First week with FM3 - What I hear on Youtube is just not true

Hi all - I had them all incl Kemper, Helix, plugins and also the AX8. On Youtube I see a lot of "influencers" saying that Helix is on the same level in terms of tone quality. Also people comment that Fractal products are not easy to use. All this is not true at least from my perspective (I play blues, rock, jazz): the FM3 sounds in fact really so much better in terms of clarity, string separation, reverbs etc.. Also is feels more responsive than most other modelers. The editors makes it very easy to dial in what you want. I had the Kemper Head and Stage for many years. Although it sounds very good there was a always a level of unhappiness as you depend on the right profile and its quality. With the FM3 I can dial in the sound I have in my head (and much more) and pair this with absolutely stunning effects. Also the ability to record directly and re-amping works like a charme. Originally I wanted to buy also the Quad Cortex but I drop this for now. Could not be happier
 
Hi all - I had them all incl Kemper, Helix, plugins and also the AX8. On Youtube I see a lot of "influencers" saying that Helix is on the same level in terms of tone quality. Also people comment that Fractal products are not easy to use. All this is not true at least from my perspective (I play blues, rock, jazz): the FM3 sounds in fact really so much better in terms of clarity, string separation, reverbs etc.. Also is feels more responsive than most other modelers. The editors makes it very easy to dial in what you want. I had the Kemper Head and Stage for many years. Although it sounds very good there was a always a level of unhappiness as you depend on the right profile and its quality. With the FM3 I can dial in the sound I have in my head (and much more) and pair this with absolutely stunning effects. Also the ability to record directly and re-amping works like a charme. Originally I wanted to buy also the Quad Cortex but I drop this for now. Could not be happier
Hey, glad you're happy. I watched a TON of comparisons before committing to FM3. I commented months ago about how frustrating it is to realize that the person in the video seemed to always try to equivocate between whatever two or three systems they were looking at. It just seemed like no one wanted to offend anyone (which I do believe is part of it-after all if you're a professional youtuber, why alienate a portion of your audience).

Anyway, the FM3 rocks. Watch Rhett Shull's vid on the QC; it think it's very fair. He actually unequivocally states that the QC's effects just aren't there yet.
 
Hi all - I had them all incl Kemper, Helix, plugins and also the AX8. On Youtube I see a lot of "influencers" saying that Helix is on the same level in terms of tone quality. Also people comment that Fractal products are not easy to use. All this is not true at least from my perspective (I play blues, rock, jazz): the FM3 sounds in fact really so much better in terms of clarity, string separation, reverbs etc.. Also is feels more responsive than most other modelers. The editors makes it very easy to dial in what you want. I had the Kemper Head and Stage for many years. Although it sounds very good there was a always a level of unhappiness as you depend on the right profile and its quality. With the FM3 I can dial in the sound I have in my head (and much more) and pair this with absolutely stunning effects. Also the ability to record directly and re-amping works like a charme. Originally I wanted to buy also the Quad Cortex but I drop this for now. Could not be happier
100%. I did a side by side with my Helix (now sold) and my friend's AxeFxIII before buying the FM3. Helix sounded ok until it was compared to the Fractal. String separation was a big issue for me. When slow strumming a chord on the Helix the tone was similar to the Fractal but I couldn't hear any note definition. It was kind of blurry. On the Fractal I could hear the pick hit every string. That's what sold me. Once I had the FM3 it was instant gratification with sounds. I never had that with the Helix. I struggled every day getting a usable sound.

Once I got accustomed to the UI I was fine with it. I'm sure there could be improvements but there's also a lot more control over everything than the other products on the market.
 
100%. I did a side by side with my Helix (now sold) and my friend's AxeFxIII before buying the FM3. Helix sounded ok until it was compared to the Fractal. String separation was a big issue for me. When slow strumming a chord on the Helix the tone was similar to the Fractal but I couldn't hear any note definition. It was kind of blurry. On the Fractal I could hear the pick hit every string. That's what sold me. Once I had the FM3 it was instant gratification with sounds. I never had that with the Helix. I struggled every day getting a usable sound.

Once I got accustomed to the UI I was fine with it. I'm sure there could be improvements but there's also a lot more control over everything than the other products on the market.

I wish more people had the opportunity to do this test vs other modelers, and even other tube amps. It would get people thinking about their bias toward their preferred modeler / amp. Bias drives decision making in this world more than their own ears, I believe.
 
Tomorrow makes one week for me with the FM3 and I am absolutely blown away. Last night I started making my 2nd full preset and I feel like I created a perfect 80s hair metal tone with the JMP-1 preamp and a little delay. I was playing Ratt and Def Leppard riffs all night. Honestly, the only thing I haven't really figured out how to really use well yet is the Plex delay. I haven't figured out any way to incorporate that into a patch that makes any sense for me yet, but then again, I won't be using anything like it live.
 
Tomorrow makes one week for me with the FM3 and I am absolutely blown away. Last night I started making my 2nd full preset and I feel like I created a perfect 80s hair metal tone with the JMP-1 preamp and a little delay. I was playing Ratt and Def Leppard riffs all night. Honestly, the only thing I haven't really figured out how to really use well yet is the Plex delay. I haven't figured out any way to incorporate that into a patch that makes any sense for me yet, but then again, I won't be using anything like it live.
This may help you:

 
I could place this in one of a few threads, but since this is one of the latest to mention Quad Cortex, I'll put it here.

The fellows over at Worship Tutorials recently got their hands on one and have had time to evaluate it. As much as I like these guys, watching the video it seems like they are not entirely forthcoming. They play up the capture ability (which I admit sounds really good-Rhett Shull's review agreed with that) and also the UI (again I admit it does seem really nice). I do have to say that, despite compressed youtube audio and all of that, in Shull's video there is a VERY noticeable difference between the quality of the QC vs Kemper capture (QC wins).

My issue is that I don't think they are forthcoming in evaluating effects or amps. They simply let you hear a sample of a patch they built and don't compare it to anything else (if you're not familiar P&W guitar patches they tend to be very "washy" so it won't tell you much really because it usually borders on the ambient). There's a lot about dismissing comparisons going on at about 6:30 where Bradford is sort of dissing the comparison game. Also telling is at 13:15 Brian states he preferred the captured amp tone better than the modeled tone (which would agree with Shull's analysis as well).

There are some other very telling details. It doesn't seem like all of the CPU horsepower goes as far as some are led to believe.

I personally don't see much value in a capture ability (that's why I bought a modeler). How would you even be able to capture all of the amps you might want to use? Anyway, I'm happy with the FM3.

 
Last edited:
I own both the Helix Floor and FM3, tone- and feelwise they are very much comparable. You can take a reference tone from FM3, use the same IRs and dial the Helix to sound and feel very similar provided it has the same or a similar amp model to use. You will end up with different settings on both but the sound/feel will be close. Just like you cannot compare two amps by setting them at the same pot settings, you can't compare two modelers like that either. So use a reference tone and adjust the other device to match that.

Ultimately feature sets and workflows are to me more important distinctions. I can get the Helix to do things I want a bit faster than the FM3 and I don't mind editing it on the hardware itself whereas FM3 can only be described as clunky. Yes you can live with it but it's not a great user experience by any measure. The Helix is quite large physically so the FM3 has served well as a travel and desktop unit for me. Helix stock cab sims are not particularly great and FM3 comes with a very vast library of IRs so that adds value too.

I'm just not buying into this "it's sooo much better" thing. All the top tier modelers are great with pros and cons to each of them.
 
I own both the Helix Floor and FM3, tone- and feelwise they are very much comparable. You can take a reference tone from FM3, use the same IRs and dial the Helix to sound and feel very similar provided it has the same or a similar amp model to use. You will end up with different settings on both but the sound/feel will be close. Just like you cannot compare two amps by setting them at the same pot settings, you can't compare two modelers like that either. So use a reference tone and adjust the other device to match that.

Ultimately feature sets and workflows are to me more important distinctions. I can get the Helix to do things I want a bit faster than the FM3 and I don't mind editing it on the hardware itself whereas FM3 can only be described as clunky. Yes you can live with it but it's not a great user experience by any measure. The Helix is quite large physically so the FM3 has served well as a travel and desktop unit for me. Helix stock cab sims are not particularly great and FM3 comes with a very vast library of IRs so that adds value too.

I'm just not buying into this "it's sooo much better" thing. All the top tier modelers are great with pros and cons to each of them.
I think there's a lot of curiosity out there about the QC (myself included). From what I've been able to ascertain though, the effect algorithms don't measure up. It seems to really shine at doing the capture thing. There's an intriguing video (put out by the manufacturer) where they capture guitarists' rigs and then do an A/B and the guitarists can't determine which is which. That jives with several other reviews too. The capture thing is great, but not extremely useful to most people I would think, unless you have access to a warehouse full of gear.

I wanted to place that video above in this thread because the thread was started to discuss not trusting what you hear on youtube. I've learned you really have to parse out the language when watching these reviews. Are you going to spend $1,500 on a unit and not try to find something good to say about it?
 
Hi all - I had them all incl Kemper, Helix, plugins and also the AX8. On Youtube I see a lot of "influencers" saying that Helix is on the same level in terms of tone quality. Also people comment that Fractal products are not easy to use. All this is not true at least from my perspective (I play blues, rock, jazz): the FM3 sounds in fact really so much better in terms of clarity, string separation, reverbs etc.. Also is feels more responsive than most other modelers. The editors makes it very easy to dial in what you want. I had the Kemper Head and Stage for many years. Although it sounds very good there was a always a level of unhappiness as you depend on the right profile and its quality. With the FM3 I can dial in the sound I have in my head (and much more) and pair this with absolutely stunning effects. Also the ability to record directly and re-amping works like a charme. Originally I wanted to buy also the Quad Cortex but I drop this for now. Could not be happier
Welcome to the internet.
 
I could place this in one of a few threads, but since this is one of the latest to mention Quad Cortex, I'll put it here.

The fellows over at Worship Tutorials recently got their hands on one and have had time to evaluate it. As much as I like these guys, watching the video it seems like they are not entirely forthcoming. They play up the capture ability (which I admit sounds really good-Rhett Shull's review agreed with that) and also the UI (again I admit it does seem really nice). I do have to say that, despite compressed youtube audio and all of that, in Shull's video there is a VERY noticeable difference between the quality of the QC vs Kemper capture (QC wins).

My issue is that I don't think they are forthcoming in evaluating effects or amps. They simply let you hear a sample of a patch they built and don't compare it to anything else (if you're not familiar P&W guitar patches they tend to be very "washy" so it won't tell you much really because it usually borders on the ambient). There's a lot about dismissing comparisons going on at about 6:30 where Bradford is sort of dissing the comparison game. Also telling is at 13:15 Brian states he preferred the captured amp tone better than the modeled tone (which would agree with Shull's analysis as well).

There are some other very telling details. It doesn't seem like all of the CPU horsepower goes as far as some are led to believe.

I personally don't see much value in a capture ability (that's why I bought a modeler). How would you even be able to capture all of the amps you might want to use? Anyway, I'm happy with the FM3.




Capture is a great capability. You don't capture all the amps you want - someone else does. A unit with both modeling and profiling is valuable in the QC case. That said, I think the Axe-Fx models/effects are quite far ahead of the QC.

Would love an Axe3 in the QC footprint/layout.
 
Capture is a great capability. You don't capture all the amps you want - someone else does. A unit with both modeling and profiling is valuable in the QC case. That said, I think the Axe-Fx models/effects are quite far ahead of the QC.

Would love an Axe3 in the QC footprint/layout.
Ok, so you can utilize someone else's capture? Sort of like sharing a preset?
 
I think there's a lot of curiosity out there about the QC (myself included). From what I've been able to ascertain though, the effect algorithms don't measure up. It seems to really shine at doing the capture thing. There's an intriguing video (put out by the manufacturer) where they capture guitarists' rigs and then do an A/B and the guitarists can't determine which is which. That jives with several other reviews too. The capture thing is great, but not extremely useful to most people I would think, unless you have access to a warehouse full of gear.

I wanted to place that video above in this thread because the thread was started to discuss not trusting what you hear on youtube. I've learned you really have to parse out the language when watching these reviews. Are you going to spend $1,500 on a unit and not try to find something good to say about it?

According to NeuralDSP guys it's just coincidence that so many YouTubers have focused on the capturing so much, they never asked them to do so. To be fair it's probably one of the bigger differentiators on the QC since it was previously only available on the Kemper.

The capture feature is useful to anyone because you have access to the shared captures from other people. You can just fire up the NeuralDSP mobile app and download them to your Quad Cortex, like sharing a preset or IR. This lets you augment the capabilities of your devices if it doesn't have a model of something you love built in. Obviously captures will be more limited in how you can shape the sound compared to having a full model built into the device.

The video you linked says that they think the effects are really good sounding but the selection of different fx is limited. Effects are highly subjective in the first place where one might prefer bright and pristine and someone else wants warm and smooth.

Most guitar gear out there is genuinely good. I can find a huge pile of issues in the FM3 but still think it has a ton of good things about it too. I expect the same with the QC but reserve judgement until I get mine.
 
According to NeuralDSP guys it's just coincidence that so many YouTubers have focused on the capturing so much, they never asked them to do so. To be fair it's probably one of the bigger differentiators on the QC since it was previously only available on the Kemper.

The capture feature is useful to anyone because you have access to the shared captures from other people. You can just fire up the NeuralDSP mobile app and download them to your Quad Cortex, like sharing a preset or IR. This lets you augment the capabilities of your devices if it doesn't have a model of something you love built in. Obviously captures will be more limited in how you can shape the sound compared to having a full model built into the device.

The video you linked says that they think the effects are really good sounding but the selection of different fx is limited. Effects are highly subjective in the first place where one might prefer bright and pristine and someone else wants warm and smooth.

Most guitar gear out there is genuinely good. I can find a huge pile of issues in the FM3 but still think it has a ton of good things about it too. I expect the same with the QC but reserve judgement until I get mine.
Thanks for that information. I can see where that would be very useful. You also answered my follow up question...this will be much more limited in any tone shaping parameters. Sounds like it might have greatest utility for someone who actually had access to the gear used though. That way you could shape your tone and then sort of package it and go. Again, thanks.
 
Thanks for that information. I can see where that would be very useful. You also answered my follow up question...this will be much more limited in any tone shaping parameters. Sounds like it might have greatest utility for someone who actually had access to the gear used though. That way you could shape your tone and then sort of package it and go. Again, thanks.
Most captures of device X have multiple variations with different settings and you can still apply different gain, volume and 3 band EQ on them to tweak them to match your gear. They are best thought of as snapshots with just enough tweakability to make them fit your gear. Ultimately if that gets you a sound you like then it's all good.
 
Most captures of device X have multiple variations with different settings and you can still apply different gain, volume and 3 band EQ on them to tweak them to match your gear. They are best thought of as snapshots with just enough tweakability to make them fit your gear. Ultimately if that gets you a sound you like then it's all good.
Makes sense. It also means that most captures will be tailor made for the person doing the capture, so it might not work so well for a different party with different gear.
 
Makes sense. It also means that most captures will be tailor made for the person doing the capture, so it might not work so well for a different party with different gear.
Sure, but that's why you have some settings in the capture block to tweak it more to your liking. It might not be accurate after that but if it sounds good, who cares?
 
Back
Top Bottom