FM3 VS Quad Cortex

[Mr.Modeler]

Haha I could never get a tight Metal tone out of Helix no matter what I tried, however the new REV amp does sound Sick and the mud seems to under control, but wouldn't use it for any Modern production, sticking to Fractal, but Helix and QC are going to be here for a while and still like my Helix Native for diversity, and if I had a bunch of cash I'd try the QC too Haha

Become a YouTuber and get it for free.

 

[Greg Ferguson]

Hey guys! I currently have an Axe FX III, but I am considering switching to something smaller so I can have a backpack/pedalboard style rig. I’m not sure what to do, I just want less bulk and great sound. I play prog metal.
Any suggestions?

The FM3+FC6 combination, along with the OMG9 layout, is hard to beat for live work. Leon Todd uses his for their live shows and gets a great sound from his FM3.

I wanted something that could be very minimal if necessary or have the ability to expand with the FC6, so I eschewed the typical pedalboard which would force me to mount both to it, resulting in a heavier and bulkier unit. These are strong units so I'm not too worried about damaging them in normal use.

To make it easy to carry them I worked with Studio Slips to design a bag that fits both units, plus the necessary cables and can fit two of the small Fractal controllers. See https://forum.fractalaudio.com/threads/fm3-fc-6-carry-bag-or-case-options.159382/post-2001872 for more information about it.

 

[vetteboy79]

QC has no digital in and out. If you do not want to aggregate or use it as your sole interface you will be recording and reamping through way more conversions with analog in and out. You will then be connecting and disconnecting more cables( if you are like me and would be moving the device often) and all of these cables will potentially be on your desk (which I like to be as clear as possible from cables).

I had to go check that out...yuck. No digital aside from USB is a total deal-breaker for me for exactly those reasons.

 

[CT76]

I can say this, over the past 2 weeks I've been writing going between my computer using the Fortin Nameless and NTS and my FM3 using my mbrit 1x12.

I was writing my best stuff on the FM3, so was curious is it because its going through the mbrit. I plugged my FM3 into my computer and the ideas and feelings were flowing again.

It may not really be apples to apples, but while Neural sounds good, no denying that, but the FM3 sounds good but is also so inspiring

 

[mikeyg]

you're saying you were maxing out with 4 blocks?

you're saying you were maxing out with 4 blocks?

Let me clarify. My mistake was that I had many unused blocks in my signal chain. Removing them gave me back 20% of the CPU. Lesson: a bypassed block is still using CPU.

I am fine now, I can run wah, OD, amp, cab, delay and high quality reverb at around 70 percent.

I’ve now got a template with the effects above for creation of néw presets.

I wanted to clear that up so I didn’t spread misinformation.

 

[Greg Ferguson]

My mistake was that I had many unused blocks in my signal chain. Removing them gave me back 20% of the CPU. Lesson: a bypassed block is still using CPU.

Yep. It seems like that's something that could be optimized out by the unit when a preset is saved; compilers do it all the time, but that might be "premature optimization" as they say.

 

[jefferski]

How would it know whether a block is "unused" or simply bypassed?

 

[Vio]

How would it know whether a block is "unused" or simply bypassed?

If a block is on the preset then IT IS used. check the blocks guide, specifically the Bypass and Bypass Mode. If you need to free the processor remove the block.

 

[Smilzo]

How would it know whether a block is "unused" or simply bypassed?

Actual firmware can't.
I discuss a while ago about a possible solution; let the scene have some kind of "blocks state", and you can save scene only when saved with used block state is within cpu limit (say 80%). The drawback is that when you recall a scene that change block state from used to unused, you have to wait the "load & run time" till stability. So there will be a gap or delay in switching (fast switch is the main reason for run block even if bypassed, I suspect). This possible solution could help to make complex routing in a preset; when there's no unused block state, we have actual firmware behavior. So best of both world.

 

[Greg Ferguson]

How would it know whether a block is "unused" or simply bypassed?

A block that is only a shunt is unused. If it has an assigned purpose other than a shunt then it's truly used. Initial optimization could recognize that shunts can be be tossed out so they don't add to the CPU load.

Further down the line, if the code can tell that a block is disabled in all scenes in a preset, or if a block is disabled and doesn't have a controller attached that could enable it because of a button push or the pedal changing position, then it could optimize it out so it doesn't affect the CPU.

The problem would be determining when an incoming MIDI packet would enable/disable/change the state of something. And, at that point, there should be a flag in the presets that we can enable that says "optimize to be the most efficient and we'll accept that incoming MIDI isn't going to work."

But that's my unintelligent assumptions of how things are working. The staff is welcome to correct me.

 

[jefferski]

If a block is on the preset then IT IS used. check the blocks guide, specifically the Bypass and Bypass Mode. If you need to free the processor remove the block.

Actual firmware can't.

A block that is only a shunt is unused. If it has an assigned purpose other than a shunt then it's truly used.

That was my point... which I was asking to @mikeyg's previous post. If a block is there, it's being used.

I should've quoted back to him to avoid confusion.

 

[Smilzo]

A shunt add to the cpu load. Little (around 0,2%), but it does. Erasing redundant shunts reduce cpu usage.

 

[vika12]

Has anyone seen the 30+ minute Sweetwater "deep dive" in to the QC video that came out a few days ago? It's a pretty detailed review of the IU, etc. However, I was not impressed with the tones presented. Maybe it's the reviewer; maybe it's the box; maybe it's both, but ...

 

[Randalljax]

Has anyone seen the 30+ minute Sweetwater "deep dive" in to the QC video that came out a few days ago? It's a pretty detailed review of the IU, etc. However, I was not impressed with the tones presented. Maybe it's the reviewer; maybe it's the box; maybe it's both, but ...

They have way better tones than that video . It was more about the functionality of the unit for sure
which for the most part looks great

 

[vika12]

They have way better tones than that video . It was more about the functionality of the unit for sure
which for the most part looks great

Agreed, but as the sole distributor of the box in the US you'd think that Sweetwater would take a few minutes to make it sound good. Just saying...

 

[guitaryates]

Has anyone seen the 30+ minute Sweetwater "deep dive" in to the QC video that came out a few days ago? It's a pretty detailed review of the IU, etc. However, I was not impressed with the tones presented. Maybe it's the reviewer; maybe it's the box; maybe it's both, but ...

I've never been impressed with Sweetwater demos for guitar gear and the tones they get. It doesn't matter what the product is.

 

[mikeyg]

I've never been impressed with Sweetwater demos for guitar gear and the tones they get. It doesn't matter what the product is.

They actually have 2 others out there that sound really good.

 

[richpjr]

I've never been impressed with Sweetwater demos for guitar gear and the tones they get. It doesn't matter what the product is.

Funny - I like their interviews and overviews of products but agree that the demos are nothing that would ever make excited about a product.

 

[vika12]

It's pretty silly for them not to ensure that every demo sound good -- doesn't make sense

 

[AxeFxCurious]

Has anyone seen the 30+ minute Sweetwater "deep dive" in to the QC video that came out a few days ago? It's a pretty detailed review of the IU, etc. However, I was not impressed with the tones presented. Maybe it's the reviewer; maybe it's the box; maybe it's both, but ...

I dislike the user interface.

Its the kind of thing that probably seems clever to the developers, but real world users will always be asking "how did I do that"? Touching the wrong thing, bringing up the wrong menu, then closing it.

For instance, to bring up stomp mode, there is a tiny hieroglyph in the upper right corner that you have to touch, next to a couple other hieroglyphs. What if you touch the wrong one? Better question, why is mode not footswitchable? You should be able to select if you want stomp mode with your feet. No one is going to bend over and touch a tiny hieroglyph to switch modes at a gig.

Another example of bad design... There are four rows, but you have to explicitly chain them together if you want a longer effect run. Its too fidgety. Apparently there are alot of routing "presets". What happens if you have a preset with one routing config, but want to change it to another. Do you have to start over?

And there are hidden swipe menus. I dont see any cues on screen that tell you how to swipe uncover menus. That will get old.

And the UI is largely modal. If you want to do one thing, the effect chain is off limits. Want to change an effect, you can no longer interact with the chain or other blocks. Look at the Boss GT and Helix.. they have separate sections for the chain and parameter adjustment.

Alot of the complexity, the different modes, is because there is a lack of decoders. The fact that the footswitch decoders are not aligned with the on screen values is bad design. Its clever yeah and saved them putting five rotary encoders under the screen, but this is a flagship, why would they skimp on that?

Add to that the cloud interface, and thats another layer of complexity. The people who designed this are patting themselves on the back yet don't realize how clunky it is. This design gets a D. If the touch interface is not responsive, then it would get an F.