FM3 Firmware Version 3.01

milan.pohancenik said:
Yeah, the graphic EQ does it as well :) it's just that I need to add the same eq always and to any amp type :) I think that people think too much about low end rumble and not the top end. Owning a real Savage 60 and 120 makes me wanna have the tone in that small box. Only way to achieve is through the EQ block. Otherwise the tone is just spot on! Our lead guitarist has the 5150 II and when I want to dial in his tone, I just need to add the EQ again. So it just seems that there this one bit missing. I tried to connect the FM3 into the power amp of the ENGL and it seems to be already a problem in the preamp that it's kinda too dark.
Click to expand...
Perhaps adding an EQ block is the answer, so you can save the block in the block library and add it to each. Seems it would save a lot of repeated EQ tweaks....
 
GaryMcT said:
Matrix isn’t really flat. It almost sounded like a low pass filter when I had one. Has to be eq’d to get the high end back.
Click to expand...
If that were normal I think you'd hear a lot of complaints. I've never heard a similar complaint from anyone here... Mine sounds just great.
 
dboudah said:
Folks, according to the FM3 3.01 firmware release notes a new amp type was added (“59 Bassguy Jump”). Is that a new preset in the 3.01 firmware? I don't see any new presets on my FM3 after upgrading the firmware and choosing the "refresh after new FW" menu option on FM3-edit.

Also, according to the video I am watching from Leon Todd (on the Ax3) is there supposed to be a new drive type of "DS1 Distortion"? Leon states that the FM3 is now supposed to be feature compatible with the Axe3 so thought I would see the new drive type. I am confused so any help is appreciated.

thanks

. Added “59 Bassguy Jump” Amp type.
Click to expand...
There are new compressor types also if I notes well
 
unix-guy said:
If that were normal I think you'd hear a lot of complaints. I've never heard a similar complaint from anyone here... Mine sounds just great.
Click to expand...
Let me measure the frequency response of the matrix. Actually there are already a few threads about this here. Even if I plug in thr fm3 into the pwr amp of the Engl, it seems darker. I have pwr amp modelling off, cab sim off. Just running in1 -> amp severe2 -> out2. I also had a look at out2 volume meters and it really shows a difference of around 10-12dB between bass and treble frequencies. If I activate my EQ with 2k and 4k boost, it evens it out and everything sound amazing.
 
Douglas Costa said:
What do you think is still missing?
Click to expand...
I think it's just the amp in a room feeling. I think the tone from the fender amps are honestly great, and have all of the qualities that I love about those amps. I've yet to find an IR that feels the same as a 4x10 super reverb in a room though. That being said, I've been playing my FM3 instead of the super.
 
GaryMcT said:
Matrix isn’t really flat. It almost sounded like a low pass filter when I had one. Has to be eq’d to get the high end back.
Click to expand...
Hi
FYI I have a matrix GT800FX and when I bought it I auditioned it at the factory and compared it to a GT1000 and there is a difference, both amps played through FRFR212 cab which was matrix's new cab at the time.
Because it is now several years I can't actually remember the definition of the sound difference, at the time I prefered the GT8000FX , I think it had a little more body , but I still love my Matrix amp wouldn't dream of changing it.
Recently since I bought the FM3 I spend 3 weeks playing through headphones ( Sony WH-3000XM3 via cable ) and 3 weeks using my matrix GT800FX / matrix FRFR 212. What I can say is I need 2 set of patches because to that minor difference in the rigs.
I'm presently back home and using the matrix system but have updated to FW3.01 which has made a definite difference to all presets.
Given a choice I'd use the matrix system all the time but a boys got to work away from home.
I don't find I have a problem with bass or lack of high ends, if anything I tend to adjust high and low cut on the speaker cab to get the tones I want.

Merry Christmas
G \../
 
DLC86 said:
What kind of signal did you use to do this test?
Click to expand...
Oscilloscope wave generator 20Hz-20kHz and also a guitar with some heavy right hand picking 😁 also, when measured on the out2 with the oscilloscope, the sound from the fm3 seems more bass heavy and definitelly lacks some top end compared to the DI signal of the amp. I have tried to play with the fm3 model, but it seems I'm not able to get more highs.
 
Fordprefect said:
I think it's just the amp in a room feeling. I think the tone from the fender amps are honestly great, and have all of the qualities that I love about those amps. I've yet to find an IR that feels the same as a 4x10 super reverb in a room though. That being said, I've been playing my FM3 instead of the super.
Click to expand...

Have you ever played in a control room through monitors while your real amp is mic'ed in another room or isolation box? That's how any single IR works, sounds and feels and they do it pretty well IMO. You can't expect them to sound or feel like the AITR because they were not created to do so...

On the other hand, since Kemper came with the speaker "imprint" thing, there's a new discussion about how it could be the missing link for the AITR debate on modeling technology...

BUT, as you have imagined, even if FAS comes with some awesome speaker imprints, you will still need a power amp and a cab (with some kind of full range speaker). In other words, to get the AITR feel you need an actual amp in the room...
 
milan.pohancenik said:
Let me measure the frequency response of the matrix. Actually there are already a few threads about this here. Even if I plug in thr fm3 into the pwr amp of the Engl, it seems darker. I have pwr amp modelling off, cab sim off. Just running in1 -> amp severe2 -> out2. I also had a look at out2 volume meters and it really shows a difference of around 10-12dB between bass and treble frequencies. If I activate my EQ with 2k and 4k boost, it evens it out and everything sound amazing.
Click to expand...
The comment I was replying to (that you quoted) was about the Matrix amp. Nothing to do with the FM3 or amp model.
 
milan.pohancenik said:
Oscilloscope wave generator 20Hz-20kHz and also a guitar with some heavy right hand picking 😁 also, when measured on the out2 with the oscilloscope, the sound from the fm3 seems more bass heavy and definitelly lacks some top end compared to the DI signal of the amp. I have tried to play with the fm3 model, but it seems I'm not able to get more highs.
Click to expand...
Ok then.
After your post I quickly tried the same test on the axe fx using the synth block to generate a sine wave and the response is perfectly flat.
 
milan.pohancenik said:
Just running in1 -> amp severe2 -> out2. I also had a look at out2 volume meters and it really shows a difference of around 10-12dB between bass and treble frequencies.
Click to expand...
So you're measuring frequency response when the Amp block is in the chain? Of course that's going to affect the overall EQ...

Maybe I'm missing the point of what you're trying to say?
 
ToneDriven said:
In case you Fender guys didn’t know, the Fractal Friedmans are ridiculously close to the real ones too and some of the Friedman presets from Burgs and Leon actually sound better than my real Friedman. Crazy!
Click to expand...
The friedman amp models have become some of my favorites. The BE and HBE are mainstays now.
 
AJ Vargas said:
Have you ever played in a control room through monitors while your real amp is mic'ed in another room or isolation box? That's how any single IR works, sounds and feels and they do it pretty well IMO. You can't expect them to sound or feel like the AITR because they were not created to do so...

On the other hand, since Kemper came with the speaker "imprint" thing, there's a new discussion about how it could be the missing link for the AITR debate on modeling technology...

BUT, as you have imagined, even if FAS comes with some awesome speaker imprints, you will still need a power amp and a cab (with some kind of full range speaker). In other words, to get the AITR feel you need an actual amp in the room...
Click to expand...
I understand that and through my frfr it sounds great. It wasn't meant as a gripe. It works exactly as intended and has actually solved the volume issues of having a tube amp on in a room. Just a slightly different sound, but at the same alleviates an awful lot of volume and consistency issues. I'm completely on board.
 
Anyone having issues with (high-CPU) presets that contain a 'Multi-Comp' block? I have two that used to work fine in 1.06. They were at around 83% of the CPU and stable. Going to them in 2.00 or 3.01 locks up the unit.

Rolled back to 1.06, removed some stuff, then went back to 3.01. CPU is at around 78%. The presets runs, but the preset still acts like the CPU is too high... Scenes take a long time to switch... the editor becomes very sluggish, etc...?

Remove the 'Multi-Comp' block and it starts running much smoother/faster, even if I add other blocks that take the CPU back above 80%. A preset containing a 'Multi-Comp' block with the CPU% in the 70's still acts sluggish?

Possible bugs?
  1. Noticed that the 'Multi-Comp' block loads with different 'Crossover' parameter values than the preset was saved with on firmware 1.06?
  2. The 'Freq Range' parameter boxes are blank?
  3. 'Double-click' on one 'Crossover' parameter and both are changed?
  4. 'Double-click' on the other 'Crossover' parameter (of a freshly loaded preset) and both are changed? But with different values?
  5. Resetting the channel, or loading a new one from scratch loads some strange default 'Crossover' values for the High band?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom