FM9 Firmware Version 11.0

80% is definitely too high for reliable results...
That's fine to say but I've never, ever had an issue like this with any fractal product (and I've owned most of them). If it's a CPU issue the unit would usually report this etc.. it wasn't an issue before this build and the reported CPU values don't appear to have changed. As I said I will test this evening and try dropping some blocks and see if that resolves the issue. 👍
 
You guys did read the release notes about the new modeling algorithms that would take up more CPU and you might have to alter your presets. Right? Right?
 
That's fine to say but I've never, ever had an issue like this with any fractal product (and I've owned most of them). If it's a CPU issue the unit would usually report this etc.. it wasn't an issue before this build and the reported CPU values don't appear to have changed. As I said I will test this evening and try dropping some blocks and see if that resolves the issue. 👍
Not necessarily true. My first Fractal was an AX8, and I enthusiastically engineered a kitchen sink preset right up the recommended max CPU. Every now and then, while gigging usually, the tuner would freeze. No errors, no audio issues, only loss of tuner. A reboot was needed to get it back. I spent a year thinking it was a software bug, and even reported it, but after reading that CPU overload would shut down 'non-essential' functions first, a light went on and I re-jiggered the kitchen sink for a couple percent lower CPU. The tuner freeze stopped.
 
You guys did read the release notes about the new modeling algorithms that would take up more CPU and you might have to alter your presets. Right? Right?
1) I feel like this comment completely misses @playmusic ’s point - it’s obvious and relatively simple to adjust when you see your reported cpu usage go up for the same preset after a modeling enhancement that may take more grunt now. The real crux of the question is “how high is too high to be reliable?” as that level seems to be a bit more grey (and trending downward over the last few releases).
2) Every one of the last several releases has had that note, so it’s lost a bit of its tangibility imo.
 
The real crux of the question is “how high is too high to be reliable?” as that level seems to be a bit more grey (and trending downward over the last few releases).
2) Every one of the last several releases has had that note, so it’s lost a bit of its tangibility imo.
I abide by my own threshold. It seems its almost universally accepted that "80%" is at minimum wandering in to dangerous territory. So my own self mandated maximum is 75%. I set up my presets to be under that. Most of my scenes are 50 to 65%. I have once scene that is about 74%.. I don't rely on Fractal to let me know where the wall is. I simply make up my own line with ample headroom. Never had a problem with too much CPU usage.
 
The latest FW12 for the fm3 reduced the cpu usage a bit (for me at least). Maybe some blocks are optimised and others are heavier to use now. Isn't the case for the fm9 as well?
 
That's fine to say but I've never, ever had an issue like this with any fractal product (and I've owned most of them). If it's a CPU issue the unit would usually report this etc.. it wasn't an issue before this build and the reported CPU values don't appear to have changed. As I said I will test this evening and try dropping some blocks and see if that resolves the issue. 👍
Just because you never did before doesn't mean anything...

Lots of people get lucky (at many dangerous things) until their luck runs out. Doesn't mean they weren't doing something dangerous.
 
I am not referring to the changes in CPU consumption such as you see with new features, changes to models, or greater/lesser efficiencies in the code. That is as expected.

Recommendations on max CPU usage when I first got my FM9, several firmware versions ago, were for about 80% or even a few percentage points above. Now I seem to be seeing recommendations for max CPU usage trending lower than that. Sometimes down to 70%.

Maybe it is only anecdotal, but it appears as if there are a greater number of issues being reported than previously with presets that are under 80%. Wondering if some of the "behind the scenes" processes that don't show up in that CPU usage number have gotten hungrier. Or maybe, those reports of lockups or output drops could be better explained by issues other than CPU consumption. No clue. Just echoing my maybe erroneous sense that recent firmware has resulted in recommendations towards a more conservative use of CPU when designing presets.

Any process that could potentially impact proper and full operation, would optimally be included in the CPU usage number. No unreported hidden processes that impact usage. That way you know exactly how high the indicated CPU number can be in your preset. Either that or it would be useful to know that there will be either a fixed or max CPU usage number for "system" overhead. Either of those would better enable you to calculate max CPU usage.
I'm pretty certain the official recommendation in the manual is and has been 75%.

CPU consumption is dynamic - that's just how it is. Certain operations require it.

The reported CPU is always "at this moment".
 
Are we still talking about presets and CPU usage or something more sinister 😄
Ever heard of Russian Roulette?

The people that didn't yet shoot themselves in the head are still alive...

Just one example.

A more relevant example might be removing the ground pin from an amp's power cord. It's all good until you become ground. :(
 
Ever heard of Russian Roulette?

The people that didn't yet shoot themselves in the head are still alive...

Just one example.

A more relevant example might be removing the ground pin from an amp's power cord. It's all good until you become ground. :(
Sorry, it's nothing like removing the earth from a mains lead and to be clear I'm not saying this isn't a CPU usage issue, I was just stating facts about my own previous experiences, I wasn't saying it wasn't a CPU issue, just that the unit has always behaved differently when I've hit a CPU issue in the past. Also, I said that I will test when I get to rehearsal to give the CPU theory a test, hopefully it will resolve my issue.

For info, what is the current recommend max CPU usage?
 
...

CPU consumption is dynamic - that's just how it is. Certain operations require it.

The reported CPU is always "at this moment".

Understood! That is why it is important to test all your scenes along with any processes, system, USB, parameters that might increase a block's CPU consumption, MIDI, pedal assignments, etc... Some of those operations may or may not be showing up in the CPU usage meter, and as you point out, may be changing their CPU usage dynamically. Whether they be an operation that does show up in the CPU meter, or one that is hidden from the user.

Best case scenario though, when you are under a recommended CPU usage number, being confident that background processes not exposed in this number will never cripple operations on the FM9. Preferable also that recommended CPU max number be as high as feasible for max flexibility in preset design. Stating the obvious I know.
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty certain the official recommendation in the manual is and has been 75%.

CPU consumption is dynamic - that's just how it is. Certain operations require it.

The reported CPU is always "at this moment".
From the manual:
1770840454252.png
So max recommended load is still stated as “approximately 80%” but it also indicates that the safeguards will at least attempt to keep you out of trouble.

What folks are seeing here seems to be quite a bit different than muting output (which is now resettable by simply changing presets), but rather much harder to pin down UI issues or non-resettable loss of signal.

I understand not wanting to sacrifice what might be possible to artificially limit capabilities to a more conservative hard limit, but in the same breath I’ll say as frustrated as I got with “running out of DSP” on L6 HX products… I never ever ever ever ever had to wonder if I was going to cross some unknown squishy threshold and have my interface stop working. I do agree with all of the sentiments that are saying having a bit better peek under the instantaneous and windowed average key cpu usage hood to understand when we’ve stepped into dangerous territory would be useful.

Or, said another way, I’m not sure I can see the big picture benefit of leaving the door wide open to allow for infinite possibilities if the result is the cost of users establishing hard rules of thumb that are much lower than even the proposed factory cap. 🤷‍♂️
 
I am not referring to the changes in CPU consumption such as you see with new features, changes to models, or greater/lesser efficiencies in the code. That is as expected.

Recommendations on max CPU usage when I first got my FM9, several firmware versions ago, were for about 80% or even a few percentage points above. Now I seem to be seeing recommendations for max CPU usage trending lower than that. Sometimes down to 70%.

Maybe it is only anecdotal, but it appears as if there are a greater number of issues being reported than previously with presets that are under 80%. Wondering if some of the "behind the scenes" processes that don't show up in that CPU usage number have gotten hungrier. Or maybe, those reports of lockups or output drops could be better explained by issues other than CPU consumption. No clue. Just echoing my maybe erroneous sense that recent firmware has resulted in recommendations towards a more conservative use of CPU when designing presets.

Any process that could potentially impact proper and full operation, would optimally be included in the CPU usage number. No unreported hidden processes that impact usage. That way you know exactly how high the indicated CPU number can be in your preset. Either that or it would be useful to know that there will be either a fixed or max CPU usage number for "system" overhead. Either of those would better enable you to calculate max CPU usage.
I remember seeing the 'recommendation' of not going above 80% when I got my unit (around FW 9.0).

My current preset hovers around 83% and I haven't had any issues. But YMMV, of course.
 
Back
Top Bottom