• We would like to remind our members that this is a privately owned, run and supported forum. You are here at the invitation and discretion of the owners. As such, rules and standards of conduct will be applied that help keep this forum functioning as the owners desire. These include, but are not limited to, removing content and even access to the forum.

    Please give yourself a refresher on the forum rules you agreed to follow when you signed up.

FM3 hot questions (and, hopefully, answers)

lqdsnddist

Axe-Master
The bigger screen makes sense in a bigger unit, like the AX8. The FM3 should have either been smaller or have another row of 3 buttons. The screen size interferes with both of those goals.

Can’t tell if this was meant to be a serious response or if you just forgot to use the sarcasm font..... ???
 

Kamil Kisiel

Experienced
Making the screen smaller would neither allow you to reduce the size of the unit nor put in another row of 3 buttons... Did you look at the rest of it? Also considering that the FC6 is the same size, you'd basically have to remove everything from the top to fit another 3 buttons.
 

Tones2

Inspired
Making the screen smaller would neither allow you to reduce the size of the unit nor put in another row of 3 buttons... Did you look at the rest of it? Also considering that the FC6 is the same size, you'd basically have to remove everything from the top to fit another 3 buttons.
OR make the screen a touch screen like the Headrush unit, which has 4 switches in almost the exact same size. Or have a phone blutooth editor link like Line 6 so you can have the really small HX stomp form factor with 3 switches. All the knobs and button thing seems so dated to me and I never use them other than for volume. I edit though software exclusively. But it's fine. I can just get a small TRS 2 switch unit with LED and that'll be enough.
 

Matt_B_77

Power User
I edit though software exclusively.
That's not always practical at a gig and so far, Fractal's editors (AX-8 and Axe FX) are designed for performance in that they use up CPU power and aren't necessarily speedy either. YMMV of course.
 

NaN

Member
There is a thing I still don't fully understand despite a lot has been said about it the last couple of days...

Is there really not enough cpu power in the FM3 for, let's say a high res amp on core 1 and another one on core 2, routed to a stereo cab and maybe (just maybe) one delay? o_O

The reason that I like the FM3 is that it is tiny and has tons of quality amps and cabs. (you know, those heavy things you have to lug around, cost a fortune and blow expensive tubes when you don't want it to happen). So, I'm more like an amp addict and love dual setups btw. I know there are fx addicts too and everything in between. I also get it when there has to be made compromises. Just saying I think it would be awesome if it would be possible to add another high res amp and ditch effects for it. I will buy an fx8 if I want fx ;)
 

DLC86

Power User
Just re-read these posts and I have a few questions.
ETA: If you add a Cab block which seems likely Core 1 goes to 67%, FYI.
So a cab block only uses 3%, how is that possible? Is there a separate DSP/accelerator dedicated to IR processing?
And how does that percentage change when using 2 IRs and/or ultrares IRs?

Core 2 is done. The only other thing you can put on there is Rev2 which uses 20% and it's currently at 85%.
Is there a chance you could assign, in the future, any other less cpu-demanding block(s) to core2 to use that 15% left?
 
Last edited:

ethomas1013

Power User
Is there a chance you could assign any other less cpu-demanding block(s) to core2 to use that 15% left?
The DSP was discussed pretty extensively in another thread (or maybe earlier in this thread?). Not currently and unlikely that the architecture will change.
 

Lou Lab

Inspired
I'm thinking that if I use the FM3 as an effect only (no amp/cab), I should be able to use a high quality reverb if I want to since the core dedicated to the amp/reverb would have plenty of juice available. That actually goes for a bunch of effects that could be driven by that same core if no cab/amp is used. Voila.
 
Last edited:

DLC86

Power User
The DSP was discussed pretty extensively in another thread (or maybe earlier in this thread?). Not currently and unlikely that the architecture will change.
Yeah, my question was about future development, not what's currently available.
Asking just cuz Greg said it "currently" only processes amp/rev1/rev2, so maybe they're evaluating the reallocation of other blocks.

PS: edited my question, should be clearer now.
 
G

Greg Girardin

Guest
Just re-read these posts and I have a few questions.

So a cab block only uses 3%, how is that possible? Is there a separate DSP/accelerator dedicated to IR processing?
And how does that percentage change when using 2 IRs and/or ultrares IRs?

Is there a chance you could assign any other less cpu-demanding block(s) to core2 to use that 15% left?
Yes. It's a CPU accelerator thing. A second Cab block would use a lot more than 3%.

For various technical reasons it's best for us to deterministically assign a block to a particular core.
 

pauliusmm

Fractal Fanatic
I don't see a mini Tuner on the top of the FM3 display like on the III. Is it still available? It was really handy on a III.
 

Jack Napalm

Power User
Yes. It's a CPU accelerator thing. A second Cab block would use a lot more than 3%.

For various technical reasons it's best for us to deterministically assign a block to a particular core.
What he really means is that they know what's best for their architecture and arm chair designers in a forum don't. For all you people not keeping score. :D
 

DLC86

Power User
Yes. It's a CPU accelerator thing. A second Cab block would use a lot more than 3%.
I meant using 2 IRs within a single cab block, not in another cab block.
But from your response I guess it always uses 3% regardless of number of IRs and resolution. If that's the case this is awesome!

For various technical reasons it's best for us to deterministically assign a block to a particular core.
Didn't mean to let the user choose which core to use for a given block, I was just wondering if you (developers) could eventually move one of the blocks that are currently on core1 to core2.

Example: both dly1 and dly2 currently runs on core1, you could make it so that dly1 runs on core1 and dly2 on core2, so core2 could run amp, rev1 and dly2 at the same time.

(I took dly2 just as an example, I don't know how much cpu it uses. It could be a chorus, a flanger or whatever.
The point is that doing something like this, if possible, would save some cpu on core1 and allow us to have one more block on the chain.)
 
Last edited:
G

Greg Girardin

Guest
I meant using 2 IRs within a single cab block, not in another cab block.
But from your response I guess it always uses 3% regardless of number of IRs and resolution. If that's the case this is awesome!

Didn't mean that, I was just wondering if you'd eventually could move one of the blocks that are currently on core1 to core2.

Example: both dly1 and dly2 currently runs on core1, you could make it so that dly1 runs on core1 and dly2 on core2, so core2 could run amp, rev1 and dly2 at the same time.

(I took dly2 just as an example, I don't know how much cpu it uses. It could be a chorus, a flanger or whatever.
The point is that doing something like this, if possible, would save some cpu on core1 and allow us to have one more block on the chain.)
No, both IRs in the cab block are exploiting HW acceleration. A 2nd cab block doing the same functionality would consume a lot more than 3%. Forget the actual difference but it's not trivial.

Determining a CPU allocation scheme takes some thought. Indeed, last month both delays, both reverbs and the amp were on the 2nd core but we had to compromise Amp quality so we decided against that.
 

DLC86

Power User
No, both IRs in the cab block are exploiting HW acceleration. A 2nd cab block doing the same functionality would consume a lot more than 3%. Forget the actual difference but it's not trivial.

Determining a CPU allocation scheme takes some thought. Indeed, last month both delays, both reverbs and the amp were on the 2nd core but we had to compromise Amp quality so we decided against that.
It seems I'm not very good at explaining my thoughts in English, LOL!
I was always talking about just 1 cab block (with 1 or 2 IRs) :)

Anyway, thanks for your explanation, now it's clear ;)
 

yeky83

Experienced
No, both IRs in the cab block are exploiting HW acceleration. A 2nd cab block doing the same functionality would consume a lot more than 3%. Forget the actual difference but it's not trivial.
Just to clarify, does 1 Cab block using 2 Ultra-Res IRs consume 3%? Or are you talking about 2 IRs of a different length?

Thank you.
 
Top Bottom