Preset Comparison - FM9/FM9 Turbo

[2112]

Here's a video comparing a few presets on the FM9 and the FM9 Turbo, as well as a few things I'd use the extra CPU headroom towards.

 

[Joe Bfstplk]

Here's a video comparing a few presets on the FM9 and the FM9 Turbo, as well as a few things I'd use the extra CPU headroom towards.

That ringmod wah was super nasty in all the right ways, and the Para EQ pickup simulator was really nice, too....

 

[TSJMajesty]

Leon, your videos are so helpful!

If anyone's wondering for comparison, that factory preset in the 2nd example runs at 46% in the Axe (non-turbo, and prior to Leon adding additional effects.)

 

[2112]

An example I didn't cover that's relevant to people considering the turbo is an "all in" dual guitar preset running around 80%.

Each player gets a wah, drive, phaser, chorus, delay and reverb and there's even room to squeeze a comp in. This would work great for a dual guitar/bass preset too.

 

[yek]

Well done!

 

[Hotraman]

Thanks for posting your videos for the FM9

 

[Sepu]

I would have loved the FM9 turbo to have bigger displays, like the new FC controllers. That would have made me go for the turbo version. Honestly, I don't find that extra 10% DSP relevant to my needs, although I find it fantastic.

Thanks for the video Leon. You are the reason why I chose to try Fractal, after years with Helix and QC.

Cheers.

 

[Greg Ferguson]

I would have loved the FM9 turbo to have bigger displays, like the new FC controllers.

I have an FC12 Mk II and an FM9 here, and, since they share the same chassis size, FAS might have been concerned about the size of the upper three mini-displays eating into the structural strength of the FM9's chassis because of the two LED display cutouts. The FC12 doesn't have those so it would be stronger.

 

[Sepu]

I have an FC12 Mk II and an FM9 here, and, since they share the same chassis size, FAS might have been concerned about the size of the upper three mini-displays eating into the structural strength of the FM9's chassis because of the two LED display cutouts. The FC12 doesn't have those so it would be stronger.

Do you think they couldn't or won't be able to implement it in FM9?

 

[la szum]

I think it's against the global good of all guitarists for you to have an FM9 and an FM9 Turbo at the same time.

Can definitely feel that creating a disturbance in the Force.

 

[Greg Ferguson]

Do you think they couldn't or won't be able to implement it in FM9?

From the initial FM9 Turbo announcement FAQ:

• The FM9 Turbo does not use the larger footswitch displays of the FC Mark II products.
• […]
• All production going forward should be the "TURBO" variety barring unforeseeable circumstances.

Based on those it looks like they will not, but who knows what parts availability will dictate.

 

[bub2010]

Just wondering, but has fractal ever put out a comparison chart that actually shows the FM9 or FM9T on it like this one? Or... any of the new generation units?

 

[Sixstring]

Just wondering, but has fractal ever put out a comparison chart that actually shows the FM9 or FM9T on it like this one? Or... any of the new generation units?


View attachment 111089

I suppose it's possible! or you could just take the 21433 CPU number cut in half and add 10% then imagen it in the chart!

 

[Hellbat]

This is why they need to port Doom to the line. Then you just have an fps counter. Easy-Peasay!

 

[unix-guy]

The FM9 is ~50% of the Axe Fx III from prior Fractal comments.

That puts the FM9 value at 10716.5.

The FM3 is 50% of that, so 5358.

The FM9 Turbo is 11.11% faster, so 11907.

All that being said, it's not a direct comparison because:

• On the Axe Fx III there is one CPU dedicated to Amp modeling
• On the FM9 the Amps, Delays and Reverbs each have a dedicated CPU core age
• On the FM3 Amps and Delays run on a shared CPU core

 

[bub2010]

Hey Leon or someone with a FM9 TURBO... with FW version 4..... load up patch #380 Leon's live and do a CPU check. I have a NON turbo and did a cpu check... Based on the example in the video I find this to apparently no longer be accurate...

I load up "example 1" playback section at 4:50 his CPU usage on the TURBO is at the 66% mark.... I loaded up the exact same patch on Scene 1 with exactly the same things on and my Original FM9 NON Turbo reads at 69%. So... I'm just seeing a 3% difference here...

This is why I'd like to see someone with a turbo with FW 4 load it up and do a screenshot to see what difference there is NOW.

Pics below are for reference of his patch on his turbo FW ver 3 and on my non turbo FW4.

 

[unix-guy]

@bub2010 here is a screenshot of one of my presets on side-by-side standard and Turbo, and another with preset #380.






Edit for some math so we can put the debate to rest:

68 / 61.2 == 1.1111

68.9 / 62.7 == 1.0988

And note that for Leon's preset both units were varying back and forth a little when I took the screenshots.

 

[bub2010]

@bub2010 here is a screenshot of one of my presets on side-by-side standard and Turbo, and another with preset #380.

View attachment 115091
View attachment 115092
View attachment 115093
View attachment 115094

Edit for some math so we can put the debate to rest:

68 / 61.2 == 1.1111

68.9 / 62.7 == 1.0988

And note that for Leon's preset both units were varying back and forth a little when I took the screenshots.

I don't understand what you are doing there with your numbers. What I was getting at is that on the performance scale the example patches are 6% and 8% points different on the same patch. (In your photos)

 

[unix-guy]

I don't understand what you are doing there with your numbers. What I was getting at is that on the performance scale the example patches are 6% and 8% points different on the same patch. (In your photos)

I'm explaining that the numbers tell you exactly the difference in percent of CPU.

I already explained in the other thread the difference between the 2 CPU speeds - the Turbo is 1.1111 times faster. The same ratio exactly between the 1st two screenshots I showed.

The 11.11% difference is 11.11% of 100.

The presets are not at 100%, so you will never see a difference of 11.11% between 2 units...

Only 11.11% of the used CPU.

 

[bub2010]

I'm explaining that the numbers tell you exactly the difference in percent of CPU.

I already explained in the other thread the difference between the 2 CPU speeds - the Turbo is 1.1111 times faster. The same ratio exactly between the 1st two screenshots I showed.

The 11.11% difference is 11.11% of 100.

The presets are not at 100%, so you will never see a difference of 11.11% between 2 units...

Only 11.11% of the used CPU.

Ok.. so 10% is kind of a theoretical thing and in actual practice you'll never see it. That is why the numbers don't add up cause basically all presets are at 60-85%. Hence the real world % measurement will be in the 6-8% range.

Not trying to be difficult, but for many people including myself this thread will answer questions that many probably look at just like me and say... eh?

So anyone looking for real world % differences unit per unit.. there it is.

Thats all I was trying to figure out in this and now I get it.