Who's gone from the III to the FM9?

[jlynnb1]

How was the transition? What did you miss, how much did it affect your presets? With my studio being upstairs while also playing live weekly, lugging the III in its 5 space case etc plus the FC12 PLUS guitars has gotten a little laborious. I could offload other gear to purchase an FM9 and keep the III but if the difference is negligible I could just switch.

My presets typically hit the 80% CPU mark on the III but that's probably more due to two reverbs and a plex-delay being present in almost every one.

Would love to hear your experiences....

 

[Greg Ferguson]

My presets typically hit the 80% CPU mark on the III but that's probably more due to two reverbs and a plex-delay being present in almost every one.

Post one of your presets that you are concerned about and we can load it into the FM9 Turbo and tell you exactly how well it does.

Generally, 80% on the FX3 will overload the FM9’s CPU, but because they are different hardware and allocate their processors differently it can be surprising what will fit, or how little has to be trimmed.

 

[Kelleys Heroes]

I haven't missed taking my Axe3 out of the studio even once now that I have an FM9. Presets all work, and at least for me, if my CPU usage is close to 80%, it is generally a tone I consider over-processed, so none of them are in that zone.

 

[jlynnb1]

I haven't missed taking my Axe3 out of the studio even once now that I have an FM9. Presets all work, and at least for me, if my CPU usage is close to 80%, it is generally a tone I consider over-processed, so none of them are in that zone.

I primarily do worship music which usually means multiple delays, reverbs an drives etc...

 

[Rex]

I haven’t gigged my Axe III more than twice since I got my FM9. I love having the III at home, and I sometimes make use of its unique features (e.g., tone-matching a piezo guitar to a miked acoustic, or the really esoteric effects), but my FM9 gives me everything I need to play out, except for the rarest of occasions. I can even use the tone matches by exporting them to IRs.

There’s more than enough room to nail most any P&W formula, and tweak and twist them into something else when you want to.

 

[iaresee]

Not quite "from III to FM9" as I still own my III. But my III is perma-racked at home now and I only gig the FM9 (and very very occasionally the FM3).

With very little compromise I've been able to make the FM9 work for my in all cases where I needed the III and couldn't do it in an FM3. The biggest challenge is usually the 3-fewer switches that I have on the FM9 vs the III+FC12 combo I was using (or the 13-fewer switches than my GT/22+III pairing). I have to make more careful choices about what gets a switch and what does not because I find layout changes mid-song hard to manage.

I've considered putting the FC6 alongside it to see if that makes it plusher but haven't had a moment to really consider how I'd organize layouts to take the most advantage of it.

 

[Greg Ferguson]

[…] I have to make more careful choices about what gets a switch and what does not because I find layout changes mid-song hard to manage.

I've considered putting the FC6 alongside it to see if that makes it plusher but haven't had a moment to really consider how I'd organize layouts to take the most advantage of it.

^These^

Thinking about how I want to flow from presets to scenes to effects and back, and whether to use a dedicated Effects layout or a Per-Preset with overrides, or some hybrid of those two took the longest.

I ended up basing my layout on OFM9G on the FM9, then modifying that for the FM3+FC6, and then making the FX3+FC12 be a superset of my version of OFM9G. I assign Per-Preset overrides for the effects I'm likely to enable/bypass in the heat of the battle, and treat the Per-Preset layout as a self-configuring Effects layout based on the order of the assignments.

Building presets is the easy part. Figuring out how I want my foot to move to navigate took some time, and it was almost two years to land on what I like.

 

[unix-guy]

When I got my first FM9 (non-Turbo), I intentionally tried to "live" only on the FM9.

I migrated my main kitchen sink Axe Fx III preset (high CPU) to the FM9 with minimal changes and these days I rarely turn on the Axe Fx.

Keep in mind that on the FM9, Reverbs run on a dedicated core and (regular) Delays also run on a dedicated core. So they are basically "free" with regards to CPU.

With the FM9 Turbo you get 11% more CPU.

There are also a number of things you can do to trim down the CPU with very negligible differences in what you hear.

 

[jlynnb1]

When I got my first FM9 (non-Turbo), I intentionally tried to "live" only on the FM9.

I migrated my main kitchen sink Axe Fx III preset (high CPU) to the FM9 with minimal changes and these days I rarely turn on the Axe Fx.

Keep in mind that on the FM9, Reverbs run on a dedicated core and (regular) Delays also run on a dedicated core. So they are basically "free" with regards to CPU.

With the FM9 Turbo you get 11% more CPU.

There are also a number of things you can do to trim down the CPU with very negligible differences in what you hear.

yes the dedicated CPU is what gives me hope

 

[Jupiter]

I bought the FM9T and sold my AF3 MK2 a year ago...no regrets, plenty of power even my kitchen sink presets are 70% or below that.

A couple of times I have missed the tone matching feature but that's all.

 

[Greg Ferguson]

yes the dedicated CPU is what gives me hope

Terminology clarification… some cores inside the DSP are dedicated. The CPU/DSP isn't dedicated.

Amp modeling, Delay blocks and Reverb blocks run in dedicated DSP cores. Like the FM3, impulse responses (Cab block) are processed in the accelerator. [67]

The FM9 has two DSPs so it's dedicating cores in each…

• Two dual-core SHARC+ DSPs (original: 2x 450Mhz, Turbo: 2x 500Mhz).

IIRC, because the cores are dedicated, their processing load isn't displayed in the CPU % on the front-panel or in Edit. It seems like the unit isn't working as hard as it is, and moving a preset from the FX3 to the FM9 can result in a CPU load that is surprisingly low. In testing things I've moved presets over that I was sure would crush the FM9 and it didn't even grunt. It's a cool unit.

 

[REDD]

I'm kind of the opposite here. I keep the FM9 in my studio and gig with my Axe-FxIII. I used the FM9 live a couple times but I like the Axe-FxIII rig better. My tech uses the FC-12 and all I have onstage is a couple expression pedals and I love it, and I love not having to run all the cables to the FM9. I have a patch bay in the back of my rack and it's handy and simple. If I was wanting to pack light and be minimal then the FM9 would do the trick but that's not me. I want all the power and awesomeness Fractal has to offer!

 

[jimmynorrisjr]

I have the FM9 turbo and the Axe-fx 3 mkii turbo. I use the Af3T for most gigs. The FM9 is my backup for those. I also use the Fm9T for rehearsals and the few gigs that don't require much effects. The biggest drawback, other than the amount of blocks you can have in a preset, is the scene change switching speed. I am running both amp and cab blocks, with dyna-cabs. The FM9T is considerably slower with my presets that hover around 70% usage. I haven't scientifically measured it, but it is an issue. I am considering selling it on reverb and getting another Af3 mkii turbo for consistency. I will miss the smaller footprint, though.

 

[Rex]

I'm kind of the opposite here. I keep the FM9 in my studio and gig with my Axe-FxIII. I used the FM9 live a couple times but I like the Axe-FxIII rig better. My tech uses the FC-12 and all I have onstage is a couple expression pedals and I love it, and I love not having to run all the cables to the FM9. I have a patch bay in the back of my rack and it's handy and simple. If I was wanting to pack light and be minimal then the FM9 would do the trick but that's not me. I want all the power and awesomeness Fractal has to offer!

I get where you're coming from, and it totally makes sense when you have a dedicated tech to wrangle your gear for you. For those who do their own load-in, load-out and switch stomping, they tend to stick with the FM9, once they've given it a try.

 

[strabes]

I did. Two things I miss:

1. Not being able to run 4 IRs on the cab block which was useful when running two amps in stereo. Using 2 cab blocks uses quite a bit of DSP. I've been able to get around that by shooting an IR of my typical dynamic+ribbon cab setup for each amp with all the EQ and non-linear stuff disabled, then importing that as a user cab onto the FM9.
2. Not having 12 footswitches. I used to primarily use the FC12 like a pedalboard where I had instant access to all 12 of my per-preset footswitches. Now on the FM9 I run my own version of OFM9G where I have access to 6 of them at a time, so 1-6 are on one layout and 7-12 are on another. So I have access to them and I still use them quite a bit. But with the FM9 I primarily build presets for each song and use scenes.

So both issues are easily overcome and the reduced weight of only lugging the equivalent of the FC12 in a Helix Backpack is very much worth it. Because it's so light I didn't feel the need to keep the AX3 racked up at home so I sold it. I just keep the FM9 cables I use at home loomed together and permanently connected on the other end to make it easier (IEC, instrument, SPDIF, USB).

I primarily do worship music which usually means multiple delays, reverbs an drives etc...

My typical preset for church stuff on the FM9 has comp, pitch, 2 drives, 2 delays, chorus, reverb & plex verb (both in parallel), tremolo, 2 amps, cab, and enhancer. I use channels on almost every block. I set up most of my per-preset footswitches with a hold functionality that cycles through the channels on the associated block.

 

[RockYoWorld]

I have both. I still take my Axe FX III to all my gigs in both bands I'm in, but it's mostly not due to the FM9's inherent abilities. Here's why I gig with my Axe FX III over the FM9:

1. With the FX III getting firmware updates first, I usually tinker with it right away and often make use of new features that I miss if I'm using the FM9. However, now that the FM9 has Dyna-Cabs, which I utilize, this will be much less of a point. I could actually see a work flow where my FM9 is the "stable" gig platform where all my presets are well tested and not tweaked often while I try out new things at home with the Axe FX III.
2. For the main band I'm in (cover band), the band itself has racks around the stage for IEM transmitters and wireless mic receivers. It's convenient for me to put my Axe FX III 6U shallow rack right on top of the IEM rack and have a short run for power and stereo XLR and have my tablet I use to adjust my IEM mix plugged into power on top of my rack, where I also put some other things I don't want in my pockets. I only have to run an XLR up to my FC-12 board.
3. For my original band, I have my IEM transmitter and the bassist's IEM transmitter in my Axe FX rack. It's a long story how it ended up that way. I'll likely eventually upgrade the band's IEM mixer rack to at least have space for the bassist's IEM unit, but I liked the idea of having my IEM transmitter in my Axe FX rack so if I fill in with other groups, I'd have it with me. In practice, I haven't used it since I didn't have control of the monitor mix and it was easier to use on of my EV wedges and have one input from FOH and the other input from Output 2 on the Axe FX. it worked well for that gig. The FM9 would've worked great there.
4. This is totally on how I set up the rigs, but the FM9 takes up about the same amount of room in my car as my Axe FX III rig, but that's because I have a bigger pedalboard for the FM9 to also accommodate a wireless receiver than my FC-12 and I got a more protective board/case. Having the FC12 separate from the shallow 6U rack also allows me to be more creative with the Tetris game of packing a car or trailer.

Notice how I didn't mention the capability of the FM9? Before Dyna-Cabs, my main kitchen-sink preset used 2 Amp Blocks and 2 Cab Blocks in stereo. Since Dyna-Cab, I simplified that preset to get a clearer tone that's less muddy and the enhancer block for when I want the wide-stereo sound. The result is that it easily runs on the FM9T. That's what I bring to rehearsals where we don't use our IEM rig (we have a different wired headphone setup for that).

I probably miss the 3 buttons on the FC-12 vs the FM9 more than anything.

If you made it through my novel and want to see what I referenced in rig size, here's some pictures. Once again, that's my own doing, but I like having the FM9 pedalboard being all-in-one with the wireless underneath it. Even thought about putting the IEM transmitter on the board instead of the left EXP pedal. Decided against that for various reasons, though.

 

[jlynnb1]

I did. Two things I miss:

1. Not being able to run 4 IRs on the cab block which was useful when running two amps in stereo. Using 2 cab blocks uses quite a bit of DSP. I've been able to get around that by shooting an IR of my typical dynamic+ribbon cab setup for each amp with all the EQ and non-linear stuff disabled, then importing that as a user cab onto the FM9.
2. Not having 12 footswitches. I used to primarily use the FC12 like a pedalboard where I had instant access to all 12 of my per-preset footswitches. Now on the FM9 I run my own version of OFM9G where I have access to 6 of them at a time, so 1-6 are on one layout and 7-12 are on another. So I have access to them and I still use them quite a bit. But with the FM9 I primarily build presets for each song and use scenes.

My typical preset for church stuff on the FM9 has comp, pitch, 2 drives, 2 delays, chorus, reverb & plex verb (both in parallel), tremolo, 2 amps, cab, and enhancer. I use channels on almost every block. I set up most of my per-preset footswitches with a hold functionality that cycles through the channels on the associated block.

yeah our styles are pretty similar, sounds like it would be ok. I'd keep the FC12 so technically I could run an OMG21 lol. I might just sell my FM3 and random studio stuff and keep the III too.

 

[Joe Bfstplk]

How was the transition? What did you miss, how much did it affect your presets? With my studio being upstairs while also playing live weekly, lugging the III in its 5 space case etc plus the FC12 PLUS guitars has gotten a little laborious. I could offload other gear to purchase an FM9 and keep the III but if the difference is negligible I could just switch.

My presets typically hit the 80% CPU mark on the III but that's probably more due to two reverbs and a plex-delay being present in almost every one.

Would love to hear your experiences....

In the process of doing it now. Was awaiting Dynacabs coming to FM9. FM9 is now mature and capable enough to cover what I need....

 

[Joe Bfstplk]

I've considered putting the FC6 alongside it to see if that makes it plusher but haven't had a moment to really consider how I'd organize layouts to take the most advantage of it.

Recently switched things up a bit and set up my FC6 on the FM9. Lots of wide open space for stuff....

 

[strabes]

yeah ours styles are pretty similar, sounds like it would be ok. I'd keep the FC12 so technically I could run an OMG21 lol. I might just sell my FM3 and random studio stuff and keep the III too.

Yep, one thing I did was set up layout links for my two per-preset layouts which will show the opposite per-preset layout on a connected FC controller when one of those two layouts is selected. I considered getting an FC6 initially but scenes + OFM9G gets it done for me.