I am not trying to start a pissing match here: I am simply saying that you have a strong use case for that feature, so you see the "many" people asking for it (my offhand guess is something b/w a handful and 25 people on the forum). And I see that most music is made without a VC, and that probably hundreds of FM3 users on this forum never asked for VC improvements and could hardly care less.
One might say the same thing about the FM3 itself. =0) Everyone has their own experiences and opinions which is awesome. I can definitely see both sides. I played in an all request cover band for years, and had to transpose on the fly all the time, but there are some things that transposing cannot help - such as open strings. For example. I recently switched from bass to guitar in a band I have been in for a while. They always tuned to D standard, and I stayed in E standard on the bass, with a dropped D at first, and later with a five string. When I first switched to guitar I was going to stay in standard with a dropped D, but certain progressions use open strings, and an open string's timbre is different that a fretted note. I had no choice but to change my tuning, else certain songs would sound different. To someone in a cover band with multiple singers and 100's of songs, I could see the V.C as being a game changer, just like the whole modeling technology has been a game changer to many of us and in some cases essential.
That pretty much is my opinion too. I just compensate and play in a different key.
There was some discussion of them last year? I think that some of the reasons for not seeing them were that demand for them isn't very high so they don't have a lot of priority, and implementing them would eat into the unit's available memory.
This. Is. Awesome. Thank you to whoever dreamt this up. Makes the mini-tuner even better!
You got me. I, without question, am biased toward that particular improvement, along with a couple others. But I could easily counter that those 25 people on the forum are far more than those who were asking for many of the improvements we HAVE seen go into the FM3. Look down that list of improvements and ask yourself how many of them were called for by more than 25 people. A couple, maybe? So there is more than one way to look at those statistics. And VC improvements were one of the most repeated wishes for the AXE3 prior to it happening, too.
AMEN to this!
I do not think that this is really happening. I agree that we got many improvements and features that even less people have asked for. But it's not like this is some kind of vote and FAS works on what most people say they want on this forum.
I had no idea this even existed. That is really handy!
. However I do think it’s a bit ‘un fractal like’ to have a lower level of functionality and quality of effect on one of their units. What I mean by this is that it makes total sense for the fm3 to have only one amp block (not two amp blocks done badly)….the VC sounds like it’s in the ‘two blocks done badly’ category. It’s not a cut down function, it’s a same function done not as well. The FM3 doesn’t have the capability to do full res irs…it doesn’t try and do them at a lower level, it just doesn’t do them. On the other hand it does do the reverb up to full quality…even though the processor load means you will have to sacrifice some other stuff. There is the option to lower quality, but if you want it at top quality it’s there. I suppose what I am trying to say is what I love about fractal is when they do something they do it right. This feels like a slight deviation from this philosophy. Not that I care really…would never use a virtual capo, will buy an FM9 and not use a virtual capo…and will definitely keep my fm3. Looking forward to updating when the full release comes out. Gigging all the time so don’t want to risk the beta. Love Fractal.
