• 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)

Do we know yet if the ARES amp modeling is the same as the Axe FX III?

I'm currently using an Axe FX II with the latest firmware, and from what I understand that has part of the Ares modeling, but not entirely. LOVE the sound I'm getting which is why I haven't been in any rush to get the III . I've been really interested in something this portable and an all in one unit. I think I'll be fine with the limited processing power as most of my presets I use while out are very simple wah/amp/cab/reverb basic signal chain sort of thing.

So it comes down to what the amps sound like. I'm sure great, but do we know yet if its the same as the 3? Similar to ARES in the 2? Something totally different/in between?
 

DLC86

Forum Addict
Do we know yet if the ARES amp modeling is the same as the Axe FX III?

I'm currently using an Axe FX II with the latest firmware, and from what I understand that has part of the Ares modeling, but not entirely. LOVE the sound I'm getting which is why I haven't been in any rush to get the III . I've been really interested in something this portable and an all in one unit. I think I'll be fine with the limited processing power as most of my presets I use while out are very simple wah/amp/cab/reverb basic signal chain sort of thing.

So it comes down to what the amps sound like. I'm sure great, but do we know yet if its the same as the 3? Similar to ARES in the 2? Something totally different/in between?
https://www.thegearpage.net/board/index.php?posts/28446966/
 

brokenvail

Fractal Fanatic
Another question which might has already been answered, but I don't find it.
So the FM3 has roughly the same power as the AX8. But it seems like the FM3 is capable to run more blocks than the AX8 and even a multiband compressor block, for example. How is that possible? Does Ares run more efficiently? Is it better optimized for the new processors? Or is the workload better distributed between the different cores?
Although this has never been stated I always took it to actual mean FM is as powerful as the ax in relation to the iii as the ax is to the ii.
 

Greg Girardin

Moderator
Moderator
Another question which might has already been answered, but I don't find it.
So the FM3 has roughly the same power as the AX8. But it seems like the FM3 is capable to run more blocks than the AX8 and even a multiband compressor block, for example. How is that possible? Does Ares run more efficiently? Is it better optimized for the new processors? Or is the workload better distributed between the different cores?
A bunch of things. FM3 has an additional core to handle UI/Midi/Footcontoller stuff so that freed up some CPU. We also moved the reverbs to the 2nd Sharc core with the Amp which freed up a lot of CPU for other blocks (Reverb uses a lot). Additionally a bunch of little optimizations you find while working in the code for a long time. 1% here, 1% there adds up.
 

Randalljax

Forum Addict
A bunch of things. FM3 has an additional core to handle UI/Midi/Footcontoller stuff so that freed up some CPU. We also moved the reverbs to the 2nd Sharc core with the Amp which freed up a lot of CPU for other blocks (Reverb uses a lot). Additionally a bunch of little optimizations you find while working in the code for a long time. 1% here, 1% there adds up.

Greg someone in another thread asked about pitch block Does it have the same capability as the 3???
 

crdark

Regular
A bunch of things. FM3 has an additional core to handle UI/Midi/Footcontoller stuff so that freed up some CPU. We also moved the reverbs to the 2nd Sharc core with the Amp which freed up a lot of CPU for other blocks (Reverb uses a lot). Additionally a bunch of little optimizations you find while working in the code for a long time. 1% here, 1% there adds up.
Thanks a lot for answering all the upcoming questions here, you're great!
 

Randalljax

Forum Addict
Thanks Again Greg ,we love to shop talk to .

a couple more questions then I leave for the day :)

in regards to Effects layout ,if you use the toggle mode you can only toggle Fx channels correct .
you couldn't say toggle a flanger/Chorus

and second question it has been talked about for a long time about the 5 encoders under the screen being able to be set as global controllers ie : gain bass tree reverb mix , low cut etc .

is this something that when/if it happens on the Ax3 will likely be or could be applied to FM3.

is it possible to have the IR player block for those that use it for simple acoustic , violin etc IRS or does it take away way to much CPU

cheers
 

unix-guy

Legend!
in regards to Effects layout ,if you use the toggle mode you can only toggle Fx channels correct .
you couldn't say toggle a flanger/Chorus
You should read the FC manual...

Toggle functions exist for Scenes, Channels, Presets.

Now, what you could do it you wanted to "toggle" between 2 effects blocks is to use a Control Switch assigned to Bypass of each block, with the modifier Min/Max inverted on one block.
 

Greg Girardin

Moderator
Moderator
Thanks Again Greg ,we love to shop talk to .

a couple more questions then I leave for the day :)

in regards to Effects layout ,if you use the toggle mode you can only toggle Fx channels correct .
you couldn't say toggle a flanger/Chorus

and second question it has been talked about for a long time about the 5 encoders under the screen being able to be set as global controllers ie : gain bass tree reverb mix , low cut etc .

is this something that when/if it happens on the Ax3 will likely be or could be applied to FM3.

is it possible to have the IR player block for those that use it for simple acoustic , violin etc IRS or does it take away way to much CPU

cheers
You can only toggle FX channels, but you can do what you're suggesting with a mixer by toggling the mixer channels. That's actually what I do in my acoustic band.

All GUI changes made to Ax3 are ported to FM3, so whatever gets added there will subsequently be available on FM3.

Don't know about the IR player. The Cab uses the accelerator so I suspect doing that would probably use a ton of CPU (like a 2nd cab block would)m.jpg
 

Patzag

Fractal Fanatic
You can only toggle FX channels, but you can do what you're suggesting with a mixer by toggling the mixer channels. That's actually what I do in my acoustic band.

All GUI changes made to Ax3 are ported to FM3, so whatever gets added there will subsequently be available on FM3.

Don't know about the IR player. The Cab uses the accelerator so I suspect doing that would probably use a ton of CPU (like a 2nd cab block would)View attachment 54622
I use the MUX block for this purpose. Super handy! And it has 6 channels on the III so we can access anyone of the grid inputs.

I'll join my thanks here for all the info Greg.
 

spiderWAW

Inspired
Pitch block functionality will be identical. The only potential differences may relate to pitch detection since that functionality is actually outside of the Pitch block and is still being ironed out.
Greg,
Does this mean that FM3 can have slower pitch detection than Ax FX III?
 

Kamil Kisiel

Veteran
A bunch of things. FM3 has an additional core to handle UI/Midi/Footcontoller stuff so that freed up some CPU. We also moved the reverbs to the 2nd Sharc core with the Amp which freed up a lot of CPU for other blocks (Reverb uses a lot). Additionally a bunch of little optimizations you find while working in the code for a long time. 1% here, 1% there adds up.
Is some of this optimization going to find its way back to the Axe-FX III? It's already pretty powerful, but more power is always better :)
 

Ghost_of_Cain

Inspired
That's a possibility but I think FM3 will be as fast. We may cheat with the pitch detection and only run it once against IN1 for everything that cares about pitch (tuner / Pitch / RingMod / Pitch Follower Controller).

We'll see, not done yet.
Well, I was quite impressed by what I heard here or there:


Of course you got to feel the latency for yourself, and so on, but sound-wise - I guess it tracked very good.

That would be a pity if it didn't make it to the final product.
 

RB2021

New here
I'm stoked to hear the pitch block is going to be the same as the 3. If I understand what you meant by cheating the detection, it sounds like you'd be measuring pitch solely at input rather than measuring the signal from the middle of the chain which has other effects applied? I could more than live with that. Not sure If I would have any desire to put my pitch shifters in the middle of things. But quad harmony and (fingers crossed FX3 quality) tracking sounds super fun. Can't wait to play with it.
 

Stevelow74

Inspired
Hi Greg!! fast question... will the Amp block have the same configurable type boost as the AF3? ( Grinder,Tube screamer , SD1 etc...)


thanks for your time!

Rock on
Stef
 

Retro Rick

Inspired
Does anybody know about those Humbuster 1/4" outputs? Would you use a TRS/TRS cable to go to an FRFR? Or a TS/TS...
I'm asking this for the situation where I want more than 2 outputs, so the XLRs would be already in use.
 
Top