FM3 VS Quad Cortex

[Jumpback]

I would say you’re exaggerating the weakness of the switches. They’re designed for years of abuse and have been extensively tested with high loads. Unless you’re playing in a pig pen, there’s no reason the unit would look like “shit” as you say.

Go Team QC, show those cards

 

[PBGas]

I like a lot of the features in the QC. The form factor is nice as is the layout and what they have built into it.
Ultimately though, I don't want to learn another GUI, no matter how easy it is. I am pretty vested in the Fractal stuff now with an Axe III and an FM3, FC6 and a couple of EV-2s. I wanted to keep everything familiar and what I am comfortable with and most of all, proven reliability which is what I have had in spades. Lets not even take into account how great the units sound.

The fact that I can get this many amazing amp tones, carry it on a pedal train Jr, run it to FOH and use a lightweight powered monitor to a gig is unbelievable! I used to carry a 60lb head and 100lb 412 to gigs to get what I needed. I don't need that anymore.

Competition in the modelling market ultimately brings out better products for us...the guitarists/bassists/musicians and lots of neat new features. In this case though, the modelling is already fantastic. I'd literally be just polishing a different flavour of apple. At this point in time, I like the taste of what I have.

 

[Patzag]

Is there any future thought to a sort of compatibility mode where the FM3 will run an Axe-FXIII patch but in a scaled down manner to fit the processing capability of the weaker unit? Could see it being a huge time saver and there might not need to bring full AxeFXIII to a show if you can just load it up quickly on FM3 and sound is 95% there.

I ask cause I have a QC on preorder but this feature may make the FM3 a better choice for me

Already there. the FM3 can run most of the blocks of the Axe FX III, just not as many at the same time. The majority of my patches are identical on the FM3 and the Axe FX III.

 

[Nick Barba]

Already there. the FM3 can run most of the blocks of the Axe FX III, just not as many at the same time. The majority of my patches are identical on the FM3 and the Axe FX III.

So what happens if you have a patch with two amps in it? How does it handle the patch? If it could run a reduced emulation rather than just remove one (if that is what happens) that would be ideal. Or if fractal adds profiling, doing something similar to a DAW with freeze audio tracks where you can freeze the amp blocks and turn into captures so they can run with less processing power would be pretty great.

(EDIT: I see now in the FM3 manual how this thing handles the preset conversion in the FAQ secion "Q: Can I load my presets from the Axe‑Fx III into the FM3 (or vice versa)?")

 

[Valgua]

I watched Paul Davis (pre?)view of the QC () and I was not impressed. "Small things" like delays, reverbs and drives are described as "ok, but not mindblowing". Davis didn't seem too happy about the device. I'm happy that my FM3 should be shipped to me next week.

 

[Aivoryuk]

When I got my Axe Fx III, the FM3 was anounced right after and made me so sad haha!

i hope so too!

When I got my Ax8 they announced the Axe3 and I think I got one update after it - just got the FM3 in the last week so probably likely they will announce a new model
As long as I get the updates and the amp modelling is in line with the flagship then I don't mind.

 

[Aivoryuk]

I watched Paul Davis (pre?)view of the QC () and I was not impressed. "Small things" like delays, reverbs and drives are described as "ok, but not mindblowing". Davis didn't seem too happy about the device. I'm happy that my FM3 should be shipped to me next week.

I just watched this and my takes on what he is saying is the QC Amp Sims are ok, effects only ok, capture is very good.
I thought the both the Tone King captures were not that accurate to the real amp (Kemper seems to add more gain, QC seems to add something to the top end)
I don't know much about the Kemper but if it is 10 years old maybe it just needs to update the converters as the general tech of it seems to work for users.

Glad I have my FM3

 

[Valgua]

I just watched this and my takes on what he is saying is the QC Amp Sims are ok, effects only ok, capture is very good.
I thought the both the Tone King captures were not that accurate to the real amp (Kemper seems to add more gain, QC seems to add something to the top end)
I don't know much about the Kemper but if it is 10 years old maybe it just needs to update the converters as the general tech of it seems to work for users.

Glad I have my FM3

Agreed. I guess that if you are into capturing the QC could be a good deal. Personally I prefer digital modelling and for the kind of money the QC costs I expect beter than "ok" effects and amps.

 

[Mr.Modeler]

If they were regular switches, I wouldn’t bat an eye, but the fact that they’re encoders that have to have some degree of accuracy, well, things like that aren’t normally stomped on. It’s an AWESOME idea and I hope it goes off without a hitch because I’d love for that to be utilized with other brands/products. I’m just looking at it from the POV of someone who has HAD switches fail.

Almost every gig I played in Massachusetts had you loading in right before you got onstage, so straight from the door to the stage. If you were lucky, there wasn’t a narrow staircase built in 1890 you had to walk down with a 4x12 to get to it.

Ugh, that sounds like a nightmare.

 

[Mr.Modeler]

I've run both rack and floor setups but you're focusing on a single point of my overall issue with the design of the QC in having no guards against foreign objects striking the unit. For all we know the switches could be the finest piece of engineering the switch world has ever seen (which I doubt) but the very fact that there is no attempt made to offer even the slightest bit of protection to the unit is my concern.

On my FM3, those side rails seem more designed to keep weight off the controls should you put something on top of your pedalboard case. They won't protect from common falling objects like cell phones, pop cans and the like. I'm glad I had one of the CEBA plexiglass screens on my FM3, I dropped my cell phone on the display the other day.

 

[Mr.Modeler]

Go Team QC, show those cards

Huh? I'm a Fractal owner. Trying to insert some common sense into the drama.

 

[Randalljax]

Question although probably only Cliff might be able to answer not related to QC but CPU
one of the Line6 guys mentioned the next step up from SHARC would be the new Griffen
anyone know what those specs are
compared to Keystone
just curious if L6 is switching to those what kind of power they would be gaining

 

[IronSean]

Ah, then I assume that each row/input is assigned to a core since they allow 4 separate ones. That is pretty scuzzy way to label it if that's true and goes against all the typical standards to sound sexier.

That's exactly what they do. You basically get 4, 500MHz processors that you can run in parallel or string together.

Axe on the other hand does most of their pathing and effects inside the one core, and the other core is entirely dedicated to the amp block (and the delay on the FM3).

And that's ignoring IPC. The Keystone DSP used in the Axe-Fx III does at least twice the IPC (probably closer to 3-4x).

Here's the BDTI benchmarks:
https://www.bdti.com/MyBDTI/bdtimark/chip_float_scores.pdf

The Axe-Fx III uses a dual-core TMS320C6657. The SHARC+ used in the FM3 and the QC are similar in performance to the ADSP-213xx. Same basic core. Slightly higher clock speed and some accelerators. Draw your own conclusions. The SHARC+ is not a bad chip but it's nowhere near Keystone levels of performance. It's not even as good as the old TigerSHARCs which they discontinued. It's designed for cost-sensitive consumer applications.

Exactly. All the GHz talk, to use a car analogy, is just discussing RPM. The number of cores could loosely be cylinders. But IPC (instructions per clock) are the displacement, the amount of physical work that can get done during each of those revolutions or clock cycles. And on the keystone you use in the Axe, it's a lot.

 

[boyedav]

That's exactly what they do. You basically get 4, 500MHz processors that you can run in parallel or string together.

Axe on the other hand does most of their pathing and effects inside the one core, and the other core is entirely dedicated to the amp block (and the delay on the FM3).



Exactly. All the GHz talk, to use a car analogy, is just discussing RPM. The number of cores could loosely be cylinders. But IPC (instructions per clock) are the displacement, the amount of physical work that can get done during each of those revolutions or clock cycles. And on the keystone you use in the Axe, it's a lot.

Great point. Clockspeeds (and core counts) make for great marketing to people who may not know better, but it's been a couple decades since they've been even partially useful for gauging performance. Even going back to the "old days" of CISC vs RISC architecture and differences in pipelining/parallelism. GHz and cores aren't a measure of how much work can be done. Even having horsepower to spare doesn't matter if your compiler does know how to make optimal use of it. Almost anyone in IT can relate to having to throw hardware at problems caused by poorly written code.

 

[FractalAudio]

Question although probably only Cliff might be able to answer not related to QC but CPU
one of the Line6 guys mentioned the next step up from SHARC would be the new Griffen
anyone know what those specs are
compared to Keystone
just curious if L6 is switching to those what kind of power they would be gaining

The SHARC+ is the Griffin. Griffin was the development code name. The FM3 uses the Griffin (aka SHARC+) DSP.

IOW:
Keystone = TMS320C66x
Griffin = ADSP/SC-58x (SHARC+)

The Griffin is the same old SHARC core that Analog Devices has been rehashing for nearly 20 years. The SHARC+ version is actually slightly slower because they increased the pipeline depth and there are added latencies on some operations. We had to go rewrite all our assembly functions for the new core to get back the performance.

What SHARC+ has going for it are on-board accelerators (FIR, IIR, FFT), more peripherals, DDR memory bus and in the case of the SC series an embedded ARM A5.

Many people including myself were disappointed that the TigerSHARC was discontinued. It was a far better core but they mismanaged the product and couldn't make it profitable.

 

[Randalljax]

The SHARC+ is the Griffin. Griffin was the development code name. The FM3 uses the Griffin (aka SHARC+) DSP.

IOW:
Keystone = TMS320C66x
Griffin = ADSP/SC-58x (SHARC+)

The Griffin is the same old SHARC core that Analog Devices has been rehashing for nearly 20 years. The SHARC+ version is actually slightly slower because they increased the pipeline depth and there are added latencies on some operations. We had to go rewrite all our assembly functions for the new core to get back the performance.

What SHARC+ has going for it are on-board accelerators (FIR, IIR, FFT), more peripherals, DDR memory bus and in the case of the SC series an embedded ARM A5.

Many people including myself were disappointed that the TigerSHARC was discontinued. It was a far better core but they mismanaged the product and couldn't make it profitable.

ah cool i think i probably misundstood the Griffen tag
so is there another chip in between
the Sharc and the keystone
for instance total hypothetical but if L6 wanted a more robust DSP what would they likely use?

 

[FractalAudio]

ah cool i think i probably misundstood the Griffen tag
so is there another chip in between
the Sharc and the keystone
for instance total hypothetical but if L6 wanted a more robust DSP what would they likely use?

I can pretty much guarantee that L6s next product will use one or two Griffins. That's what I would do if I was managing development as the code base already exists and it's the logical next step.

 

[dejoblue]

... Another issue that concerns me about the QC is it's power cord / supply. It's wall wart with a "barrel" type plug into the unit. I've had similar "barrel" plugs on pedals come loose (even slightly) at gigs and cut power during a song. That's a pants down feeling. As someone said above, the QC seems to be more appropriate for desktop / studio use.

I know exactly what you mean, so frustrating. But there are solutions out there. For example, Eventide H9 has a barrel plug but it is self capturing; you have to really want to unplug that thing. Maybe the QC has that? At $1600 I would expect it to.

 

[milan.pohancenik]

And that's ignoring IPC. The Keystone DSP used in the Axe-Fx III does at least twice the IPC (probably closer to 3-4x).

Here's the BDTI benchmarks:
https://www.bdti.com/MyBDTI/bdtimark/chip_float_scores.pdf

The Axe-Fx III uses a dual-core TMS320C6657. The SHARC+ used in the FM3 and the QC are similar in performance to the ADSP-213xx. Same basic core. Slightly higher clock speed and some accelerators. Draw your own conclusions. The SHARC+ is not a bad chip but it's nowhere near Keystone levels of performance. It's not even as good as the old TigerSHARCs which they discontinued. It's designed for cost-sensitive consumer applications.

And this is the difference between marketing and real engineering. Sell the same, but claim it's the most powerful modeler, or optimize for slower CPU's and beat anything else on the market I opted for the slower one without those fancy screens, rotary switches etc. but much better engineered one!

 

[O2b60Again]

I can pretty much guarantee that L6s next product will use one or two Griffins. That's what I would do if I was managing development as the code base already exists and it's the logical next step.

Cliff
Any thoughts on a "Keystone" Floor Unit