Emote: Inter-Connecting FX Chains

[J20056]

I realize I am ahead of the game as this functionality does not currently exist.

However, i was told by Eventide that it is something that they are working on and which will become available in the not too distant future. As a guitar player, I consider this to be what will make the H9000 a real competitor to the AxeFxIII (I relaize the H9000 is a much wider concept than the AxeFX) and what justified my choosing the H9000 instead of the AxeFx.

The tropic is therefore how woud FX Chains connect to each other in Emote in the future? I am pretty keen on it because it would avoid having to get to the VSig level for certain complex patches that involve more than 4 algos. I am a guitar player, so for me, having 4 different processors doing their own thing is not that useful, whereas having a matrix of 16 algos (I do need more than 4 at times but I don’t really need 16)  that I can combine in a flexible way is awesome.

For the moment, I am “faking” this ability by using a patchbay in my rack so that each (stereo) FX Chain has a physical I/O.

 

The purpose of this message was just to try to get a sense from Eventide about how the functionality would work, because this may impact the way I design my FX Chains. ideally, I would get rid of the patchbay when the functionality is released and rewire in Emote accordingly, so if there is a current design as far as the inter-connectivity between the FX Chains, it would be useful to know ahead of time, if possible.

 

Regards

[macgee]

I know for sure many algos are only using a fragment of a single CORE, so why not have the ability to run more than one algo on a single core?

Each core is SUPER powerful – I can’t believe how much I’ve been able to throw at a single Algo…

e.g. 8 x DLYSMP2, 4 x Easytaps x 2 x MODELAY and complex audio and control signal routing and switching along with calculations! And I’m still going!

Some H9k algos are simply 2 x MODELAY with a few controls

So each algo would need to have a CORE cost at each SR

Theoretically you could have loads of algos in a single matrix.

I’d also love feedback on CORE cpu usage per algo so I know the impact of my algo built in Vsig but I’m in a major minority here until more start building – holding thumbs

 

Regarding FX Chain routings, I’m personally hoping we would be able to assign, in a single matrix, CPUs to be available for that matrix.

The user can then add e.g 8 algos in that matrix and route within the FXC as they desire.

I think I recall part of the issue is that audio needs to flow through each CPU so 4 on one CPU and then audio goes through to the next CPU?

 

As you re/arrange the algos in the matrix however, the hardware can reallocate the algos to CPUs and Cores as needed?

[J20056]

Ideally, the user would be agnostic to the underlying CPUs and their routing. They would be a “canvas” where you can drop an algo (up to 16 which is a LOT) and wire it wherever you want. That would be the digital equivalent of the analog SwitchBlade with analog/hardware pedals and rack units connected to it. I guess an easier VSig although could be wasteful CPU-wise but easier to use.

[J20056]

Is there an update on when FX chains could be interconnected in Emote instead of having to use a looped TosLink cable and use the ADAT IO? Beta would be fine. I’m trying to avoid using VSig and have functionsalty that’s a bit cloer to the AxeFXIII editor, although the latter is guitar custromized.

[moschops]

Sorry if I’m stating the obvious but you can just bring out the FX chain outputs to a mixer with 4 auxes and you can inter mingle them to your hearts content, probably more interesting sound as you can use analogue eq on the feedback paths, feed fx chains into themselves etc?

[J20056]

Since I had started this thread and the topic is being re-activated, I can show you two examples of the ideal interfaces. The first one is the GUI of my SwitchBlade system, where each box and connections represent physical pedals and processors (it was based on my old H7600, I now have a H9000R).

The second one is a screen shot of the AxeFX III Editor which id a grid where you can place pedals, FX and amps etc…

I was hoping that the H9000 could “somehow” offer the ability to do some combinations of this type, serial, parallel and so on. 

Interestingly, I now wired my H9000R into my SwitchBlade (16 In and Out) in pairs of stereo blocks from Emote, so I have 4 stereo H9000’s, one for each FX chain. Then I can combine as I see fit in the SwitchBlade, but I may incur cumulative latency with in/out/in/out serial chains. 

My hope initially was to be able to get rid of the SwitchBlade although for now, I’m happy with it as it allows to put multiple pres and amps as well.

Hopefully that helps clarify some potential designs. I’d say the AxeFX grid is the most obvious

 

[Kamurah]

Having both an Axe FX 3 and the H9000, I can wholeheartedly agree that (and no offense meant here) the Fractal GUI / interface is much more intuitive and arguably more flexible.    Obviously the ‘brick wall’ Eventide is hitting is the use / synchronization of 4 distinct DSP cores vs the 1 in the Axe FX.  By its design, the Fractal unit has the ability to route anything (input, chain, single effect, whatever) anywhere.  You can have multiple chains using the same outputs, sharing effects, or split the outputs.  You can run in serial, parallel, loopback, etc.  It really is so simple and straightforward.

If the brilliant minds at Eventide could somehow get a similar level of functionality…well…it wouldn’t necessarily be game over for Fractal because of the extensive Amp / Cab modelling on the Axe line and the cheaper entry price…but the H9000 would be elevated to another complete level IMO.  I think I read somewhere that Fractal initially started out with a goal of bringing a flagship Eventide-like device to the guitarists of the world at a more reasonable price….ironic.

[J20056]

It’s clearly difficult to have to manage 4 independent CPUs with a user experience that would be agnostic to it to your point about the AxeFXIII only have one, which actually helps it’s more narrow scope.
I have decided to go back and keep my SwitchBlade (Just had it refurbished) in my rack so I can instantly via midi switching connect any analog input to any analog output of the H9000.
So I’m going to consider that the current interface is adequate at this point.
But what would be really nice is a good library of VSig super modules that are easy to connect and set parameters. Some sort of interface halfway between VSig and the current FX chain interface.
That would allow users to use more than the 4 algos per FX chain limitation as you could or peoductive in this easier VSig. Dunno just a suggestion but with my setup now I’m pretty good:

[gustebeast]

Personally I am less interested in chaining fx chains together and more interested in having multiple fx chains output to the same ports (i.e. mixed together). Suppose I have optical output 1 and 2 connected to a pair of speakers for monitoring, then inputs 1-3 of different instruments

1 – guitar

2 – bass

3 – vocals

I could be using my guitar FX chain which takes 1, adds effects, then outputs to 1 and 2, then I could drag and drop my vocals FX chain which takes 3, adds effects, then outputs to 1 and 2 as well. As it stands, I find myself needing to make Session X, Session X + Vocals, Session X + bass, Session Y, Session Y + Vocals, etc. so that I can have everything in one FX chain.

I wouldn’t mind doing this with an external mixer, but I haven’t been able to find anything that can work with digital signals (take the H9000 digital outputs and mix into a 2 channel optical or coax).

[Puppeteer]

gustebeast wrote:

Personally I am less interested in chaining fx chains together and more interested in having multiple fx chains output to the same ports (i.e. mixed together). Suppose I have optical output 1 and 2 connected to a pair of speakers for monitoring, then inputs 1-3 of different instruments 1 – guitar 2 – bass 3 – vocals I could be using my guitar FX chain which takes 1, adds effects, then outputs to 1 and 2, then I could drag and drop my vocals FX chain which takes 3, adds effects, then outputs to 1 and 2 as well. As it stands, I find myself needing to make Session X, Session X + Vocals, Session X + bass, Session Y, Session Y + Vocals, etc. so that I can have everything in one FX chain. I wouldn’t mind doing this with an external mixer, but I haven’t been able to find anything that can work with digital signals (take the H9000 digital outputs and mix into a 2 channel optical or coax).

I just saw that this was posted today, but it seems to be an old thread.

Depending on the algorithm requirement, if you can get all the FX in 1 chain, then you can just mix to 1 set of outputs by wiring the parallel FX outputs to a single set of outputs, though you will have limited ability to mix.

If you want a dedicated mixing algorithm, I have a free one and a paid premium one available at https://godlike.com.au/index.php?id=420 that can mix 8 outputs (or 2 stereo pairs) down to a single stereo pair.

[gustebeast]

Here’s what I am doing now

I have guitar going through a SpaceTime effects block, then guitar vocals and bass going through a 5.1 reverb unit (functions as 5 reverbs in one block). Each instrument gets its own USB output, but they all get mixed together for the stereo optical output which goes to my speakers. What I would like instead is to separate each analog input into its own FX chain so they can be dragged and dropped easily from one session to another. For example here might be my guitar and vocals FX chains.

 

The issue is that AES3 outputs 1 and 2 are locked in the Vocals FX chain so I can only use 3 and 4. If I had an external mixer that could take 8 channels of optical and mix down to 2, this would be fine, but I’m not aware of such a device. If anyone from Eventide sees this I’d be curious to know if adding a post FX mixing stage has been considered.

[gustebeast]

Here’s an idea. Would it be possible to do a second pass through the H9000 via an optical splitter like this?

Guitar/Bass/Vocals go into AES3 outs 3, 4 and 5

Signal leaves H9000 and gets split via cable to speakers (ignored since speaker only reads 1 and 2) and IN optical port of H9000

AES3 ins 3, 4 and 5 go into a THRU module and then mixed to AES3 outs 1 and 2

Signal leaves H9000 and gets split via cable to speakers (played) and IN optical port of H9000 (AES3 ins 1 and 2 are ignored)

 

Would that work? How much latency would it add?

[gustebeast]

I realized I can test myself without using a splitter. I hooked up a speaker to the analog 1 output, then connected the optical IN and OUT jacks with an optical cable. Unfortunately I am not seeing any signal coming into the IN port, not sure why. Here’s how it’s wired up in the H9000.

[Puppeteer]

Because you are sending/receiving to the digital DSub. You’ll need to select ADAT in the inputs and outputs.

[gustebeast]

I took my previous analog output test and replaced AES3 DB25 with ADAT. Success! The audio comes out of the speaker after making its way out and back in via the optical out/in. For anyone in this thread looking to chain multiple FX chains together, this is a way to chain two, although you need a physical cable and it blocks you from using the digital outs for other purposes.

Unfortunately, switching to ADAT also breaks my intended monitoring. If I connect the optical back into my amp, it doesn’t play any sound. It seems to only be able to interpret S/PDIF (Optical) or the first two channels of AES3 DB25. So it seems I’m still stuck unless I can find a way to take an ADAT optical signal and convert it into S/PDIF for my amp, or maybe do something similar with an AES3 splitter + AES3 to S/PDIF converter.

I did run into something strange here though. I switch to ADAT and the amp stops working, if I switch back to AES3 DB25 (by loading the session again and discarding changes) it still doesn’t work. To get it to work I either need to reboot the H9000 or switch to S/PDIF (works) and then back to AES3 DB25 (still works). I’m confused how AES3 DB25 works in the first place actually since I would assume that would only be for the AES3 and DB25 connectors, not the optical.

[jbamberg]

J20056 wrote:

Ideally, the user would be agnostic to the underlying CPUs and their routing. They would be a “canvas” where you can drop an algo (up to 16 which is a LOT) and wire it wherever you want. That would be the digital equivalent of the analog SwitchBlade with analog/hardware pedals and rack units connected to it. I guess an easier VSig although could be wasteful CPU-wise but easier to use.

This is something we discussed in the early stages of the project, but there are some difficulties with making it work this way.  Connections between DSPs are not the same as connections within a DSP, and while we could hide that from the user, it might lead to some unexpected behavior.  Also, Eventide algorithms tend to combine multiple effects within a single algorithm already, and we felt that combining more than 4 of these together would perhaps not be as musically useful as combining simpler building blocks, so we focused on making Vsig easier to use.  IMHO, ideally we need something that's a level of granularity between Vsig and patching algorithms in an FX chain.

In the nearer term, we are planning to add the ability to connect between DSPs in the next release, so you'll be able to connect up to 16 effects without tying up analog IO and patchbay connections.  This is supported natively in the system, but we don't have a UI for it just yet.

[macgee]

is there anything preventing the running of multiple algos on a single core if the power is available?

 

jbamberg wrote:

This is something we discussed in the early stages of the project, but there are some difficulties with making it work this way.  Connections between DSPs are not the same as connections within a DSP, and while we could hide that from the user, it might lead to some unexpected behavior.  Also, Eventide algorithms tend to combine multiple effects within a single algorithm already, and we felt that combining more than 4 of these together would perhaps not be as musically useful as combining simpler building blocks, so we focused on making Vsig easier to use.  IMHO, ideally we need something that’s a level of granularity between Vsig and patching algorithms in an FX chain.

[jbamberg]

macgee wrote:

is there anything preventing the running of multiple algos on a single core if the power is available?

Well, as we like to say, it's a simple matter of software.  One thing we've discussed is being able to run 2 algorithms per core if running at 44.1/48.  I think this is doable, although the synchronization can get tricky depending on how they are routed.  If the 2 algorithms were always paired in series, that would not be a problem.

[macgee]

jbamberg wrote:

Well, as we like to say, it’s a simple matter of software.  One thing we’ve discussed is being able to run 2 algorithms per core if running at 44.1/48.  I think this is doable, although the synchronization can get tricky depending on how they are routed.  If the 2 algorithms were always paired in series, that would not be a problem.

The ability to run 8 algos in one FX chain would be amazing

Re Serial vs Parallel, that sounds fair, 2 on 1 core, run serial otherwise if parallel use another core

I imagine the challenge is how best to present this to the user

Thinking of my my old Digitech rack FX(which I still use), you would pick your config first then choose algos

Attached some images from PDF

 

 

 

[bsfreq]

jbamberg wrote:

Well, as we like to say, it’s a simple matter of software.  One thing we’ve discussed is being able to run 2 algorithms per core if running at 44.1/48.  I think this is doable, although the synchronization can get tricky depending on how they are routed.  If the 2 algorithms were always paired in series, that would not be a problem.

Hi, 

How likely would you say you’ll be adding the possibility to run 8 algorithms on a single DSP when running at 44.1/48kHz clock speeds? That would make the world of difference. 

I know it’s already possible to combine some of the algorithms using VSig as mentioned here, but for example the H9 algorithms are not supported and I’m especially fond of many of those. Also, it would be much more user-friendly for those of us not necessarily having the time to learn the depths of the VSig editor. 

I can also see this being an awesome selling point and adding a lot more to the value of the H9000, as we would be able to really use the whole processing power of the unit. (In case I understood correctly from the thermal related conversation in the 1.3 public beta thread, the processors run at their full clocking speeds at all times anyway, so it would be good to be able to squeeze all out of them. .)

 

Now where exactly does this clocking trickiness (paired vs series) step in?

I mean would it be easier to allow running of 8 separate, independently I/O routed algorithms within a single DSP, or would this scenario come with the same clocking issues than running algorithms parallel, with combined I/O routing?

I would be more than happy even with only the possibility to run 8 independently routed algorithms within a DSP, as I have plenty of I/O with the MADI expansion.

Thanks again for any new info, and I must say I’m very glad to see the ongoing software development of the H9000 unit and Emote.

All the best.

 

[jbamberg]

macgee wrote:

The ability to run 8 algos in one FX chain would be amazing

Re Serial vs Parallel, that sounds fair, 2 on 1 core, run serial otherwise if parallel use another core

I imagine the challenge is how best to present this to the user

Thinking of my my old Digitech rack FX(which I still use), you would pick your config first then choose algos

Attached some images from PDF

 

Thanks, this is very interesting.  I still think that the very deep users who want this level of customization might be better served with a patching tool that's like Vsig (or maybe is Vsig) but has higher level modules (each of which can be an algorithm in itself).  For example, that would allow you to route control signals between algorithms, which the other approach can't do.

[macgee]

jbamberg wrote:

Thanks, this is very interesting.  I still think that the very deep users who want this level of customization might be better served with a patching tool that’s like Vsig (or maybe is Vsig) but has higher level modules (each of which can be an algorithm in itself).  For example, that would allow you to route control signals between algorithms, which the other approach can’t do.

That approach sounds great to me, especially being able to route signal between algos

One challenge I have with building my own algos though is they get too big (long menus) and then navigating the UI gets cumbersome – sure this comes down to the builder and both algo and UI are each skills of their own

So an approach like that could make it easier to navigate

Loving Vsig and getting more comfortable. – it hasn’t been the easiest to learn but with more community it could be a lot easier

[J20056]

I am using it in a guitar rack, and was going to take the rack on gigs, so a mixer isn’t an option. My goal has been trying to replicate (in a somehow limited, but non-zero) the routing functionality of a Switchbalde or an Axe FX III. But it seems that short of using VSIg, whihc I do not want to do for building quick patches, it is still not really an easy thing to do in Emote given lack of connectivity of various FX Chains. Seems like having 4 great processors, but I really need only one. Dunno, I’m a bit frustrated at this point. I literally reconected my SwitchBlade as part of the rig, and was gonna use it to conenct the sets of analog I/O, but if I can’t use a MIDI floorboard, then I’m really SOL. So getting frsutrating to say the least.

[joeydego]

J20056 wrote:

I am using it in a guitar rack, and was going to take the rack on gigs, so a mixer isn’t an option. My goal has been trying to replicate (in a somehow limited, but non-zero) the routing functionality of a Switchbalde or an Axe FX III. But it seems that short of using VSIg, whihc I do not want to do for building quick patches, it is still not really an easy thing to do in Emote given lack of connectivity of various FX Chains. Seems like having 4 great processors, but I really need only one. Dunno, I’m a bit frustrated at this point. I literally reconected my SwitchBlade as part of the rig, and was gonna use it to conenct the sets of analog I/O, but if I can’t use a MIDI floorboard, then I’m really SOL. So getting frsutrating to say the least.

Im a little confused why you coundnt use midi? What is the H9000 midi limitation? Couldnt you switch sessions via midi and store each fx patch as a session? 

[J20056]

Not with a H9000R sadly

[jbamberg]

bsfreq wrote:

Now where exactly does this clocking trickiness (paired vs series) step in?

I mean would it be easier to allow running of 8 separate, independently I/O routed algorithms within a single DSP, or would this scenario come with the same clocking issues than running algorithms parallel, with combined I/O routing?

I would be more than happy even with only the possibility to run 8 independently routed algorithms within a DSP, as I have plenty of I/O with the MADI expansion.

Thanks again for any new info, and I must say I'm very glad to see the ongoing software development of the H9000 unit and Emote.

 

Without getting too deep into the details, it's not clocking synchronization I'm referring to, but synchronization of processing where the input of one algorithm is fed from the output of another.  The upstream one has to finish before the downstream one can begin.  (And if you have 2 that are mixed down, they both have to finish, etc).

Having 8 independent algorithms that don't feed each other makes it somewhat simpler, but that would add a different sort of complexity, as it would constitute a different "mode" as opposed to the normal FX Chain mode.

So, I think that ideally, we'd figure out a way to extend the current model so you could have 8 algorithms in an FX chain instead of 4, without restrictions on how they are laid out.

[bsfreq]

jbamberg wrote:

So, I think that ideally, we’d figure out a way to extend the current model so you could have 8 algorithms in an FX chain instead of 4, without restrictions on how they are laid out.

I agree, that would definitely be ideal. I really hope you’ll be able to figure this one out.

Best of luck, and thanks for keeping us in the loop.

[bsfreq]

jbamberg wrote:

So, I think that ideally, we’d figure out a way to extend the current model so you could have 8 algorithms in an FX chain instead of 4, without restrictions on how they are laid out.

Hi again!

Any progress or news on this? Is there any chance this feature will make it to 1.4 release? I’m planning my setup ahead and wondering what will be possible in the near future and which way to go..

[tbskoglund]

bsfreq wrote:

jbamberg wrote:

So, I think that ideally, we'd figure out a way to extend the current model so you could have 8 algorithms in an FX chain instead of 4, without restrictions on how they are laid out.

Hi again!

Any progress or news on this? Is there any chance this feature will make it to 1.4 release? I'm planning my setup ahead and wondering what will be possible in the near future and which way to go..

Sorry but this won't be something that will make it to the next H9k firmware release. It is still something that is being discussed and a feature that we'd like to include in a future release. Thanks for your patience. 

[Author]

Posts