FM9 USB - Computer Integration

e.p

New Member
Hi all, newbie here so please be nice 😀I am modernising my setup to a laptop based system to cut size, travel costs and hopefully integrate some specfic plugins into an FM9 based system. I don't play traditional rock or pop, but leaning towards avant grade, jazz and a dash of ambient soundscapery.........I am hoping I can integrate FM9 into an Apple MainStage system via the USB interface on the FM9. That is send audio from within the fx chain from the FM9 to MainStage and then back to the FM9 va USB to the stereo outs. Reading the manual this seems to be possible, but the big question is latency in practical terms and how the FM9 interface performs. I would effectively be monitoring through MainStage (not a parallel signal path) via the FM9. I have a number of specific plugins I want to integrate using MainStage with FM9 in such a way. Has anyone here achieved this ? Pro's & Con's ? Any perspectives would be much appreciated ! Thank-you all.
 
Monitoring through plugins like that is fairly common. As you mention, the issue is latency. Low buffer sizes is the only way to deal with that. Whether it's acceptable depends a lot on your cpu, the kind of sounds you're playing, and your own tolerance. Note there's a buffer setting in the FM9 in addition to the CoreAudio buffer setting. Also, you may need to use Logic instead of Mainstage to get the usb routing you want.
 
Monitoring through plugins like that is fairly common. As you mention, the issue is latency. Low buffer sizes is the only way to deal with that. Whether it's acceptable depends a lot on your cpu, the kind of sounds you're playing, and your own tolerance. Note there's a buffer setting in the FM9 in addition to the CoreAudio buffer setting. Also, you may need to use Logic instead of Mainstage to get the usb routing you want.
Yes thanks. Keen to understand what kind of roundtrip latency (ms) the FM9 performs at.... Looked at Helix - its USB interface roundtrip latency is rubbish. Hoping the FM9 (which I understand uses the same USB chip as the Axe 3) performs a lot better ! I running a high spec'd Mac book pro, but will be switching to an Apple Silicone Mac Book Pro shortly so will have plenty of power for low buffer settings etc.
 
Helix latency when used as a class compliant device is good, comparable to the Axe-FX. Neither Line6 nor FAS is doing any magic and both rely on CoreAudio, so the numbers are about what you would expect. Note that there is currently a problem with the buffer handling in the Axe-FX, but you've got a pretty good wait ahead of you, so that may be fixed by time you get your FM9. A silicone computer sounds slippery :).
 
Helix latency when used as a class compliant device is good, comparable to the Axe-FX. Neither Line6 nor FAS is doing any magic and both rely on CoreAudio, so the numbers are about what you would expect. Note that there is currently a problem with the buffer handling in the Axe-FX, but you've got a pretty good wait ahead of you, so that may be fixed by time you get your FM9. A silicone computer sounds slippery :).
Sorry M1, M2 etc etc! I heard the Helix is around 15ms which is a bit slow, but happy to be corrected by any users out there on this forum. Hopefully someone is using this combo can comment. Currently I’m going into logic x via an Rme interface with a buffer of 64 which is fine. I want to loose the Rme for the FM9.
 
That’s when using the Line6 driver, which is pretty rare. The fair comparison would be when using it as a class compliant device. You’ll find Helix latency is pretty good in that situation and the AxeFX latency is similar, or it will be when the buffer problems are fixed.
 
That’s when using the Line6 driver, which is pretty rare. The fair comparison would be when using it as a class compliant device. You’ll find Helix latency is pretty good in that situation and the AxeFX latency is similar, or it will be when the buffer problems are fixed.
Ok thanks Helix could be an option then i guess…. But still keen on the FM9 though (whenever they are available) !
 
You can do that.
Would it just be for wet effects? If so, you could have your dry run straight through like a parallel effects loop and you wouldn’t notice latency at all.
 
You can do that.
Would it just be for wet effects? If so, you could have your dry run straight through like a parallel effects loop and you wouldn’t notice latency at all.
Hi - I typically run some of the AU Plugins 100% wet (no dry sound), but its possible I could use the FX's in the FM9 to disguise the "dry" parallel path.
 
Hi - I typically run some of the AU Plugins 100% wet (no dry sound), but its possible I could use the FX's in the FM9 to disguise the "dry" parallel path.
Gotcha.
Internal round trip latency isn’t bad at all but what plugins you use and how many will make a huge difference.
 
Hi I've been using the Helix Rack for 4 years had a FM3, format wasn't good for me and been waiting for the FM9 since time began !!

I've been using my Helix with MainStage and using the TC1210 and TC2290 icon, also the Valhalla plugin.... I've been using this in a Rack and my Atomic FRFR speaker in both a WD and WDW situation .... the Latency is very good, again you have to set your buffer to 64 and with some plugins I have a Circular delay plugin that does cause a few pops and crackle, I'm hoping the FM is similar ...

The command centre in Helix is brilliant i can assign the Helix and pedal board to switch in effects, I found having each plugin on each channel and then switching each channel off the best in terms of control and Latency.

totally usable and live, even better when you WDW this as you always have that constant dry ..... which sounds awesome
 
Back
Top Bottom