How to run a redundant FM9 off stage?

[Hellyeabrother]

Hi guys,

Long time listener first time caller. I’ve been hired to build an fm9 rig for a band and I’m curious how to make it redundant.

With the axe fx iii it’s easy to have one off stage with two stacked on top of each other, but with the fm9 it’s all the way downstage. Do you guys have any recommendations on how to have a redundant fm9 offstage that could take over in the event of a problem?

Would really love your insight on this— don’t wanna rush downstage and start unplugging cables mid show.

Thanks

 

[Patzag]

My personal take on this is 2 FM9s and an FC 12. Both FM9 off stage with a single XLR cable running to the FC 12. All cables neatly routed from off stage. Same as you would run an Axe FX III rig. Both rigs running to FOH and Monitors, One muted, the other ready to take over. For added redundancy, run 2 XLR cables to the FC 12, with a passive switch to control one or the other of the FM9s. The FC will have to reboot when switched, I assume, but otherwise, should be pretty seamless.

 

[chris]

for my daily gigs, having the connections right at my mic is fine, but i fill up the FM3 for example so it's a lot of cables right there. for "more important" gigs LOL i take the Axe 3 and run wireless everything so all connections are at the rack at the back of the stage or whatever, and just a single XLR to the FC. looks super clean and nice.

that said, i agree with the FM9 off stage and using and FC12 up front. really clean setup. with all the audio connections off stage, easier to change rigs behind the scenes, etc.

really good idea from patzag there.

 

[Dave Merrill]

Can I just ask you folks talking about 2 FM9 units off stage, what's better about that than 2 Axe IIIs?

I get the coolness of the FM9 for sure, if it's being both processor and footswitch. As just a processor, seems awkward to mount in a rack, less powerful than a III, just don't understand.

Only positive I can think of is for rehearsals and playing on your own, between shows.

 

[Karl Houseknecht]

And size. Two III’s and a rack is big and heavy.

 

[Dave Merrill]

And size. Two III’s and a rack is big and heavy.

Two FM9s offstage has to weigh nearly as much if you rack them, which is awkward to even do, and if you don't, they'd still need cases, plus you'd have wire them up every time.

 

[John K.]

Two FM9s offstage has to weigh nearly as much if you rack them, which is awkward to even do, and if you don't, they'd still need cases, plus you'd have wire them up every time.

There is cost, too. Although by the time you're running multiple FM9s and an FC12, that seems like it'd be less of a consideration.

 

[FPFL]

I'd do an FM9 and an FM3 to save money, weight and space.
Simpler presets for the backup FM3, same preset/scene config so switching stays in sync.

I love my 9 but I could absolutely gig with a 3.
I know my playing matters way, way more than the highest quality reverb setting : )

 

[Rex]

I know my playing matters way, way more than the highest quality reverb setting : )

 

[Admin M@]

I've done this many times.
The main FM9 can transmit MIDI Program Changes to the spare via 5-pin MIDI.
You'll need a Scene MIDI block in the Main if you want the spare to follow scenes too.
The spare won't chase effect IA switches, but that's not usually a problem.

If you don't have enough channels to keep both units live to FOH, a radial switcher or other similar device can cut you over in the event the spare is needed.