Bar graph representing diff between axeiii, fm9, fm3?

jzucker

jzucker

Experienced
Still trying to decide whether to upgrade from my FM3. I've seen the matrix. I think FM9 looks like a good compromise for me but how much power does it have relative to the other two? I know that it can do multiple amp blocks and has the latest algorithms but does the power allow significantly more blocks than fm3 without maxing cpu? For example, could I fit the huge Holdsworth preset in along with multiple other amps, drives, delays, cabs?
 
Because of the way the DSP cores are allocated to certain effects in the smaller units the difference in practice can be difficult to get a precise apples to apples comparison across the board. It sort of depends on the particular preset in question. Generally though, the FM9 is roughly twice as powerful as the FM3 since it has two of the same DSP chip that is used in the FM3. The Axe III uses more powerful DSP chips and is roughly twice as powerful as the FM9 and about 4 times as powerful as the FM3. Again, that doesn't necessarily mean that a preset that runs at 80% CPU on the FM3 will run at 20% CPU on the Axe III. It depends on the blocks and features used.
 
thanks, that makes sense. It seems the FM9 would have more than enough horsepower to run the preset I'm thinking of in a scene along with various other amps and delays in other channels/scenes
 
Only the current channel in each block contributes to the CPU load, though it can spike when things are changed and modifiers are used. All blocks in the preset, enabled or bypassed, contribute to the CPU load.

I don't have an FM9 to test, but I'm sure someone here that has one would be willing to try out a particular preset and let you know the CPU load they see. Post the preset in question (if it's not commercial) over in the FM9 forum and I'm sure someone there can help you out.
 
mr_fender said:
Because of the way the DSP cores are allocated to certain effects in the smaller units the difference in practice can be difficult to get a precise apples to apples comparison across the board. It sort of depends on the particular preset in question. Generally though, the FM9 is roughly twice as powerful as the FM3 since it has two of the same DSP chip that is used in the FM3. The Axe III uses more powerful DSP chips and is roughly twice as powerful as the FM9 and about 4 times as powerful as the FM3. Again, that doesn't necessarily mean that a preset that runs at 80% CPU on the FM3 will run at 20% CPU on the Axe III. It depends on the blocks and features used.
Click to expand...
jzucker said:
thanks, that makes sense. It seems the FM9 would have more than enough horsepower to run the preset I'm thinking of in a scene along with various other amps and delays in other channels/scenes
Click to expand...
I've ported a number of presets from the FX3 to the FM9, and sometimes to the FM3, and it's surprising how well the FM9 can handle a big FX3 preset, precisely because of its use of the DSP cores. There have been times I expected to see it barf and/or die, and it barely changed the CPU %. It's a perverse experiment sometimes. :)
 
In choosing between FM9 and Axe-Fx III it mostly comes down to form-factor. Do you want a floor unit or a rack unit?

Yes, the Axe-Fx III is more powerful but the FM9 is more than powerful enough for the majority of users.
 
One other consideration is having access to the latest features: the Axe-FX III gets the latest models and features 99% of the time. Every time there is a new Axe-FX III firmware release, FM9 and FM3 owners start asking for the latest features to be ported to their units. It can take time for some features to port, and for the FM3, some might not able to. Gapless channel, scene, and preset switching was a big one that came to the Axe-FX III recently, but it took months for that to be ported to the FM9. This might not be a big thing for you, but it might be worth it to consider. Especially if you enjoy the prospect of joining public betas for testing of new features, the Axe-FX III is the way to go. If you look at the release notes for the Axe-FX III, you can get a good overview of what features come to unit:

https://wiki.fractalaudio.com/wiki/index.php?title=Firmware_release_notes_-_Axe-Fx_III

Best of luck on your decision!
 
I have the AFX3 and have used it for years, probably about a year ago I got the FM9 as well. Since then I have hardly had any need for the AFX3 other than to be my Logic interface (just because it is rack mounted) and my FM9 stays on the floor for jamming and taking to live shows. At the end of the day, if the AFX3 did stop working then the FM9 would easily hold the fort.

I have had to comprise very slightly on my FM9 presets vs the AFX3, however I have a really powerful multipurpose preset now on the FM9 with 2 amps, multiple reverbs, delays and drives. Pretty much does it all!

So I think from my experience that you are right, the FM9 would be a good compromise from a cost perspective.
 
jzucker said:
Unfortunately doesn't show fm3 and fm9 so it doesn't help my decision
Click to expand...
Hi Jack, Daniel here. We spoke a long time ago when I ordered your books. Hope you are well.

Part of the reason for lack of a current bar graph is likely down to what was explained by Cliff above. The architecture of the FM9 makes it difficult to compare the III and the FM9 as the FM9 processors have specific roles that can in some ways make it seem more powerful than the III.

I prefer the form factor of the FM3 as you may too, but it's never felt as powerful as my AxeFx IIxl+. I already own the first FM3 and the IIImkII, but I purchased an FM9 this week to have a more fully featured floor unit, and for the SPDIF in and out. I can gang units together when patches get beyond the capability of one unit--future and present proofing of sorts. The FM3 only has SPDIF out. The FM3 also lacks the "special sauce" on the input impedance which has always bugged me.

The FM3 is a beautiful unit, but they had to impose limits on algorithms and otherwise to fit it into the box. If you are going for simple straight ahead tones, and/or throw a pedal or two on either side, it's perfect for small clubs and much, much more. Cheers, D

Edit: Re-reading your original post, and apropos Holdsworth... I always run up against limits when I try to combine Holdsworth tones with others that I want side by side. Having two Multi-Delays alone will make the III or FM9 well worth it. I do recommend making sure you get the most recent version of either.
 
Last edited:
rockstarjazzcat said:
Hi Jack, Daniel here. We spoke a long time ago when I ordered your books. Hope you are well.

Part of the reason for lack of a current bar graph is likely down to what was explained by Cliff above. The architecture of the FM9 makes it difficult to compare the III and the FM9 as the FM9 processors have specific roles that can in some ways make it seem more powerful than the III.

I prefer the form factor of the FM3 as you may too, but it's never felt as powerful as my AxeFx IIxl+. I already own the first FM3 and the IIImkII, but I purchased an FM9 this week to have a more fully featured floor unit, and for the SPDIF in and out. I can gang units together when patches get beyond the capability of one unit--future and present proofing of sorts. The FM3 only has SPDIF out. The FM3 also lacks the "special sauce" on the input impedance which has always bugged me.

The FM3 is a beautiful unit, but they had to impose limits on algorithms and otherwise to fit it into the box. If you are going for simple straight ahead tones, and/or throw a pedal or two on either side, it's perfect for small clubs and much, much more. Cheers, D

Edit: Re-reading your original post, and apropos Holdsworth... I always run up against limits when I try to combine Holdsworth tones with others that I want side by side. Having two Multi-Delays alone will make the III or FM9 well worth it. I do recommend making sure you get the most recent version of either.
Click to expand...
thanks, i already have an FM3 and love it but would like the better spring reverb algo as well as multiple amp blocks and more delays...
 
If I gigged regularly, I would definitely go with the FM9. It's the sweet spot for power and portability. Pricewise it's probably the best bargain too. For home and studio work, it's hard to beat the horsepower and options of the Axe III. It's nice to get all the new features first too.
 
mr_fender said:
If I gigged regularly, I would definitely go with the FM9. It's the sweet spot for power and portability. Pricewise it's probably the best bargain too. For home and studio work, it's hard to beat the horsepower and options of the Axe III. It's nice to get all the new features first too.
Click to expand...
I don't have a studio rack or room for one in my office/studio. Otherwise, the axeiii would be a no-brainer...
 
For live I have the FM9 and the AxeIII and have been using the AXEIII for pretty much everything. Live we use different tunings (virtual capo works great for this) and I pitch detune on a lot of my settings to thicken them up. Lack of two pitch blocks is the deal breaker for me between the FM9 and AxeIII for that. I also have my wireless and IEM (prewired) in the same rack and everything routed to an easy to hook patch panel for fast setup and tear down. Other than those two things I can't really think of any reason I would pick one over the other.

For home studio it is a wash. I don't use the I/O's so much as the USB connection and I like the sound of the Eventide plugin for pitch detune in the DAW so either unit works great. FM9 is great to throw in case for practice (but FM3 is probably just as for for that).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom