FM9 - is there a way to know how much dsp blocks use?

[dk_ace]

So I am waiting to buy one until they get the seamless switching ported to it, just in case something goes wrong and they cant.

In the meantime; I’m working out how I’m going to use it. I’m a little nervous it might not have the dsp I need for the patch I want to run. I can’t find a block dsp list or something like that to help me figure it out. Is there one posted somewhere that I’m just not finding?

D

 

[paisleywookiee]

Hmm, interesting. I don't know. I could build a patch that you'd intend to run, and tell you how much it takes up, if that helps.

 

[jellodog]

@dk_ace It's not just a simple percentage use thing, because processor cores are dedicated to specific types of blocks e.g. there is a core dedicted to delay fx, and another to reverb.

 

[Deleted member 490]

Yeah, the best way to know is to post the "heaviest" signal chain you'd tipically use and we'll check the amount of cpu it uses.

I can tell you one thing though: I switched about a year ago from an axe fx III to an FM9 turbo and all my patches worked on it with no compromises made. I don't run particularly complex chains but I make extensive use of heavier blocks like plex delay and multi-delay, plus I always have a small vocal chain on the grid.

In some particular cases the cpu usage was actually lower on the fm9t than on the axe fx 3! You might ask how can that be possible... well, due to some blocks being assigned to different additional cores on the fm9 and some other running at a lower oversampling rate.

As an example, a preset containing 2 reverb blocks, 2 delay blocks and 2 or 3 drive blocks, will show exactly that, cuz reverbs and delays run on their own cores (taking up only 2-3% of the main core, unlike the axe where all the processing of those blocks is charged onto the main core) and drives run with less oversampling (taking up roughly the same cpu as on the axe, but the reduced quality is not noticeable at all)

 

[dk_ace]

Ok, thanks guys. Here's what I was planning to run:

2 amps
2 cabs
2 drive blocks
1 compressor
1 multidelay - using the halo type as a starting point that I'll modify for my purposes
2 delays
2 reverbs - one of these could be dedicated to spring sounds
1 rotary
1 tremolo
1 phaser
1 pitch block doing polyphonic shifting
1 chorus
1 filter
1 flanger
1 volume

I'd love to have some overhead for extra blocks for basic things like gain/volume, send/return, etc.

If this doesn't fit - here's what I would give up on in order:
1 delay
flanger
1 reverb

D

 

[Deleted member 490]

You mean like this?

PS: I don't know if with "2 cabs" you just meant two IRs or you actually need 2 separate cab blocks. The latter case might not be possible without sacrificing something cuz cab2 runs on the main core so it uses more cpu than cab1. Also, by switching those IRs to ultrares pushes the cpu to 82-83% which might still be usable but becomes a bit risky.
You'd need to check which multi-delay model you intend to use as well, cuz some models might use more cpu.

Except those couple things, everything is at its max cpu-wise, and there's also the intelligent noise gate turned on in the input block

PPS: this is on a FM9 TURBO

PPPS: oops, I missed the part about the halo type in the multi-delay, actually switching to that model pushes the cpu to aorund 82-83%, but the preset seems to be stable and usable even with everything turned on.

And one more thing: in the pitch block I selected the virtual capo, I assumed that's what you meant by "polyphonic pitch shifting", cuz using harmonizers adds 1 or 2% more.

 

[dk_ace]

You mean like this?

View attachment 12361

PS: I don't know if with "2 cabs" you just meant two IRs or you actually need 2 separate cab blocks. The latter case might not be possible without sacrificing something cuz cab2 runs on the main core so it uses more cpu than cab1. Also, by switching those IRs to ultrares pushes the cpu to 82-83% which might still be usable but becomes a bit risky.
You'd need to check which multi-delay model you intend to use as well, cuz some models might use more cpu.

Except those couple things, everything is at its max cpu-wise, and there's also the intelligent noise gate turned on in the input block

PPS: this is on a FM9 TURBO

PPPS: oops, I missed the part about the halo type in the multi-delay, actually switching to that model pushes the cpu to aorund 82-83%, but the preset seems to be stable and usable even with everything turned on.

View attachment 12362

And one more thing: in the pitch block I selected the virtual capo, I assumed that's what you meant by "polyphonic pitch shifting", cuz using harmonizers adds 1 or 2% more.

Thanks!!! Wow I can’t believe all of that fits. I think I can be fine with a single cab block. That just means I have to make a tradeoff on one of my amp sounds, probably the tweed has to use the same cab/channel I use for a different amp. Between the fender, plexi, and vox cab channel one of those should work ok though. I don’t really use tweed sounds that much anyway.

I’m ready to get one of these and try it out…

D

 

[Frodebro]

Thanks!!! Wow I can’t believe all of that fits. I think I can be fine with a single cab block. That just means I have to make a tradeoff on one of my amp sounds, probably the tweed has to use the same cab/channel I use for a different amp. Between the fender, plexi, and vox cab channel one of those should work ok though. I don’t really use tweed sounds that much anyway.

I’m ready to get one of these and try it out…

D

You can run multiple cabs in a single cab block, though I’m foggy on whether they can be independently assigned to dual cab blocks via panning or whatever.

 

[Deleted member 490]

Thanks!!! Wow I can’t believe all of that fits. I think I can be fine with a single cab block. That just means I have to make a tradeoff on one of my amp sounds, probably the tweed has to use the same cab/channel I use for a different amp. Between the fender, plexi, and vox cab channel one of those should work ok though. I don’t really use tweed sounds that much anyway.

I’m ready to get one of these and try it out…

D

One channel of a cab block contains 2 IRs, which you can "assign" to different amp blocks via panning, you just need to select stereo input mode in the cab and then the first cab slot will process L only and the second R only... And obviously pan each amp block accordingly.

 

[dk_ace]

One channel of a cab block contains 2 IRs, which you can "assign" to different amp blocks via panning, you just need to select stereo input mode in the cab and then the first cab slot will process L only and the second R only... And obviously pan each amp block accordingly.

Ah… I could actually run a separate IR for each amp model then I think. Should work as long as I’m careful with how I lay out the amps between the two amp blocks and the channel panning strategy.

D

 

[TSJMajesty]

Ok, thanks guys. Here's what I was planning to run:

2 amps
2 cabs
2 drive blocks
1 compressor
1 multidelay - using the halo type as a starting point that I'll modify for my purposes
2 delays
2 reverbs - one of these could be dedicated to spring sounds
1 rotary
1 tremolo
1 phaser
1 pitch block doing polyphonic shifting
1 chorus
1 filter
1 flanger
1 volume

I'd love to have some overhead for extra blocks for basic things like gain/volume, send/return, etc.

If this doesn't fit - here's what I would give up on in order:
1 delay
flanger
1 reverb

D

Do you understand that you can run 2 different types of those blocks you want 2 of, if you use a different channel in a different scene?

Is it possible you just want to be able to run 2 different delays, but not both at the same time, because if that's what you mean, then channels would pare that down quite a bit.

 

[dk_ace]

Do you understand that you can run 2 different types of those blocks you want 2 of, if you use a different channel in a different scene?

Is it possible you just want to be able to run 2 different delays, but not both at the same time, because if that's what you mean, then channels would pare that down quite a bit.

Yeah, you might be a little surprised to see just how much shit I’m actually running in that patch above if I was to go over all the channel variations I’m planning. In that big layout of blocks, there will be very few unused channels.

I know that seems insane to most people, but I find it easier to manage one master preset that can do virtually anything I want than to manage a handful of presets. If I have multiple presets, I’ll end up using one of them 95% of the time and ignoring the rest of them. If I have it in one preset, I’ll use far more stuff. It’s also easier for me to get ready for gigs with everything in one preset.

I’ve got 2 delay blocks in there because I want to run 8 different delay configurations in the preset…

D

 

[TSJMajesty]

Yeah, you might be a little surprised to see just how much shit I’m actually running in that patch above if I was to go over all the channel variations I’m planning. In that big layout of blocks, there will be very few unused channels.

I know that seems insane to most people, but I find it easier to manage one master preset that can do virtually anything I want than to manage a handful of presets. If I have multiple presets, I’ll end up using one of them 95% of the time and ignoring the rest of them. If I have it in one preset, I’ll use far more stuff. It’s also easier for me to get ready for gigs with everything in one preset.

I’ve got 2 delay blocks in there because I want to run 8 different delay configurations in the preset…

D

Right on. Just wasn't sure if maybe you thought you needed 2 delays for example, to be able to use 2 different types/settings in the same preset.

 

[Whizzinby]

View attachment 12362

That preset is both amazing and heartburn inducing.

 

[JiveTurkey]

What in the world are you using now that let's you accomplish this in a single preset?

 

[dk_ace]

What in the world are you using now that let's you accomplish this in a single preset?

Nothing does, that’s the point of buying the fm9….

I have a helix floor right now. I use it with a Ventris in the loop for reverbs. The Fm9 gives me a lot more horsepower and flexibility and will allow me to be completely in the box. I almost switched to it a while back but the audio gaps in some switching situations kept me from it.

Basically, I’ll use whatever is in my main preset 98% of the time. I’ve just had to admit this about myself. As much as i’m interested to experiment with other stuff, i’m lazy. If I can get to it with a footswitch or two without losing where i’m at, I’ll use it. If it’s any more complicated than that, I’ll just stick with what is readily available in the preset. I get pretty bored with my sounds that way though.

I think a mega patch with all the stuff I like in it will just be more fun. I could dial this patch back a little more, but the point was to see if it could do what I wanted with no compromises.

D

 

[dk_ace]

That preset is both amazing and heartburn inducing.

And you’re just looking at the blocks, wait until you see all the variations I plan to run with the channels…

D

 

[unix-guy]

You mean like this?

View attachment 12361

That's a very transparent Chorus there!

 

[Deleted member 490]

That's a very transparent Chorus there!

Forgot to put shunts there, but shouldn't change much for the purpose of this thread