FM3 to FM9: Any Regrets?

ethomas1013 said:
Can you even get one? Having an old invitation is useless when there’s no inventory for the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...
That's a totally different question, but something I'm concerned about also. I think I'll just put the order in and get it when I get it. Right now just trying to nudge myself to that decision...which I think I did.
 
Thanks all! Seems pretty unanimous. I had seen a lot of people state not wanting to switch on the FM3 forum due to form factor. Sounds like no one has found the trade-off to not be worth it.
 
TheloniusJ said:
Thanks all! Seems pretty unanimous. I had seen a lot of people state not wanting to switch on the FM3 forum due to form factor. Sounds like no one has found the trade-off to not be worth it.
Click to expand...


Right on cue!! :)


I went FM3, FM9, and back to FM3. Actually 2 FM3s now. Yup.

I like the portability, and if I want dual amps and more CPU I use both of them.
I feel like I have more independent switching abilities with the dual FM3 setup
over the single FM9, too.

I assumed I would ditch the FM3, but the FM9 just made me appreciate the 3 more.
The form factor is perfect for putting in a small bag and hauling to rehearsal, and
also for sitting on my studio desk and giving me hands-on control and integrating
into a recording setup.

A lot of my assumptions about the FM9 (that I needed more CPU, more
switches, and that more in general was better) ended up being squashed
when I had it.

Oh, and the FM3 has those cool and very handy handles. :)
 
I used a single FM3 last night at rehearsal with the band. First time with the 5.02 firmware
and I pulled up my main Brit800 based preset and stayed on it ALL NIGHT! We cover a
ton of ground, too---from a country ballad to modern rock and contemporary metal to
some of the standard classics. I was blown away more than ever by how good it sounded,
and how EVERY frequency sat perfectly in the mix, while also having this fluid feel under
my fingers. I could get every level of gain and volume I needed by simply altering the volume
and tone controls on the guitar. It was f'ing glorious!

For me, that is how I know something is legit----not the ability to dance all over the Earth
and be like Tigger hoppity-hopping in some frenetic and hyperactive fashion and manner,
by changing scenes and section and never landing on one for long----but in being able to
get all kinds of shades and variety of tone and presence with my hands, and HOW I am
interacting with my gear to find the best sound for a song or section.

(Not dissing the dancing. Just saying with gear this good it is not neccesary all the time.)
 
la szum said:
Right on cue!! :)


I went FM3, FM9, and back to FM3. Actually 2 FM3s now. Yup.

I like the portability, and if I want dual amps and more CPU I use both of them.
I feel like I have more independent switching abilities with the dual FM3 setup
over the single FM9, too.

I assumed I would ditch the FM3, but the FM9 just made me appreciate the 3 more.
The form factor is perfect for putting in a small bag and hauling to rehearsal, and
also for sitting on my studio desk and giving me hands-on control and integrating
into a recording setup.

A lot of my assumptions about the FM9 (that I needed more CPU, more
switches, and that more in general was better) ended up being squashed
when I had it.

Oh, and the FM3 has those cool and very handy handles. :)
Click to expand...
Interesting. Thanks for the perspective.
 
la szum said:
I used a single FM3 last night at rehearsal with the band. First time with the 5.02 firmware
and I pulled up my main Brit800 based preset and stayed on it ALL NIGHT! We cover a
ton of ground, too---from a country ballad to modern rock and contemporary metal to
some of the standard classics. I was blown away more than ever by how good it sounded,
and how EVERY frequency sat perfectly in the mix, while also having this fluid feel under
my fingers. I could get every level of gain and volume I needed by simply altering the volume
and tone controls on the guitar. It was f'ing glorious!

For me, that is how I know something is legit----not the ability to dance all over the Earth
and be like Tigger hoppity-hopping in some frenetic and hyperactive fashion and manner,
by changing scenes and section and never landing on one for long----but in being able to
get all kinds of shades and variety of tone and presence with my hands, and HOW I am
interacting with my gear to find the best sound for a song or section.

(Not dissing the dancing. Just saying with gear this good it is not neccesary all the time.)
Click to expand...
Honestly this is the one thing that has been keeping me from the switch. For my main band (kind of a fusion jazz funk thing) I have one main preset that I use for most things and other than having to keep the reverb quality dialed down, I'm super happy with it. I get to just focus on playing and don't really think about my rig too much.

This is definitely something I dig about the FM3.
 
TheloniusJ said:
Honestly this is the one thing that has been keeping me from the switch. For my main band (kind of a fusion jazz funk thing) I have one main preset that I use for most things and other than having to keep the reverb quality dialed down, I'm super happy with it. I get to just focus on playing and don't really think about my rig too much.

This is definitely something I dig about the FM3.
Click to expand...
I find that the basic reverb quality is great. I doubt many in the audience would be able to tell the difference.
 
TheloniusJ said:
Thanks all! Seems pretty unanimous. I had seen a lot of people state not wanting to switch on the FM3 forum due to form factor. Sounds like no one has found the trade-off to not be worth it.
Click to expand...

I sold the FM3 and bought an FM9 off Reverb when FAS announced they were out of stock and at the mercy of the supply chain. I figured it was going to be a lot longer than anyone expected for them to get the chips they needed to resume production. I hope they get them soon, but so far, it seems I was right.

Anyway, I have debated moving back to the FM3 due to the size of the FM9. The extra switches are nice, and the way I have my layouts configured it is a lot better than the constant FM3 tap-dance. But it is a big unit. I liked the size of the AX8 better.

Form factor/size aside, there is no way I'm moving back to the FM3 from a preset capability perspective. It seemed like I was always pushing the CPU limits of the FM3 and had to do things like run a spring reverb, or remove a block of two to separate a preset into two presets to cover what. needed (I run per-song presets). With the FM9, many of my presets are sitting in the 60-70% CPU range and I have no need to make compromises.

So, I agree. While I prefer the size of the FM3, the added functionality and reduced need for tap-dancing is worth it to me.
 
ethomas1013 said:
I sold the FM3 and bought an FM9 off Reverb when FAS announced they were out of stock and at the mercy of the supply chain. I figured it was going to be a lot longer than anyone expected for them to get the chips they needed to resume production. I hope they get them soon, but so far, it seems I was right.

Anyway, I have debated moving back to the FM3 due to the size of the FM9. The extra switches are nice, and the way I have my layouts configured it is a lot better than the constant FM3 tap-dance. But it is a big unit. I liked the size of the AX8 better.

Form factor/size aside, there is no way I'm moving back to the FM3 from a preset capability perspective. It seemed like I was always pushing the CPU limits of the FM3 and had to do things like run a spring reverb, or remove a block of two to separate a preset into two presets to cover what. needed (I run per-song presets). With the FM9, many of my presets are sitting in the 60-70% CPU range and I have no need to make compromises.

So, I agree. While I prefer the size of the FM3, the added functionality and reduced need for tap-dancing is worth it to me.
Click to expand...
I solved the tap dancing problem by switching to sending MIDI commands via Bluetooth from my iPad running OnSong. I can change presets, scenes, block bypass states, parameters within this blocks, etc. Combine this with how I now more or less make a new preset for each song (or at least each song with something unique about the guitar sound), I've found that not only am I not tap dancing, I'm not even using most of the switches I have! very rarely will I have more than 2 or three scenes per preset. When it's three, I'll default the preset to, say, the intro, and then all three switches will toggle back and forth between the clean and crunch sounds.

But yes, I'd love the added I/O and power of the FM9, but the FM3 with its small FC6 form factor makes it the perfect all-in-one unit for me. I can typically minimize CPU usage by taking advantage of the boost within the amp block, using a plex delay for reverb and delay, etc. I do have some presets riding around 85% though lol.

But for the original question, OP, I have a little perspective. First, I've almost never seen tell of one of these units crapping the bed at a gig, so the need to have a backup is largely unfounded (but of course, the day you don't have one...). I got the FM3 to use for rehearsals and gigs and I have the Axe Fx III for home/studio use. However, I've found that I really only every use my FM3 since, of course, it's the one I need to have most up-to-date for gigs; not to mention the flagship and the FM3 are just different enough, and/or there can be enough global settings differences that a preset will not directly translate form one unit to the other, so there's basically no reason for me to even have the Axe fx III anymore lol. It might end up being the same with you. You'll grab the FM9 and find you literally NEVER use the FM3 anymore :)
 
ethomas1013 said:
I sold the FM3 and bought an FM9 off Reverb when FAS announced they were out of stock and at the mercy of the supply chain. I figured it was going to be a lot longer than anyone expected for them to get the chips they needed to resume production. I hope they get them soon, but so far, it seems I was right.

Anyway, I have debated moving back to the FM3 due to the size of the FM9. The extra switches are nice, and the way I have my layouts configured it is a lot better than the constant FM3 tap-dance. But it is a big unit. I liked the size of the AX8 better.

Form factor/size aside, there is no way I'm moving back to the FM3 from a preset capability perspective. It seemed like I was always pushing the CPU limits of the FM3 and had to do things like run a spring reverb, or remove a block of two to separate a preset into two presets to cover what. needed (I run per-song presets). With the FM9, many of my presets are sitting in the 60-70% CPU range and I have no need to make compromises.

So, I agree. While I prefer the size of the FM3, the added functionality and reduced need for tap-dancing is worth it to me.
Click to expand...
For what I do, the CPU on the FM3 is more than enough - and there are tricks to reduce CPU usage too. As far as the switches, I got by fine with 3, but since I've created stand-in switches with a 2-button external switch, I effectively have an "FM5".
 
vika12 said:
For what I do, the CPU on the FM3 is more than enough - and there are tricks to reduce CPU usage too. As far as the switches, I got by fine with 3, but since I've created stand-in switches with a 2-button external switch, I effectively have an "FM5".
Click to expand...
Like I said, I'm actually OK with just having the Mosky for the extra switches, but that eats up a pedal input which leaves me with only one expression pedal. I'd REALLY like at least two.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom