Did a comparison between my FM3 and a Quad Cortex

RifferMcDuck

RifferMcDuck

Inspired
It was an interesting experience. Figured I'd share my thoughts:

First off, the QC is indeed far easier to pick up and put a usable tone together right out of the box, people elsewhere have mentioned that a lot and I agree with it. In comparison it also has a very up front, girthy tone, with some great high end chime going on. I do feel it had a little more believable of a "thump" to it with high gain amps, but I only use headphones so that may be different through monitors.

However, I quickly noticed a couple of things. First off, everything started to sound the same, and a bit sterile, like each amp shared the same DNA, but with slightly different gain characteristic and EQ. Some of this could be attributed to my rather sterile pickups (Fishman Fluence Moderns), but this isn't as apparent with the FM3 either way. I had a hard time putting together tones that truly felt different in character. The distortion on high gain also felt very flat in comparison, and neither high gain amps nor pedals (especially pedals) could provide the same sort of high definition chocky crunch that the FM3 does.

Even more importantly, to me, was the lack of midrange "woodiness", as I would call it. While rhythm tones could be usable and very fun on the QC, lead tones on it were very ... two dimensional. They sound great, and again have this great chime to them right out of the box. But they don't have the woody three-dimensional midrange punch of the FM3. The best way I can describe it is the difference between Ares and Cygnus when it came to the FM3 midrange, and the QC felt more like Ares in this regard.

Anyways, there were some other pros and cons, but tone wise those stood out the most. The FM3 wins, QC gets returned.

Hope this was helpful to someone who is curious or trying to decide between them!
 
Last edited:
Greg Ferguson said:
Wait until the latest FX3 firmware trickles down then rerun your comparison.

An major pro/con is to pay attention to is the support and updates shown by the companies for their products.
Click to expand...

That was huge on the pros and cons list, I only focused on the sound here. FAS is absolutely unrivaled when it comes to constant support and updates/innovation. Other differences were noted too, like the lack of a metronome on the QC (this deeply upset me), and the comparatively sparse model library.

I am very curious about the Cygnus x3 though, but I already found the FM3 to be superior so I can't imagine it going any better for the QC lol
 
RifferMcDuck said:
That was huge on the pros and cons list, I only focused on the sound here. FAS is absolutely unrivaled when it comes to constant support and updates/innovation. Other differences were noted too, like the lack of a metronome on the QC (this deeply upset me), and the comparatively sparse model library.

I am very curious about the Cygnus x3 though, but I already found the FM3 to be superior so I can't imagine it going any better for the QC lol
Click to expand...
Start imagining :D
 
RifferMcDuck said:
You've two have piqued my curiosity! Is there anything about my review above that you feel Cygnus X3 would apply to the most?
Click to expand...
I don't think it's my place to say anything beyond what I have. It's been stated by Fractal to be in private beta, and we're only allowed to talk about things that have already been mentioned by Fractal. Cygnus X-3 already exists for the FX3 in open beta so the comments there will give you a good idea.
 
Greg Ferguson said:
I don't think it's my place to say anything beyond what I have. It's been stated by Fractal to be in private beta, and we're only allowed to talk about things that have already been mentioned by Fractal. Cygnus X-3 already exists for the FX3 in open beta so the comments there will give you a good idea.
Click to expand...

Totally fair! The QC is already packed up for return anyways so no need to kick it while it's down when X3 drops :cool:
 
Habuman said:
Yes, but do it at gig volume through FOH, a FRFR or power amp/real cab. Not sure a comparison using headphones has any value.
Click to expand...

Well I suppose it has value to headphone users then, doesn't it. I wasn't trying to conduct a scientific experiment, simply sharing my own experience.
 
RifferMcDuck said:
It was an interesting experience. Figured I'd share my thoughts:

First off, the QC is indeed far easier to pick up and put a usable tone together right out of the box, people elsewhere have mentioned that a lot and I agree with it. In comparison it also has a very up front, girthy tone, with some great high end chime going on. I do feel it had a little more believable of a "thump" to it with high gain amps, but I only use headphones so that may be different through monitors.

However, I quickly noticed a couple of things. First off, everything started to sound the same, and a bit sterile, like each amp shared the same DNA, but with slightly different gain characteristic and EQ. Some of this could be attributed to my rather sterile pickups (Fishman Fluence Moderns), but this isn't as apparent with the FM3 either way. I had a hard time putting together tones that truly felt different in character. The distortion on high gain also felt very flat in comparison, and neither high gain amps nor pedals (especially pedals) could provide the same sort of high definition chocky crunch that the FM3 does.

Even more importantly, to me, was the lack of midrange "woodiness", as I would call it. While rhythm tones could be usable and very fun on the QC, lead tones on it were very ... two dimensional. They sound great, and again have this great chime to them right out of the box. But they don't have the woody three-dimensional midrange punch of the FM3. The best way I can describe it is the difference between Ares and Cygnus when it came to the FM3 midrange, and the QC felt more like Ares in this regard.

Anyways, there were some other pros and cons, but tone wise those stood out the most. The FM3 wins, QC gets returned.

Hope this was helpful to someone who is curious or trying to decide between them!
Click to expand...

I had a QC. I agree that a few spins of the amps and I found a great tone pretty quickly. I also really liked the low end palm mute on the QC. It felt great, right away.

I played with the QC for a few hours, then shut it off for the night. Next day, fiddled around again, found some great User Captures, and was enjoying it quite a bit.
Then I decided to power on my FM3 and A/B them. The FM3 had such a smooth top end compared to the QC. When I flipped over the QC, the only words that come to mind were grainy/harsh. Like a CD vs a MP3. I could not un-hear it....ever again.
I gave the QC a shot by capturing my own amps, etc. Just could NOT get rid of that harsh top end (vs. any Fractal I owned).

Selling the QC (and getting all my money back) felt amazing. Like I married the wrong girl and could annul the marriage before she took all my money! I would literally never consider buying one again....and I love to buy/sell gear.
 
BBN said:
I had a QC. I agree that a few spins of the amps and I found a great tone pretty quickly. I also really liked the low end palm mute on the QC. It felt great, right away.

I played with the QC for a few hours, then shut it off for the night. Next day, fiddled around again, found some great User Captures, and was enjoying it quite a bit.
Then I decided to power on my FM3 and A/B them. The FM3 had such a smooth top end compared to the QC. When I flipped over the QC, the only words that come to mind were grainy/harsh. Like a CD vs a MP3. I could not un-hear it....ever again.
I gave the QC a shot by capturing my own amps, etc. Just could NOT get rid of that harsh top end (vs. any Fractal I owned).

Selling the QC (and getting all my money back) felt amazing. Like I married the wrong girl and could annul the marriage before she took all my money! I would literally never consider buying one again....and I love to buy/sell gear.
Click to expand...
IMO the models have a strong upper mid grind or many of them do at least .
I will agree though on the lows the attack is very nice and I find the models have a ton of sustain
Hi end was definitely more aggressive but can be tamed with the cab block and eqs
I prefer the Fractal but the NDSP had some good tones when I had it
The Effects if you are an fx junkie is no contest , fractal wins hands down
But the fun factor for the cortex and ease of use will be appealing to many
 
Habuman said:
Yes, but do it at gig volume through FOH, a FRFR or power amp/real cab. Not sure a comparison using headphones has any value.
Click to expand...
Oh, it does. Without headphones we're adding in acoustic-coupling, but with them we can still hear how the models work quite well.
 
Greg Ferguson said:
Oh, it does. Without headphones we're adding in acoustic-coupling, but with them we can still hear how the models work quite well.
Click to expand...
Sort of, kind of. I can make my BOSS JS-10 sound fantastic through headphones as well. Doesn't mean I'm gigging with it.

How many posts are there about someone having great tone via headphones but then claiming that at a gig their sound wasn't anything like the headphone tone. Eventually, someone will write about Fletcher-Munson, add more mids, etc.

It is all good.
 
Very interesting because I was considering a QC before my FM3. The easy tone making thing is often said about helix too, but I think it's only relevant if you're talking about editing on the unit itself, but I tend to disregard this argument because I'm sure most of us edit on the Fractals using the edit program, and that is as fast as anything else.

Interesting comparison though!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom