It takes a significant chunk of the second core and is not on the same core as the amp block. At least that's they way I remember it and I could be wrong!
 
Deadpool_25 said:
I'm not sure. With just an input and output block connected by shunts, a patch sits at ~20%. Adding an amp block pushes that up to 21%. Add a cab and it's at ~24%. But I don't know that the CPU load is the only consideration.
Click to expand...
It sounds a little bit decadent but if you wanna realise a two amp blocks setup with the FM 3, you could even buy two of these units (if you get two :D) and you would be still far away from the costs of an AXE FX III ;)
 
MrCrossroads83 said:
It sounds a little bit decadent but if you wanna realise a two amp blocks setup with the FM 3, you could even buy two of these units (if you get two :D) and you would be still far away from the costs of an AXE FX III ;)
Click to expand...
how much is an Axe3 these days?
 
Just adding to this wish.

I know this has been discussed on other forums and was already answered by FAS. But I really really wish I had the option of dual amps on the FM3. My primary tone on my Axe FX III has a blend of two amps and I wish I could just translate that over to the portable FM3 model. It is what it is, and Cliff already made his decision on this. But one can dream.... :)
 
So, you could have 4 different amps (4 Channels (A/B/C/D) on the same preset? Love my AX8 but trying to consider the ARES modeling by way of either the AXE III or the FM3.
 
LancerS said:
So, you could have 4 different amps (4 Channels (A/B/C/D) on the same preset? Love my AX8 but trying to consider the ARES modeling by way of either the AXE III or the FM3.
Click to expand...

Yes, one preset can have 4 different amps configured utilizing channels.

This video really helps to explain how it works, it's demonstrated with the FM3 but the same things apply to the Axe FX III.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom