Calling FM9 Owners ...... FM3 Preset loaded into FM9 ...... CPU % Use Readings Please .... (?)

ben ifin

ben ifin

Experienced
Hi all !

Am trying to decide whether or not to go the FM9 route from my FM3 which I am currently very happy with.

To assist, could an FM9 Owner here please load the attached FM3 Preset and report back:-

=> what the max. CPU % reads / hits (?)
=> what CPU % range it bounces between (?)

I have replaced my 2 " Jay " IR's with 2 stock 1x12 Cabs so there is no issue in terms of "un-approvedly" distributing anything :)

Many thanks in advance,
Ben
 

Attachments

  • 012_FM3 to FM9 TEST.syx
    24.1 KB · Views: 3
Wow .... thats awesome ....... many thanks !!!!! ..... would you mind please letting me know what it reads with the Reverb in Economy mode (?)

Only re-asking as I never use Reverb in anything other than Economy mode as that is sonically plenty for my needs.

As a reference, the above Preset with Reverb in Economy mode in my FM3 runs at pretty much bang on %80 on my FM3 with erratic fluctuations from %78 <-> %82 :(

Huge thanks in advance :)

Ben
 
Last edited:
The CPU shouldn’t be affected by the quality on the FM9. They run on one of the cores. This doesn’t count towards the CPU number.

I switch all mine to Ultra on the FM9 because of this.
 
biskitboy said:
The CPU shouldn’t be affected by the quality on the FM9. They run on one of the cores. This doesn’t count towards the CPU number.

I switch all mine to Ultra on the FM9 because of this.
Click to expand...

Sorry but this is a lack of understanding on my part ... but are you saying that ... using my preset above as an example ...... using the Reverb in Economy Quality mode -vs- using the Reverb in the Ultra/Highest quality mode ..... keeps the CPU % usage meter at the same usage reading % regardless of the Reverb mode chosen in the FM9 (?)

If so ... I don't really understand how/why the FM9 would even have anything other than the Ultra/Highest quality mode for Reverb (?)

Or does the FM9 not even have a Reverb Economy mode (?)

I'm a bit / very confused ?!?!

Many thanks,
Ben
 
Last edited:
I would assume it doesn’t default to this because of portability. Without a doubt someone is going to complain that their III/FM3 preset doesn’t sound the same on the FM9.
 
Tremonti said:
Never thought of that. If the Reverb is a separate core and maxing it all out, really doesn't effect the cpu meter, Why would you not just make all "Ultra" mode?
Click to expand...

biskitboy said:
I would assume it doesn’t default to this because of portability. Without a doubt someone is going to complain that their III/FM3 preset doesn’t sound the same on the FM9.
Click to expand...

Sorry ...... I'm clearly late to the party on this issue ..... but I cant understand why 1 whole CPU core is dedicated just for Reverb ? My non-technical mind doesn't understand "the why" of this (?)

To me that seems potentially (?) "limiting" when instead the Reverb could perhaps be "dynamically assigned" and therefore release the maximum 4 x CPU cores power for all blocks - including Reverb ?

I clearly don't understand "why" it is this way :( Although I'm sure there are good reasons for all of this.

Would be great / curious to know how the FM9's total "power" is spread over the 4 cores ? @yek can you possibly advise / clarify at all ?

Ben
 
Last edited:
ben ifin said:
Sorry ...... I'm clearly late to the party on this issue ..... but I cant understand why 1 whole CPU core is dedicated just for Reverb ? My non-technical mind doesn't understand "the why" of this (?)

To me that seems potentially (?) "limiting" when instead the Reverb could perhaps be "dynamically assigned" and therefore release the maximum 4 x CPU cores power for all blocks - including Reverb ?

I clearly don't understand "why" it is this way :( Although I'm sure there are good reasons for all of this.

Would be great / curious to know how the FM9's total "power" is spread over the 4 cores ? @yek can you possibly advise / clarify at all ?

Ben
Click to expand...

I would look at it more as offloading the processing of the delays and reverbs to a dedicated processor to free up some of the main processor capability. It basically achieves the same thing you are asking about.
 
Fractal Audio Systems looks at how to improve the experience and remove limitations. But that isn’t the whole story. There is more going on than just what anyone on the forum who isn’t named FractalAudio knows. The future stays with him and a close circle at the center of the storm.

While it is true that the quality of the reverb used and the cpu space that involved was a limiting factor in building presets prior to this architecture, it’s also true that this isn’t the end of the evolution of this product. The “why” a whole core is dedicated currently to a certain job may also be to create space for a future functionality or expansion.

Some whys we know, some we don’t. Just be happy it is”why so much?” instead of “why so little?”
 
Admin M@ said:
Yes indeed.

Amps, Reverbs, and Delays run in such a way that they barely impact the CPU meter. Think of it like a DSP puzzle and those pieces fit perfectly to form the edges. What you do with the remainder is up to you.
Click to expand...

Thanks heaps for chiming in :)

Again, please pardon my ignorance ...... as an example ....... say the Delay and Reverb Cores are only being used at, say, %50 capacity ..... is then the Delay and Reverb Cores "spare capacity" then made available to the rest of the unit to assist in running "more stuff" in the FM9 .... -or- .... does that spare / unused Delay and Reverb Core "power" remain "unused" by the rest of the FM9 (?)

Again my apologies if I am totally not understanding how this all works.

Many thanks,
Ben
 
ben ifin said:
Thanks heaps for chiming in :)

Again, please pardon my ignorance ...... as an example ....... say the Delay and Reverb Cores are only being used at, say, %50 capacity ..... is then the Delay and Reverb Cores "spare capacity" then made available to the rest of the unit to assist in running "more stuff" in the FM9 .... -or- .... does that spare / unused Delay and Reverb Core "power" remain "unused" by the rest of the FM9 (?)

Again my apologies if I am totally not understanding how this all works.

Many thanks,
Ben
Click to expand...
the Reverb core is dedicated to Reverb. if it's not used, nothing uses it as it's dedicated to Reverb.
 
chris said:
the Reverb core is dedicated to Reverb. if it's not used, nothing uses it as it's dedicated to Reverb.
Click to expand...
Thanks Chris :)

From my purely non-technical layman's perspective ... I assume then that is also the case for the dedicated Delay Core (?) .... and if so, that would seem like CPU power not being otherwise utilized by the FM9 to maximize the FM9's total power capability to run the maximum no. of blocks / efx possible (?)

Again - much greater minds than mine will doubtlessly have designed it this way for good reason :) ...... I'm just struggling to get my head around the potential lack of usage of unused / dormant CPU core power that [presumably] could (?) be used by the rest of the FM9 (?)

All the best,
Ben
 
ben ifin said:
Thanks Chris :)

From my purely non-technical layman's perspective ... I assume then that is also the case for the dedicated Delay Core (?) .... and if so, that would seem like CPU power not being otherwise utilized by the FM9 to maximize the FM9's total power capability to run the maximum no. of blocks / efx possible (?)

Again - much greater minds than mine will doubtlessly have designed it this way for good reason :)...... I'm just struggling to get my head around the potential lack of usage of unused / dormant CPU core power that [presumably] could (?) be used by the rest of the FM9 (?)

All the best,
Ben
Click to expand...
Block CPU usage doesn’t just “go to cores with available capacity.” That would take time and slow down everything. You have to determine what runs where so it can instantly do that.
 
chris said:
Block CPU usage doesn’t just “go to cores with available capacity.” That would take time and slow down everything. You have to determine what runs where so it can instantly do that.
Click to expand...

Thanks Chris ...... great point ..... I hadn't even thought about that aspect :) .... although it seems to work fine on the Axe 3 and FM3 (?)

Ben
 
Last edited:
unix-guy said:
@ben ifin - you're aware that the FM3 is similar, right? The Amp block and Delays run on a dedicated core. The remaining effects run on the other core.
Click to expand...
More aware now :)

Thing is that on my FM3, running the Reverbs on Economy vs Ultra/High creates a huge difference in CPU % usage ....... I thought that would also be the case on the FM9 ...... I have now found out that the FM9 is "built" differently ...... %99.9 of my memory tells me also that when I had my rack Axe FX 3 MK1 ... changing the Reverbs to Economy from Ultra/High also created huge differences in CPU % usage.

I thought the FM9 would "respond" the same way as my old rack Axe FX 3 MK1 and FM3 ..... and am really intrigued that it does not / is "built" differently ?

And in my "very limited technical brain" [:)] I don't really understand why the FM9 doesn't "work" like the Axe 3 and FM3 in this respect ..... to my limited understanding ...... it seems that the way the [top tier] Axe 3 and [lowest tier] FM3 do it, is a "fuller" / "more comprehensive" use of the total available CPU power of the unit at any given point in time ?

I could of course have the "bull by the horns" here in terms of my understandings of this whole issue :)

All the best :)
Ben
 
Last edited:
ben ifin said:
More aware now :)

Thing is that on my FM3, running the Reverbs on Economy vs Ultra/High creates a huge difference in CPU % usage ....... I thought that would also be the case on the FM9 ...... I have now found out that the FM9 is "built" differently ...... when I had my rack Axe FX 3 MK1 ... changing the Reverbs to Economy from Ultra/High also created a huge differences in CPU % usage.

I thought the FM9 would "respond" the same way as my old rack Axe FX 3 MK1 and FM3 ..... and am really intrigued that it does not / is "built" differently .... and my "very limited technical brain" [:)] doesn't really understand why the FM9 doesn't "work" like the Axe 3 and FM3 in this respect ?

All the best :)
Ben
Click to expand...
I posted this in another thread:

In regards to the cores:

Axe Fx III:
  • Dedicated CPU for Amp modeling
  • All other effects run on the other CPU
FM3:
  • Dedicated core for Amp modeling and Delays
  • All other effects run on the other core
FM9:
  • Dedicated core for Amp modeling
  • Dedicated core for Reverbs
  • Dedicated core for Delays
  • All other effects run on remaining core
Click to expand...

This explains why the CPU use for Reverb in particular is different on the FM9 than the Axe Fx III and FM3.

It also explains why the CPU use for Delays are different on the FM9 and FM3 than on the Axe Fx III.

It also explains why running either 1 or 2 Amp blocks on either the Axe Fx III or FM9 has no real effect on CPU usage (similarly, running 0 or 1 on the FM3).

They are not the same... They are similar, but with distinct differences.

As someone who pretty much always had Delay, Reverb and Amp blocks in my presets, I appreciate the design of the FM9 a lot. I was able to mostly convert my main Axe Fx III kitchen sink preset to the FM9, aside from some minor changes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom