FM3+ Could this be a thing?

laxu said:
The DSP chips should be rated for much higher than the about 50C temps the FM3 reports. With no direct cooling of the main board and no heatsinks I find it hard to believe that cooling is an issue. Let's not forget that the Quad Cortex packs more processing power into an enclosure that is significantly less tall and overall smaller than the FM3, with a touchscreen and 10 knobs/switches.

More likely reasons are that the FM9 processor wasn't available at the time or was too expensive for the price point they wanted. Obviously extra cooling systems also add design and hardware cost.
Click to expand...
The Quad Cortex is passively cooled too I believe? I would imagine there are other components Fractal uses like the screen for one that could be temperature sensitive and at the time it was or maybe still is a limiting factor.
 
Also, the FM3 needs to be able to work in direct sunlight on hot days for extended periods of time, not recommended of course, but it no doubt has to happen for some etc.
 
laxu said:
More likely reasons are that the FM9 processor wasn't available at the time or was too expensive for the price point they wanted.
Click to expand...
FM9 uses 2x the same processor as the FM3 IIRC. And interestingly, it has about 2x the internal space available for cooling and power needs. Coincidence?
 
Hellbat said:
FM9 uses 2x the same processor as the FM3 IIRC. And interestingly, it has about 2x the internal space available for cooling and power needs. Coincidence?
Click to expand...
Is it two of the same processor or just a single processor with more cores etc? Often DSP manufacturers have this kind of option.
 
laxu said:
The DSP chips should be rated for much higher than the about 50C temps the FM3 reports. With no direct cooling of the main board and no heatsinks I find it hard to believe that cooling is an issue. Let's not forget that the Quad Cortex packs more processing power into an enclosure that is significantly less tall and overall smaller than the FM3, with a touchscreen and 10 knobs/switches.

More likely reasons are that the FM9 processor wasn't available at the time or was too expensive for the price point they wanted. Obviously extra cooling systems also add design and hardware cost.
Click to expand...
Fractal stated that it was because of cooling...
 
From Manufacturing…

"There's only so much heat you can dissipate in a small chassis. Add to that the requirement for harsh environments (outside, on a hot day in direct sun) and you have to be careful. There actually is a fan in the unit but it's controlled by a thermostat and under normal conditions it doesn't run. Reliability is paramount in a product like this. You can't have it shutting down during a performance."
Click to expand...
"The DSP is NOT designed for a heat sink and doesn't need one."
Click to expand...

If a more powerful DSP can fit in the chassis, and run with the same support chips and power supply and thermal requirements, I’m sure Fractal will consider doing a speed bump. If they can do it for the same price they’d be silly not to. That’s not to say that the FX3 CPUs will work because they use different and additional glue chips and run hot enough they must have forced cooling.

So why not use the TI DSPs in everything? Power. The TI DSPs use more power and generate more heat requiring active cooling. They are also more complicated to use requiring dedicated clock generation units, multiple power supplies with specific sequencing requirements, etc." [53]
Click to expand...

The underlying Ares architecture is really well thought-out so they can take advantage of the improvements in the processors as they happen.

"The Axe-Fx III, FM3 and the other products in development all use the "Ares" architecture. This is a portable client-server architecture that allows easy porting of effects and models between hardware platforms. When we ported the Axe-Fx III models to the FM3 it involved nothing more than copying the file. We created the Ares architecture three years ago and all new products use it. It's a comprehensive hardware and software paradigm that allows any number of clients to communicate with a DSP server. The architecture supports multiple DSP cores. Clients can be located on the same core, a different core on the same IC, a different IC on the same board or on completely different hardware, i.e. an editor running on a PC or a foot controller. For example on the FM3 the UI is a client running on the ARM core. The Ares architecture is even processor agnostic. The Axe-Fx III uses TI DSPs while the FM3 uses Analog Devices. The Ares architecture was a huge undertaking with the ultimate goal of faster product development and easy synchronization of multiple product lines. It allows me to work on algorithms and new models and the engineers can then easily port those to the other products." [1]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
hi guys first of all, no offence to any of you as this is a dicussion thread i just want to share my observation i do have reading the last 3 pages of different posts. my point is that fractal is already offering a wide range of units that cover already a lot of needs. I mean some of us have concerns letting a 1k unit be located on stage being afraid of having a „beer“ attack by audience. Others have issues because the AXIII is with the fc6 or fc12 consuming to much space When beeing on the road, examples can be added almost endlessly. it is in nature of product design and development that a product, or solution will never meet 100% of all possible demands of all people requesting and that is a fact, otherwise there would be no space for different car manufacturers or microsoft and apple just to state some examples. So why not get over it and choose the device that comes nearest to each personal demand that each of us has that is currently available. I assume that fractal Is closely monitoring the forum and is really near to their customers listening to our wishes and demands, but they will not be able to release every year another unit. Myself I am a long term fractal user coming from axfx II, changed to Ax8 and now Fm3, because if deliveres nearly almost everything what i need For a price points that is fair, even though in europe there is another price model in place but that is another story. I mean i also wished for something special within the update for the latest beta, but it did not made its way into the latest version. I dont think that Fractal will built another unit that fits comercial wise between fm3 and fm9, in the near future. Price difference currently is around 600 usd comparing the 3 with the 9. redesigning a board with processors developing or even adjusting and maintaining code for another version and keeping it actual means additional man power from fractal. I frankly dont know fractals business case but I could imagine that even that fractal is super customer oriented that this kind of approach makes not so much sense Business wise as they also need to have an return on invest at some point of product life cycle. having sayed that off course let me say that i value each and every post from all of you out there. i think i had too much time tonight so I decided to share me thoughts on this.🤟
 
"The DSP is NOT designed for a heat sink and doesn't need one."

Ok that is an important distinction and means that just putting a heatsink and a fan on it is not feasible.

Typically you would put the fan in a position where it pushes air to the most important or highest heat components first. That's what the Axe-Fx 3 has but the FM3 does not but I'm sure Fractal has their reasons for that design like users accidentally blocking airflow on the sides with a FC6 so the bottom fan is more reliably unblocked but also is not directly blowing on the main board.

Frischerl said:
I dont think that Fractal will built another unit that fits comercial wise between fm3 and fm9, in the near future. Price difference currently is around 600 usd comparing the 3 with the 9. redesigning a board with processors developing or even adjusting and maintaining code for another version and keeping it actual means additional man power from fractal. I frankly dont know fractals business case but I could imagine that even that fractal is super customer oriented that this kind of approach makes not so much sense Business wise as they also need to have an return on invest at some point of product life cycle. having sayed that off course let me say that i value each and every post from all of you out there. i think i had too much time tonight so I decided to share me thoughts on this.🤟
Click to expand...
The FM3 and FM9 are mostly the same code already. Adding a FM3+ with FM9 DSP would not change anything more than configuration options for what I/O and switches are available, assuming Fractal's code is modular in the build phase of their firmware. It's an extra step to build and test of course so there's some extra resources needed.

I am also ok waiting for a next gen Fractal product for that. I would love to see them offer just two models next gen: a rack and compact floor unit with the same DSP. To me the modularity with the FC controllers is the move to right direction where you can add or remove parts as needed.

Even if a FM3+ comes to market, the current FM3 still needs support to avoid it becoming a second tier citizen like the AX8 did.
 
chris said:
i disagree with this. i don't think it's their MO.

they create the best thing possible with the available technology at every step. when tech improves, chips become available, and prices come down so it can be sold to many people, then they make the next device.

so they aren't holding back so you buy the next thing. they do the opposite and put in as much as possible at the time - and then keep updating it for free.
Click to expand...
Did not mean this as an insult or that they are holding out. I am saying the same thing as you. There will always be a next thing and they will make it. As soon as a better FM3 is possible, we will see it
 
Let's go for an FM4 and make the FM3 obsolete ;) oh wait ... then some would complain that the FM3 is the unwanted child and did not get enough attention. C'mon people, let's leave this up to them to decide if the market needs a new product :)
 
phillyred79 said:
The Quad Cortex is passively cooled too I believe? I would imagine there are other components Fractal uses like the screen for one that could be temperature sensitive and at the time it was or maybe still is a limiting factor.
Click to expand...
I own a Quad Cortex. It's a really fun unit. Capturing amps is a really cool feature, thus why I own it (and I only need a small reason to buy a new toy).
I thought about gigging it, and decided against it for a few reasons.

(taking sound quality out of the conversation)
1) It is not even remotely close to the same build quality as a Fractal foot pedal.
2) It gets hot just sitting on my desktop, and it's pitched up on a mesh computer stand, to allow the most optimal cooling.
3) It's buggy - go on FB and look at all of the people who seem to brick the unit - I don't trust it. Does it have something to do with how much tech they packed into this unit (and it not being able to run/cool properly)....I have no idea. All I know is it's not even close to as 'drunk proof' as Fractal products.

If Cliff and team put as much tech (1 DSP) into the FM3 as they thought was appropriate, and it means my unit is more stable - that is exactly what I want. That said - the FM3 sounds better :)
 
The only thing I wish the FM3 could do is run two amps in same Scene. Since it can’t be done I’ll save up for III which would fit me better than FM9 since I don’t play out. My only regret is I paid $1500 for FM3…the way it goes I guess.
 
rossipedia said:
More horsepower means more heat. Thermodynamics cannot be ignored. You put something with more horsepower in there, it's gonna be hotter. And if somehow it's not, it sure as hell isn't going to be cheaper. At least, not for this generation.
Click to expand...
Kinda. Increasing the speed by raising the clock rate will do that in a brute-force way, but there’s another method.

A constant goal of semiconductor manufacturing is to reduce the die size which leads to the same chip in a smaller space. Smaller chips run faster because the electrons don’t have to move as far. They also generate less heat and use less energy. Higher speed, less energy and less heat means the systems using the chip can be smaller, lighter, with smaller power supplies possibly even being battery powered or have longer battery life.

Also, smaller die mean a higher chip yield per wafer, which works two ways, it helps increase income for the manufacturers and it helps reduce the cost to the consumers… if the free market is working correctly.

The problem with reducing die is there are physical limits to the size of the traces. Electricity and electrical noise and conductivity of the wafer materials behave differently, so the engineers constantly try to shrink without physics getting in the way.

I used to work in IT in the flagship wafer fab of a leading semiconductor company and they were constantly chasing these things. I’ve been out of there for 20 years but the challenges remain the same.
 
Yeah, I'm aware of all that. I thought I pretty much covered the whole "advancement of technology" bit with:

rossipedia said:
At least, not for this generation.
Click to expand...

But I guess not ¯\(ツ)/¯

We might see a MkII of the FM3 at some point, depending on if it makes sense to re-use the same form factor and architecture with an updated processor. It might just make more sense for Fractal to build the next generation of floor modelers instead. All depends on what the best decision for Fractal as a business is.

If we do, we'll probably get an updated FM9 as well (since I believe it's using the same guts as the FM3, just with more ?). But again, once die reductions reach the point where Fractal can put a better, more powerful CPU inside the FM3, it might more sense to just build the next thing.

I don't think there was ever a MKII of the AX8, so I don't think there's precedent for an improved version of a Fractal floor modeler yet.
 
rossipedia said:
Yeah, I'm aware of all that. I thought I pretty much covered the whole "advancement of technology" bit with:



But I guess not ¯\(ツ)/¯

We might see a MkII of the FM3 at some point, depending on if it makes sense to re-use the same form factor and architecture with an updated processor. It might just make more sense for Fractal to build the next generation of floor modelers instead. All depends on what the best decision for Fractal as a business is.

If we do, we'll probably get an updated FM9 as well (since I believe it's using the same guts as the FM3, just with more ?). But again, once die reductions reach the point where Fractal can put a better, more powerful CPU inside the FM3, it might more sense to just build the next thing.

I don't think there was ever a MKII of the AX8, so I don't think there's precedent for an improved version of a Fractal floor modeler yet.
Click to expand...
https://www.thegearpage.net/board/index.php?threads/the-fractal-audio-fm9-is-here.2283423/page-10 is important. If a faster chip becomes available that doesn’t require reworking anything else then I’m sure they’ll strongly consider it, like they did with the FX3 Turbo. If they have to redesign the boards I suspect they’ll hold off.

They have contracts to purchase certain numbers of chassis, switch assemblies, fans, etc. to help reduce the prices. Throwing in a new design midstream can be costly unless their suppliers see some major benefit for it too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom