FM3: Allocate more CPU to Virtual Capo?

sumitagarwal

sumitagarwal

Inspired
According to the wiki the FM3 compromises on Virtual Capo performance in order to retain CPU availability for additional effects. In my particular use-case when I'm using the Virtual Capo I'll be running the FM3 out into a separate rig. In that case I won't be needing any additional effects, or even the AMP block, so is there any way to allocate more CPU to the Virtual Capo and bring it up to the performance of the Axe-FX III or FM9?
 
acuba777 said:
That's what I have done and no regret) Everything I need is inside FM3 now
Click to expand...

I a/b compared those two ... the FM3's virtual capo steals more highs compared to the Digitech.
Latency is almost identical but still, the Drop does not feel as wobbly as the FM3 - and delivers a bit more "signal".
My tuning is Drop C and sometimes I play one to two semitones pitched down ...
 
MrPond said:
I a/b compared those two ... the FM3's virtual capo steals more highs compared to the Digitech.
Latency is almost identical but still, the Drop does not feel as wobbly as the FM3 - and delivers a bit more "signal".
My tuning is Drop C and sometimes I play one to two semitones pitched down ...
Click to expand...
Can’t you compensate for highs with EQ somehow? And did you wrote to beta post about it? Maybe FAS can correct virtual capo?
 
fcs101 said:
It's a niche request. More resources for reverb, delay, yada, yada, yada.... Sorry, not being rude, but just pointing out that FAS has to ensure everything is equitable for all concerned.
Click to expand...

Not sure I understand this. The request for different quality options for the Virtual Capo seems quite reasonable and would not impede things being "equitable for all concerned".

Just as with the reverb, if a higher quality VC is a priority, you bump up the quality, reduce the use of other blocks to keep the CPU where it should be. And, if quality isn't a priority, one would use the normal quality VC just as we all do now. It doesn't hurt anyone's ability to work as they would want.

Perhaps post this in the wish list?
 
stub said:
Not sure I understand this. The request for different quality options for the Virtual Capo seems quite reasonable and would not impede things being "equitable for all concerned".

Just as with the reverb, if a higher quality VC is a priority, you bump up the quality, reduce the use of other blocks to keep the CPU where it should be. And, if quality isn't a priority, one would use the normal quality VC just as we all do now. It doesn't hurt anyone's ability to work as they would want.

Perhaps post this in the wish list?
Click to expand...
That sounds easy, but how much do you or I know about what really is entailed with that? What would it mean resource wise to enhance the VC to that next level? I'm guessing quite a bit. I'll give FAS the benefit of the doubt and assume that was already considered.
 
You set a pretty high bar for suggestions: i.e., avoid any ideas that FAS may have already considered; and, perhaps you undervalue the process of discussing ideas to build interest in a feature.

I don't doubt there are many unseen challenges to bringing features like this from wish-list to beta, but we need not filter our ideas with such a high level of pragmatism. After all FAS seems to excel at the seemingly impossible.
 
stub said:
You set a pretty high bar for suggestions: i.e., avoid any ideas that FAS may have already considered; and, perhaps you undervalue the process of discussing ideas to build interest in a feature.

I don't doubt there are many unseen challenges to bringing features like this from wish-list to beta, but we need not filter our ideas with such a high level of pragmatism. After all FAS seems to excel at the seemingly impossible.
Click to expand...
No, I'm not setting the bar high, just confronting the OP with reality. As you said above, maybe place something on the wish list for a better VC.

Not certain how long you've followed the forum, but round about FW 5.02 people started noticing big improvements to the VC. As, I suppose, the algorithms became more efficient.

So, if you imagine a reverb block type option where the user could select a level of performance for the VC which affected the capacity to run other effects, I think this developmental process in the FM3 is a good indicator that the highest tier for such an option would too severely impact the overall functionality of the unit. What if you could only run the VC plus one or two other effects? Is it possible the unit can run the VC unhindered? Maybe, I don't know, but I'm sure there are lots of things this unit could do that would effectively turn it into one expensive stomp box. Certainly FAS has to consider overall functionality. Hope that makes sense.

I personally don't use the VC, but it's my understanding, at least with the release of 5.02 that folks were very happy with it.
 
fcs101 said:
I personally don't use the VC, but it's my understanding, at least with the release of 5.02 that folks were very happy with it.
Click to expand...
It works GREAT!!
If I really demanded perfect Drop C tuning I would physically have a guitar permanently set up that way.
 
GitGuy513 said:
It works GREAT!!
If I really demanded perfect Drop C tuning I would physically have a guitar permanently set up that way.
Click to expand...
That's my understanding, so I was sort of surprised when this thread popped up. @Ugly Bunny was previously posting quite a bit about it needing improvement and this is what he posted after FW 5.02:

https://forum.fractalaudio.com/threads/fm3-firmware-version-5-02-beta-1.182597/post-2246214

I haven't seen too many posts from him lately, but maybe he could weigh in.
 
Last edited:
fcs101 said:
That's my understanding, so I was sort of surprised when this thread popped up. @Ugly Bunny was previously posting quite a bit about it needing improvement and this is what he posted after FW 4.xx something or other:

https://forum.fractalaudio.com/threads/fm3-firmware-version-5-02-beta-1.182597/post-2246214

I haven't seen too many posts from him lately, but maybe he could weigh in.
Click to expand...
I could be slightly skewed because for the first 25 years of playing the idea that I would be able to do what the FM3 can do with the VC was unimaginable. I was sort of lucky because I got on the Fractal train with the FM3 the very week Cygnus was introduced and then in quick succession the VC and other things were improved. That was about the time @Ugly Bunny was less than pleased, but he seemed like he was satisfied when things improved.

Also, I’m by no means a coding guy or expert, but I do understand DSP’s and what it takes to build a software platform based around sophisticated hardware. It’s a lot more than I would like to imagine.
 
The virtual capo is more of a practice tool for me. When I play live, I use multiple guitars or a real capo.
When practicing, the latency - which the VC adds - doesn't bother me in principle. But live, I wouldn't use it. For over 30 years, different tunings were always the excuse to my wife why I need so many different guitars 😀 .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom