Wish: Global blocks on FM9 - edited from: ultra low quality option - or dummy option in all fx

Seven2Eleven said:
IR length can also be thought of as an economy setting
Click to expand...
So could "using no more than 1 IR" or "not turning on room mics", but they're not designated as such, so they aren't, IMHO.

Also, as per your argument, "using the least CPU intensive model/settings in any block" could also be thought of as an economy setting for each block, but that's what the OP already does; And he basically wants CPU-usage-less null-filters with block-specific mock-up settings, if I understood correctly. :)
 
Peavey Herman said:
So could "using no more than 1 IR" or "not turning on room mics", but they're not designated as such, so they aren't, IMHO.

Also, as per your argument, "using the least CPU intensive model/settings in any block" could also be thought of as an economy setting for each block, but that's what the OP already does; And he basically wants CPU-usage-less null-filters with block-specific mock-up settings, if I understood correctly. :)
Click to expand...
Jeez you people can be dense sometimes.

There’s literally an option called “economy”, which directly addresses the issue with cpu hungry reverbs. All we’re asking is to apply that same idea to other cpu hungry blocks, especially after an update that overhauls an entire block and changes the workflow for lots of users.

I’m sure it’s not just as simple as adding an economy button to all the compressors. The coding may not be trivial, but it seems like it’s in the realm of possibility and worth asking about.

Now maybe this will all change when the final release comes out, but the people suggesting “just buy more hardware! Problem solved!” really need a reality check
 
Seven2Eleven said:
Jeez you people can be dense sometimes.

There’s literally an option called “economy”, which directly addresses the issue with cpu hungry reverbs. All we’re asking is to apply that same idea to other cpu hungry blocks, especially after an update that overhauls an entire block and changes the workflow for lots of users.

I’m sure it’s not just as simple as adding an economy button to all the compressors. The coding may not be trivial, but it seems like it’s in the realm of possibility and worth asking about.

Now maybe this will all change when the final release comes out, but the people suggesting “just buy more hardware! Problem solved!” really need a reality check
Click to expand...
But people who expect Axe III level features out of an FM3 aren't delusional?
 
I guess this is the wrong place to try and find a solution for a real world problem.

Though my guess is that if Cliff has created Global Blocks for Axe Fx III, I might not be the only one with such needs.
 
olzzon said:
I guess this is the wrong place to try and find a solution for a real world problem.

Though my guess is that if Cliff has created Global Blocks for Axe Fx III, I might not be the only one with such needs.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing: You're butting up against CPU limitations. This isn't new, nor is it exclusive to your particular situation. Cliff could rewrite code for a month to make your wish come true, but then somebody else will come along right behind you and take it right back up to the redline again. So it's a constant battle, and more often than not the best solution is to find a way to get what you need within the confines of the hardware and firmware in its current state. Because no matter what, there will ALWAYS be somebody who wants more, and they will come up with a list of reasons why it should happen.
 
Frodebro said:
Here's the thing: You're butting up against CPU limitations. This isn't new, nor is it exclusive to your particular situation. Cliff could rewrite code for a month to make your wish come true, but then somebody else will come along right behind you and take it right back up to the redline again. So it's a constant battle, and more often than not the best solution is to find a way to get what you need within the confines of the hardware and firmware in its current state. Because no matter what, there will ALWAYS be somebody who wants more, and they will come up with a list of reasons why it should happen.
Click to expand...
As mentioned before it's not about CPU limitations, in the sense that I expect to use many FX's at a time.

I'm just trying to find a good way to have a Basic chain on my FM9 consisting of:
- Comp (low cpu - DynaComp), 1 drive, 1 AMP, 1 CAB, 1 delay, 1 reverb

And then in some cases having 1 or 2 of these:
- Plex delay, Pitch, MTD, Chorus, Tremolo, Vibrato, Phaser, 2 drive.

Currently I need to have separate presets, and then remember to align the basic chain on all presets, if I make a change in one of it's elements.
Which is probably why Cliff created global blocks for the FX III 🙂
 
olzzon said:
As mentioned before it's not about CPU limitations, in the sense that I expect to use many FX's at a time.
Click to expand...
Again, it IS. Especially in regards to this wish.

You want to have all the effects available. That requires CPU whether or not they're actively being used.

Yes, Global Blocks could help in your desired use case by spreading things out across multiple presets.

In that case your efforts are probably better spent to add your voice to that wish, although personally I don't expect that Fractal will add Global Blocks at this point.

Another option would be to just use the blocks library to manage any updates across multiple presets.
 
unix-guy said:
Yes, Global Blocks could help in your desired use case by spreading things out across multiple presets.

In that case your efforts are probably better spent to add your voice to that wish, although personally I don't expect that Fractal will add Global Blocks at this point.

Another option would be to just use the blocks library to manage any updates across multiple presets.
Click to expand...
Yes, I have renamed this thread, and have +1 on the other global blocks wish thread.
When I started this thread I didn't know of global blocks, as it's not a part of FM9.
 
Frodebro said:
Here's the thing: You're butting up against CPU limitations. This isn't new, nor is it exclusive to your particular situation. Cliff could rewrite code for a month to make your wish come true, but then somebody else will come along right behind you and take it right back up to the redline again. So it's a constant battle, and more often than not the best solution is to find a way to get what you need within the confines of the hardware and firmware in its current state. Because no matter what, there will ALWAYS be somebody who wants more, and they will come up with a list of reasons why it should happen.
Click to expand...
^THIS^

Cliff tried reducing the quality of the Amp block to allow two Amp blocks because "people" demanded it. Then the people didn't like it. Cliff said:
[101] We could potentially do two amp blocks but at reduced quality and I don't want to do that. Part of the problem with other modelers is that they don't oversample enough (and use single-precision in places where you need double-precision). Then you get complaints of artifacts and ear fatigue and all the other things associated with inadequate sample rate and word length. The vast majority of users only use one amp block so we wanted to make something with one very high quality "Ares" amp block.
Click to expand...

Regarding quality over quantity:
[24] […] I ALWAYS insist on quality over quantity. That's what differentiates our products. It takes a LOT of horsepower to do it right.
Click to expand...
There are many similar statements in the Wiki where he could sacrifice the sound but won't.

The request to reduce the quality of a block is essentially asking him to travel the same path, which I think is highly unlikely. From what he's said before, Cliff is chasing accuracy, and he won't sacrifice that, even if it means being unable to run more blocks.

WE understand that can be frustrating. I have no interest in seeing Fractal's goals changed because I want no-holds-barred determined focus on accuracy and realism, and I suspect that is what draws everyone to these products. It's unfortunate that collides with someone's wishes, but the reality is, there's only so much performance that can be squeezed out of DSPs at this time and Cliff is determined to make that go toward accuracy and quality in the sound; more blocks give way to better sound given the constraints of the CPUs. As time passes algorithms might improve, CPUs might get faster or more powerful, but we're dealing with now.

If we find that one product doesn't do what we want we have two choices: Change our wants, or get a different product. The FX3, even the Mk I, is a beast in comparison to the FM9 units simply because it's ~2x more powerful.

Wanting FAS to implement global blocks in the FM9, a unit that has 1/2 the power of the FX3 is highly unlikely to happen. That they help solve a particular problem isn't sufficient reason to implement them for everyone's machine unless there's a clear advantage for everyone, especially when that memory space and CPU could go toward something else more interesting to the masses.

Fractal has heard the request. They're really good about paying attention, but their focus might not be aligned with the stated desires.
 
Last edited:
The main reason for choosing Fractal is precisely that the quality is more important than the amount and I'm NOT requesting many FX at a time.

Actually I only use 1 AMP and 1 CAB, one drive, and almost never drive and comp at the same time. I never use more than one reverb, and usually 1 delay.
Then I might use either 1 multitap delay OR 1 pitch OR 1 chorus OR 1 tremolo OR 1 phaser but NEVER at the same time.

And then I just made this thread to find a simple way to do that, while keeping consistency in the core "in-amp-cab-rev-out" part.

My first proposal was to have a consistent way to set those occasional FX's (MTD, PITCH, CHO etc.) to some sort of "dummy"/"mimimun quality" on ch D when not in use. (still using CPU, but only enough for it to be able to switch to a high quality ch A,B,C)
It's not about lowering the quality of the the in-amp-cab-rev-out chain, those should always have the highest quality. So this proposal was about having only 1 place to edit the core "in-amp-cab-rev-out".

After posting this thread I saw that FX III had Global blocks, which would be a way better option (actually a quite clever solution ❤️) as this would allow me to use presets, while still keeping consistency.

I completely respect if Fractal won't implement one of those features in FM9, no matter, it's still a fantastic machine.
And my interest is NOT having lower quality, but to find the optimal way to use the CPU power for best workflow and best quality FX's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom