FM3 Firmware Version 6.00 beta 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm curious what was different between them. Did you compare them to see?
Yep! The one that worked is unprocessed, creamy, still raw and very powerful 1959SPL, close to all eleven, with a drive in front of it, incredibly noisy with single coils, pushed through the 4x12 T75s. I had to switch to HB because the venue had bad electricity on top of cranked 1959SPL being already very noisy.
Mine was Matchless Chieftain, with probably too many Youtube compressor tricks, but still, but also quite cranked, with Klon in front of it. More "open sounding" and direct to my ears, but... My friends in the audience told me it sounded "digital" and "flat". It sounds just great with any backing I use at home at any volume. But sucks live.

When I got it, I ended up following some isolated guitar tracks as a guide.
I use factory presets as a reference. If I feel like my preset sound way off from factory presets, it's a red flag I "overdid" it. But the problem is that I cannot find the sound I'm looking for in the factory presets, so I just have to mess around with stuff, and when I "use my ears", I end up with presets which don't sound good live.
That said if you can't trust your ears then....not sure even how to respond. How would one have any idea what a good vs a bad sound is?
That's the problem right here. There are at least a few definitions of "good". Like - "if it sounds good, then it is good", right? But this might not be working live, meaning it is not actually good. And the opposite! What is "good" at the venue, just isn't fun to play at home, just not "good" enough. I don't see myself using Moore's preset at home, ever.
I test my presets playing with music at a decent volume. It gives me a pretty good idea of how it will work with other musicians as far as cutting through.
I play with recordings and backings at least 50% of the time. Pretty loud. But yeah, totally not what I hear at the venue, staying close to a drummer on one side and a bassist on another.
Unfortunately we're at the mercy of the sound person...
That might also be a part of the problem - that guy was really bad. Like I had to come to him a few times and ask to make someone louder, he just didn't pay any attention. But only a part of the problem - Marshall still sounded absolutely glorious. One other player asked me if he can play through it and he sound just better than everyone else, cutting through the mix.
 
I think 6.03 probably needs more DSP than the last FW. The same preset that had running, at top of DSP but working, on 6.02, after update last night to 6.03 overloads FM3 after restart the unit (not more changes in quality levels or blocks, just the update), and I had to put off a block to make the preset work.
Did anyone notice that too?
Is your preset by chance running at around 85% or more?
In 6.02 the warning was generated at 87%.
In 6.03 I reduced the warning to 85%.
 
Hello everyone! I just installed beta 3 on my FM3. When using the Dizzy V4 Silver 3 model, I noticed that the sound of this model changed dramatically from the previous version. Before it was the tight metal sound, but now the low end feels wooly and everything but tight. I also noticed, that there now is a bright switch in the realistic panel, which is not present on a real VH4 channel 3. In Firmware 6.0.0 beta 3 the Dizzy V4 Silver 2 model (which coincidentally does not have a bright switch, which is present on a real VH4 channel 2) feels a lot like the Dizzy V4 Silver 3 model from firmware 5.0. Is it possible, that there is some kind of mixup between the models in the new firmware?
 
Hello everyone! I just installed beta 3 on my FM3. When using the Dizzy V4 Silver 3 model, I noticed that the sound of this model changed dramatically from the previous version. Before it was the tight metal sound, but now the low end feels wooly and everything but tight. I also noticed, that there now is a bright switch in the realistic panel, which is not present on a real VH4 channel 3. In Firmware 6.0.0 beta 3 the Dizzy V4 Silver 2 model (which coincidentally does not have a bright switch, which is present on a real VH4 channel 2) feels a lot like the Dizzy V4 Silver 3 model from firmware 5.0. Is it possible, that there is some kind of mixup between the models in the new firmware?
We have not had a port of the Beta 7 (or release candidate) released for axe fx 3. The silver 3 model is not among the ones checked for Cygnus X-2 in this beta port fm3 currently has.

Update with all amps checked -- whether of beta 7 or something newer or both! -- will come. It's possible something changes with some amp sims.

I'm on the current fm3 beta but only using the checked amps ATM. Not sure how silver 3 changed from axe fx beta 4 to 7 though (we seem to have a port of beta 4).

But the Diezel are my most used amp sims, so for sure much of my attention will go there.
 
Last edited:
Is your preset by chance running at around 85% or more?
In 6.02 the warning was generated at 87%.
In 6.03 I reduced the warning to 85%.
Was just about to ask this, I had the same issue after updating from 6.02 to 6.03

What was the reason for reducing it to 85%? :)
 
I think 6.03 probably needs more DSP than the last FW. The same preset that had running, at top of DSP but working, on 6.02, after update last night to 6.03 overloads FM3 after restart the unit (not more changes in quality levels or blocks, just the update), and I had to put off a block to make the preset work.
Did anyone notice that too?
Since it's been noted in the release notes that CPU use has been improved and numerous people have reported a 5-7% reduction in CPU, I don't think that's the case...
 
Is your preset by chance running at around 85% or more?
In 6.02 the warning was generated at 87%.
In 6.03 I reduced the warning to 85%.
Sure that was what happened. I was on the border of the DSP ability on 6.02
Thank you, hope you can enlarge it that 2% in the next beta.
 
Since it's been noted in the release notes that CPU use has been improved and numerous people have reported a 5-7% reduction in CPU, I don't think that's the case...
The improvement in DSP use (really I don't notice so much... just a reduction of a 3-4% but I only run one own preset since 2 weeks) was from 5.03 to 6.0, wasn,t it? Or there has been another improvement of DSP use from 6.02 to 6.03?
Thanks!!!
 
The improvement in DSP use (really I don't notice so much... just a reduction of a 3-4% but I only run one own preset since 2 weeks) was from 5.03 to 6.0, wasn,t it? Or there has been another improvement of DSP use from 6.02 to 6.03?
Thanks!!!
No, it was 6.0...

So you added more CPU since getting onto 6.x?

Anyway, I think we know the answer now :)
 
Was just about to ask this, I had the same issue after updating from 6.02 to 6.03

What was the reason for reducing it to 85%? :)
The trigger for the warning was originally (and has always been) 85%. With the recent CPU improvements I was testing increasing the limit and accidentally committed the change to the release stream.
Sure that was what happened. I was on the border of the DSP ability on 6.02
Thank you, hope you can enlarge it that 2% in the next beta.
The trigger for the warning will remain at 85%.
The improvement in DSP use (really I don't notice so much... just a reduction of a 3-4% but I only run one own preset since 2 weeks) was from 5.03 to 6.0, wasn,t it? Or there has been another improvement of DSP use from 6.02 to 6.03?
Thanks!!!
There was no improvement in CPU usage from 6.02 to 6.03.

This has been stated numerous times before but I want to reiterate it here: The maximum recommended CPU usage is 80%. We trigger the CPU warning at 85% to give you a little wiggle room on presets which fluctuate slightly in CPU. However, building a preset which consistently runs above 80% is asking for trouble.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom