Joe Bfstplk
Legend!
I would totally buy an FM9 Mk2 Turbo with bigger scribblestrip displaysThere's also a 1G version. If they were going to add a Turbo that's the one I'd want to see.
I would totally buy an FM9 Mk2 Turbo with bigger scribblestrip displaysThere's also a 1G version. If they were going to add a Turbo that's the one I'd want to see.
I probably would too, not for the bigger strips, but if they doubled the CPU/DSP it'd be getting into the FX3 range.I would totally buy an FM9 Mk2 Turbo with bigger scribblestrip displays
Yes, that, too. The scribblestrip improvement is a big deal, tho, when you start to see like Mr. Magoo....I probably would too, not for the bigger strips, but if they doubled the CPU/DSP it'd be getting into the FX3 range.
It's been already done many times on arm architectures example: search for arm-doom on github.Look man, I know what you're thinking and the answer is yes, the Axe 3 can probably run Doom.
It's not the same.You can just say “I don't know”, no reason to deflect. When you buy a computer, don’t you want to know the processor?
It also increases the chance of errors.Not sure where it was mentioned, but Cliff & Co do not overclock their CPUs. I think it's ill-advised as it shortens the life of chip, and they seem to take pride in their reliability.
I highly doubt a pair of SC-594s would be more powerful than an Axe-Fx III. The SHARC architecture is pretty long in the tooth and clock-for-clock is about 2.4 times slower than the TI architecture. Also, the DRAM interface on the "Griffin" chips is slower and only 16 bits wide (vs. 32 for TI).Processors-wise: Compared to the FM9 SC-587 pairs (still more powerful DSP-wise than the asymetric QC SC-589 + SC-573 pair IMO), AD seems to offer soon a new 1Ghz SC-594 (with up to 2MB L2 SRAM!) beast that also features enhanced FIIR FIR/IIR offload engines running at Core clock frequency for added processing power (in theory a pair of these could provide more power than an axe FX3?). The A5 also features a 1Ghz clock that could maybe help with the latency on the USB interfaces, not sure about that.
Cliff said it won't be as powerful as the TI chips inside the axe, but a couple of those could get us pretty close to a floor version of the axe fx since that should basically be double the power.Processors-wise: Compared to the FM9 SC-587 pairs (still more powerful DSP-wise than the asymetric QC SC-589 + SC-573 pair IMO), AD seems to offer soon a new 1Ghz SC-594 (with up to 2MB L2 SRAM!) beast that also features enhanced FIIR FIR/IIR offload engines running at Core clock frequency for added processing power (in theory a pair of these could provide more power than an axe FX3?). The A5 also features a 1Ghz clock that could maybe help with the latency on the USB interfaces, not sure about that.
In fairness, the OP wasn’t asking the for ”the whole story”. The software is of course a vital component of any modeler. However there is a significant difference between hardware and software: the latter can be changed and improved after the purchase (in fact, my FM3 has improved significantly over time). Hardware can generally not be expanded. The quality of the DISP is therefore dictating the outer limit of how much the unit will be able to improve through firmware updates. It’s therefore not a completely trivial piece of information if you are (as I am) considering the purchase of an FM9.No one is getting "hammered". I'm simply replying in support of what Chris said that specs don't tell the whole story. The code itself is just as if not more important when it comes to proprietary embedded systems, so he was right on the money. No guff intended.
Interesting! Onboard ethernet could be fun.I just saw analog devices released a couple DSP chips with a newer/faster ARM Cortex
https://www.analog.com/en/products/adsp-sc598.html
https://www.analog.com/en/products/adsp-sc596.html
Yep. Behringer digital mixers have proven the OSC protocol is the way to go for remote controlling hardware, imho.Interesting! Onboard ethernet could be fun.
I'm thinking with a small, maybe four port switch in the unit, it could talk to a host computer and two FC units. But the FC would have to have separate power. I expect that Power over Ethernet probably wouldn't be a good choice in that scenario.Yep. Behringer digital mixers have proven the OSC protocol is the way to go for remote controlling hardware, imho.