5150 III 50W vs Kemper vs FM3

Texhex

Texhex

Inspired
I finally received the FM3 and decided to put it up against the Kemper and real amp. A reamped track was used for all of these and recorded through the Two Notes Captor using the same IR with a high cut at 8300.

The FM3 controls were set to exactly match the settings on the amp including the Presence and Resonance (FM3 Depth) and no other Blocks were in the model except Input (noisegate OFF), Amp, Cab and Output. For the FM3 direct into the 5150 return I disabled the Cab block and the power amp section in the FM3. Pretty cool stuff!

To me the Kemper profile sounds most like the amp. Enjoy!


 
Last edited:
The Captor is not a realistic load. The FM3 will actually sound more like the real amp when the real amp is going into a real load.

If you expect the FM3 to exactly match your particular copy of an amp then it's the wrong product for you. The models are matched to OUR reference amps but all amps vary due to tolerances in the components. The biggest source of error is in the controls as potentiometers have poor tolerance. Do a search as I've talked about this at length.

The Kemper uses EQ matching so naturally it will compensate for the variation. I guarantee that the modeling below the EQ is superior on the FM3. The distortion characteristics, harmonic series, compression, etc. will be more accurate. If EQ is all your care about then stick with the Kemper.
 
Last edited:
FractalAudio said:
The Captor is not a realistic load. The FM3 will actually sound more like the real amp when the real amp is going into a real load.
Click to expand...

As soon as I can get access to the local studio here and mic up some real cabs I totally plan to run this same comparison. Captor is as good as I can get for now. I'm assuming the X-Load LB2 would fare no better?
 
Texhex said:
As soon as I can get access to the local studio here and mic up some real cabs I totally plan to run this same comparison. Captor is as good as I can get for now. I'm assuming the X-Load LB2 would fare no better?
Click to expand...
The X-Load is a far superior load as it has an inductor. The Suhr reactive load is also much better.
 
Texhex said:
Sorry, I mean fare no better compared to the mic and cabs.
Click to expand...
It's a far superior load therefore you will get results more similar to a real cab. The frequency response of a tube amp is dependent upon the load impedance. The Captor is a poor approximation. The X-Load and Suhr are far more accurate therefore the frequency response of the tube amp will more closely resemble using a real cab.

Like I said, if you really care about EQ accuracy the stick with your Kemper. It does EQ matching well. The FM3 models are matched to our reference amps and will likely vary from your particular copy of an amp. It's a fantastic product for the price but it doesn't do EQ matching.
 
FractalAudio said:
It's a far superior load therefore you will get results more similar to a real cab. The frequency response of a tube amp is dependent upon the load impedance. The Captor is a poor approximation. The X-Load and Suhr are far more accurate therefore the frequency response of the tube amp will more closely resemble using a real cab.

Like I said, if you really care about EQ accuracy the stick with your Kemper. It does EQ matching well. The FM3 models are matched to our reference amps and will likely vary from your particular copy of an amp. It's a fantastic product for the price but it doesn't do EQ matching.
Click to expand...

I'm really enjoying the FM3 and agree it is fantastic, nothing else like it at that price point. I absolutely love the Mesa Mark models, hands down the best out there. Using the Captor is fine for me but I may have to pick up an X-Load. Any word on when will they be back in stock?
 
I think Cliff is underselling the FM3 here. It doesn’t do EQ matching because it doesn’t need to. In other words the EQ comes out correctly as a consequence of accurate component modeling. There’s a good chance the discrepancy you’re hearing is due to differences in the specific amp that was used as the reference for the two cases: the FM3 modeling and the Kemper profile.

These “shootout” kinds of videos are obsolete for high end modelers IMHO. The state of the art has advanced to the point that any discrepancies between the tube amp and the modeler are attributable to things other than the quality of the modelers, such as parameter tweaks or specific amps that were used as references.

At this point these kinds of comparisons are like evaluating an automobile by making a video that compares a car to a bunch of horses that matches the car’s horsepower rating.

The state of the art has moved past modeling fidelity. IMHO the key issues these days are “can you get interesting sounds without regard for whether it matches a tube amp” and user experience
 
I have an EVH 5150 III 50w 6L6 head and a Suhr Reactive Load, and I've routed them into the Axe-Fx III a few times for A/Bing and other shenanigans.

If I set the cab impedance to a Marshall Greenback 4x12 cab and increase the HF Resonance just a bit, I can get the amps to sound just about identical. The gain and tonestack don't match up 100% for reasons that have been discussed countless times here (poor manufacturing tolerances for pots) but if I use my ears to tweak, not my eyes, I can match the model to the amp close enough that I can't hear or feel a difference.
 
GreatGreen said:
I have an EVH 5150 III 50w 6L6 head and a Suhr Reactive Load, and I've routed them into the Axe-Fx III a few times for A/Bing and other shenanigans.

If I set the cab impedance to a Marshall Greenback 4x12 cab and increase the HF Resonance just a bit, I can get the amps to sound just about identical. The gain and tonestack don't match up 100% for reasons that have been discussed countless times here (poor manufacturing tolerances for pots) but if I use my ears to tweak, not my eyes, I can match the model to the amp close enough that I can't hear or feel a difference.
Click to expand...

Yep, I completely agree that I could tweak the FM3 to get almost parity with the amp, I plan on exploring that exact thing tomorrow. For me that's the beauty of the modeler vs. profiler. In this demo I wanted to see how the FM3 sounded with the controls set the same as the amp. I don't agree that the amp was "crippled" by the Captor, not the same resistance as a cab and different than a X-Load or Suhr RL, OK fine, but crippled may be a little strong.

I enjoy both the Kemper and Fractal tech equally and also enjoy tube amps. Cliff has me jazzed to check out the X-Load now but there are none to be had new (not sure l really want a used RL). I just ordered a Suhr RL and can't wait to give that a go vs. the Captor. Mesa Boogie has the Cab Clone IR but I can't justify it at $600.
 
Last edited:
yek said:
Totally not in the same league as the loads from FAS and Suhr. Don't buy that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there's not a chance on that Cab Clone IR.

Interesting differences between the Captor and SRL, I know this is old news but it's still interesting to me. I really like the X-Load switchable voicing feature and just cancelled my SRL order and got on the wait list for a X-Load.

Real 4x12 AX Cab:
4x12 AX 16 ohm.jpg


Suhr RL:
Suhr 8ohm.jpg


Two Notes Captor:
Captor 8ohm.jpg
 
Texhex said:
The FM3 controls were set to exactly match the settings on the amp including the Presence and Resonance
Click to expand...
I might be wrong but I'm pretty sure the taper off the Presence control specifically is different in Fractal products than the real amps.

Also, what is the Resonance control you're talking about? I don't think I've seen that before (on the Axe Fx II or III).
 
unix-guy said:
I might be wrong but I'm pretty sure the taper off the Presence control specifically is different in Fractal products than the real amps.

Also, what is the Resonance control you're talking about? I don't think I've seen that before (on the Axe Fx II or III).
Click to expand...
Resonance === Depth
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom