How do you plan to use gapless switching?

For me, maybe I'll reconfigure my preset to use a single amp block, instead of two separate blocks + multiplexer. Perhaps that will save me some CPU.
 
Last edited:
Gapless switching would be nice between channel changes... using different amps for the channels. I primarily use the same amp or two amps with controllers to achieve that now. It would definitely simplify things.
 
I really don't know why any real musician would attempt to debate or deflect this.

According to the manual, the FM9 was designed for live performance. Gapped switching is undeniably a problem for live performances.

You guys don't have a point.

The user community should demand high standards. There is no benefit to musicians to excuse problems.
 
Last edited:
The Axe Fx III recently got gapless switching between channels scenes and presets. This should be coming to the FM9 as well.

I'm super excited for this but I think this creates an interesting paradox.

Before, scenes were the gapless alternative to presets (under certain conditions). But now since everything is gapless, the main benefit of using scenes over presets is largely gone.

I'm curious how people will decide to use scenes vs. presets with the new firmware. Let me know!
Will it a feature that can be activated/deactivated? I assume that it consumes quite a bit of dsp.
 
I have my main preset setup with two amps to mitigate the gap. Having seamless switching might let me cut out the second amp block. I definitely plan on experimenting with new setups once the FM9 gets the gapless FW
 
Gapped switching is undeniably a problem for live performances.
That is an opinion. Many people don't share it... Music has many natural gaps.

Gap-less switching will most likely make it's way to the FM9, but if it doesn't then many people will still find it to be an excellent tool for professional level performance.

If you don't, that's fine. Use an Axe Fx III or another product.
 
I really don't know why any real musician would attempt to debate or deflect this.

According to the manual, the FM9 was designed specially for live performance. Gapped switching is undeniably a problem for live performances.

You guys don't have a point.

The user community should demand high standards. There is no benefit to musicians to excuse problems.

I have been around the block professionally as a musician for about 35 years. Gaps with analog pedal boards, or even worse sudden volume changes have been a fact of life throughout. Real musicians know how to adjust their performance no matter what the circumstances to accommodate dynamics changes.

Simplest solution is a volume pedal and paying attention to song dynamics - always has been. Gaps can actually be musical when done right. If you are blasting away hi-gain all the time with no dynamics you are already much less musical without regard to gapless effect switching.
 
Last edited:
I have been around the block professionally as a musician for about 35 years. Gaps with analog pedal boards, or even worse sudden volume changes have been a fact of life throughout. Real musicians know how to adjust their performance no matter what the circumstances to accommodate dynamics changes.

Simplest solution is a volume pedal and paying attention to song dynamics - always has been. Gaps can actually be musical when done right. If you are blasting away hi-gain all the time with no dynamics you are already much less musical without regard to gapless effect switching.

Yeah you're just plain wrong.

None of my analog or digital pedals create gaps. If yours do, then you're doing it wrong.

The FM9 is on a fairly lonely island as far as this problem goes.

This has nothing to do with dynamics in music. I create dynamics in my music but that's by choice, not due to forced limitations by a piece of equipment that could have been designed better.

I really have no idea why any real musician would be arguing for lower standards in the tools we use. Gapless switching is obviously better because it preserves the musical choice: If you want to mute somewhere, you can use your hand or your volume control or any number of deliberate means. You don't need fractal to insert it without choice.

What exactly do you gain by arguing in favor of a lessor outcome?
 
Last edited:
That is an opinion. Many people don't share it... Music has many natural gaps.

Gap-less switching will most likely make it's way to the FM9, but if it doesn't then many people will still find it to be an excellent tool for professional level performance.

If you don't, that's fine. Use an Axe Fx III or another product.

If you are a musician that prefers gaps in your switching to no gaps, then I really have no rejoinder to that.

Your opinion is flat out bizarre.
 
BTW I'm not a hater. The FM9 sounds amazing in my opinion. It is the best sounding unit in it's class by a decent margin. If you want the absolute best sound from this type of tool, the FM9 has the highest caliber sound. -That's the hard part, and they've done the hard work.

I've got a vintage plexi and a vintage fender amp and lots of top notch gear in my studio and all sorts of great mics/pres/compressors. The sounds this unit creates rival those, and with much more convenience.

Gapless switching would make this thing unassailable IMO.
 
Yeah you're just plain wrong.

None of my analog or digital pedals create gaps. If yours do, then you're doing it wrong.

The FM9 is on a fairly lonely island as far as this problem goes.

This has nothing to do with dynamics in music. I create dynamics in my music but that's by choice, not due to forced limitations by a piece of equipment that could have been designed better.

I really have no idea why any real musician would be arguing for lower standards in the tools we use. Gapless switching is obviously better because it preserves the musical choice: If you want to mute somewhere, you can use your hand or your volume control or any number of deliberate means. You don't need fractal to insert it without choice.

What exactly do you gain by arguing in favor of a lessor outcome?

So much to unpack there. By your profile pic you don't look that young so I am surprised you didn't play analog gear before buffers were a thing. But by your statements you obviously did not. Maybe you haven't been playing that long? Some of the older analog gear had gaps and switching artifacts when you engaged or disengaged a pedal. This was true for flangers, choruses, analog verbs and delays. Some drive pedals caused a KABOOM when you switched them on with a spring reverb loaded amp.

I write and play jazz, fusion, and progressive rock. That music is loaded with transitions and dynamics. Many transitions involve a new patch for the subsequent part. As a player that plays some very challenging music loaded with dynamics and transitions live on stage, the gaps have never been a thing that concerned or bothered me. They abviously didn't bother players like Petrucci, Guthrie Govan and countless others either.

I'm not arguing for the sake of a lessor outcome. Just making some guesses about why this might be an issue for you.

Strings break, noisy power happens, tubes fry, cables short, and gaps and effect switching artifacts happen. Professional musicians with real talent find a way through with minimum impact to the performance.

I had a Helix - gaps or not I'll take my FM9 as a far superior piece of kit for what matters most to me - TONE!!!!!

It's like the hottie with an amazing bod and a gap in between their front teeth. I can deal with it while focusing on what's more important to me in the end game. It sounds like the FM9 could be gapless very soon.

I tried them all (Boss GT-1000, Helix, QC, etc.). I kept one - my FM9. You seem to be running it down solely for the gap that is obviously a thorn in your backside. At the end of the day (or the gig) - great tone and versatility matter more than dealing with some gaps that have never been an issue for me. Since they are such an issue for you maybe you bought the wrong gear for you.
 
If you are a musician that prefers gaps in your switching to no gaps, then I really have no rejoinder to that.

Your opinion is flat out bizarre.
How do you know what my opinion is? I didn't state one...

I didn't say I prefer gaps when changing things. However, the system can be used in such a way as to eliminate most scenarios where that occurs.

Would it be great to have gap-less? Yes! Is it a must have? No...

You trying to force your opinion on others is the bizarre part.
 
Quite an assumption. I haven't heard anyone say that.
Possibly a wrong one. Is the feature simply a matter of software optimization? I thought that the presets had somehow to be preloaded in order to be switched one without a gap. I would be very happy to be dead wrong.
 
I think at this juncture it's a moot point..............the switching isn't seamless yet.......even on the III.
 
Back
Top Bottom