Fm9 is amazing BUT...

[Rumbletone]

Recent example - there's an fm9 thread here for something as simple as a volume swell not working for someone, with quite a few helpful replies (including one from the main man in charge himself) with not so intuitive technical tweaks and suggestions to make it work the way the poster expected

I mean it's a volume swell!!! The old way was plug in your pedal, and push it one way for louder, and push it the other way for quieter. Period. Full stop.

I dunno … there are probably dozens if not hundreds of threads on TGP and other gear sites about placement of volume pedals in the signal chain (after instrument, at end of pre-FX pedals, at the end of FX loop before return to amp ….), how impedance and pot tapers affect it, etc.

 

[Rumbletone]

Agree with gui comments. Some people are apologetic and say it doesn't matter, yet when dynacabs came out with the fancy gui showing mic locations and suddenly everyone loves the new interface in the editor. I guarantee everyone would love it if fractal interface was as beautiful and intuitive as some competitors.

It's ok to love fractal while encouraging development on a known weakness.

Sure - but I don’t see it as a weakness, and as a customer I definitely don’t want them expending resources on it when there are other PBIs that are actually important to me. But I fully acknowledge that other paying customers may have other wants/priorities, including fancy gui!

 

[leagueofkruger]

Only as complicated as you make it, right? IIRC, wasn't the issue a compressor after the volume pedal? And couldn't you have that same issue on a traditional pedal board? The difference was probably that they didn't have a compressor pedal on their real board. Or they don't know what a compressor does and someone told them they needed one in their preset. It's just general gear knowledge for the most part.

Good point!

 

[Lolo-G]

Personally I like the consistent look and feel of Fractals products now. Nice font choices and bright color screens.

Pros use Fractal. Those guys and their techs are the ones that I think Fractal is really concerned with.

But what I do think Fractal and most veterans on these forums do overlook is how overly complicated these things are to your average new user who first turns it on and just wants to play guitar and do some basic things coming from the background of other simpler analog days or preset based multieffect units (users that Matt referred to jokingly as "cavemen")

People spend a lot of money on these things, and are worried they're going to somehow break them by pressing the "wrong" buttons and settings. It's simply not easy to use at first until something clicks and you figure out how they're doing things. This creates a need for guys like Cooper Carter and Leon etc. evidenced by all the YouTube videos on "how do I...."

Recent example - there's an fm9 thread here for something as simple as a volume swell not working for someone, with quite a few helpful replies (including one from the main man in charge himself) with not so intuitive technical tweaks and suggestions to make it work the way the poster expected

I mean it's a volume swell!!! The old way was plug in your pedal, and push it one way for louder, and push it the other way for quieter. Period. Full stop.

Little more complicated now. But a lot more powerful too. It's a tradeoff I get it.

You can't please everyone tho right? I feel it's better to have the options to do whatever you want, even if it comes at the price of ease of use and simplicity.

But I also empathize with all the cavemen

I am subscribed to guitarist forums outside of Fractal (which is the forum where I have the most constructive exchanges and where I learn the most things ....) one of these forums in French is called: " show your pedalboards " it is a real fashion show, it is to the one who will show the prettiest and most exotic boutique pedal ....... some pedalboards are very well made and must cost a lot!
When I say that the sound for some is more a visual feeling rather than an auditory one it is to them that I think.
I like to browse this forum just for the pleasure of the eyes each time I see a new pedalboard a little original I always ask myself the same question can I do that with my FM9 and in 95% of cases the answer is yes very probably! So thanks to FAS for saving me money that I'm keeping for the future replacement of the FM9!
There is no doubt that FAS products are geared towards professionals. I also know that the market for musical instruments is largely supplied by amateurs. I wonder if FAS has a precise idea of its customer base.
For my part, I am among the enlightened amateurs and sufficiently geeky to like the FAS concept. I have an amateur practice in a group of a good musical level we do 5/6 performances per year.
And I like to benefit from the experience of professionals! Thank you to you pros thanks to you that I have fun with Fractal products

 

[ChristThePhone]

I guess copyright might play an important role. Replicating the exact look of the modelled device might require considerable royalties being paid by FAS which I don't think they're willing to do being a small boutique manufacturer and considering the fact that most clients are already used to their UI design since the AxeFx debuted. Fender on the other hand probably has to consider a very different target market and for them it might make a lot of sense to spend money on these things (if needed at all).

 

[steadystate]

I hope nobody gets annoyed with me.

Not annoyed. Amused. TMP

 

[momogris]

That is the very essence of the FAS design aesthetic. That's apparent from the moment you open the plain brown box it comes in. Everything about FAS products screams that they don't put much emphasis on what it looks like. And it attracts customers who feel the same way. So, you should expect a lot of replies that say they don't care about the appearance.





This forum has literally hundreds of posts by newcomers who are confused about how scenes work because of this. There are pros and cons to the FAS design, but the undeniable fact is FAS puts more emphasis on offering powerful features over making the user experience clear and intuitive. Just like the design aesthetic issue, FAS attracts people who feel the same way, so again, you'll find it difficult to find people who agree with you on this forum.

Hi, Glenn.

I´m not a newcomer and I understand how to use scenes and the rest of the features. I've been using modellers for a long time, and I enjoy learning my devices.

The fact that you don't know, until you right click on the parameter to show what scene controller you are using, what is controlling your volume (for example) is not very intuitive. And you have you put it in percent rather than nominal values. Then you have to go to the scenes tabs, leaving the page you are in, and adjust the level for each scene... that is not intuitive.

Other branches, like Line 6 Helix, Neural Quad Cortex and Fender TMP has implemented this very easily.

I'm not saying we should not have the deep of scenes, but to be able to just add and easy way to just modify any parameter like others, just right click and change the value, go to next scene and do the same.

It can't be that difficult and it would be much easier to change any value from one scene to another.

I´m very happy with my Fm9, just would like to bet more accesible to more people, because it´s known that it scares to the non tech musicians.

Best regards.

 

[momogris]

Not annoyed. Amused. TMP

There is nothing wrong with any modern unit nowadays , we should not disrespect any of the competitors and I just would like our branch to be recognised for it easy of use as well as for it quality, because it is not incompatible with being deep.

I´m very happy with my Fm9 as I said and it´s not going anywhere, but there always is room for improvement.

Best regards!

 

[momogris]

A few thoughts on each:

1. Many of us don’t care how it looks. I care only how it functions, so I can’t comment further on this one.

2. I can change virtually any parameter on the fly - whether using control switches, expression pedals, or otherwise. I don’t understand the issue you’re explaining. Can you give some specific examples?

3. What are the ‘cool pedal’ functions you are missing? There are limitations when it comes to things like capturing/triggering samples, but again can you give some specific examples (as they may be in there, just not under a name or combination you’d recognize)?

Hi, Rumbletone

You can't change eight parameters on the fly (for example), even if you are using channels. You have four scenes, and even if you use one scene controller for various parameters (and I know how to do it), you have to do the maths and guess what is going to be the value for each scene.

When everybody is saying, oh, you have channels, Then, what are they for? just to replicate the first one and put it in the next to change the drive of a distortion pedal (for example)???? that is a waste. I would rather use to load another pedal.

That it is what other units (less powerful than ours) are doing, just with a right click on the parameter, you change the value, as many time as scenes are available, without doing maths, or assigning a controller, leaving that page, going to scenes tab, and manually giving value for each scene.

And then, you forget what was controlling scene one, and you have to go to the parameter you don't know, right click and then, oh! that was scene controller one, leave again that page, go to the scenes tab and look the values.

At least, that scenes tab should say what scene controller one (and so on) is controlling in that given preset.

When I said cool pedals, I was referring to new pedals that are cool and we have in the market, like a Difgitech FreqOut, or any exotic delays or phasers, whatever is not implemented.

Best regards.

 

[Dave Merrill]

Hi, Rumbletone

You can't change eight parameters on the fly (for example), even if you are using channels. You have four scenes, and even if you use one scene controller for various parameters (and I know how to do it), you have to do the maths and guess what is going to be the value for each scene.

When everybody is saying, oh, you have channels, Then, what are they for? just to replicate the first one and put it in the next to change the drive of a distortion pedal (for example)???? that is a waste. I would rather use to load another pedal.

That it is what other units (less powerful than ours) are doing, just with a right click on the parameter, you change the value, as many time as scenes are available, without doing maths, or assigning a controller, leaving that page, going to scenes tab, and manually giving value for each scene.

And then, you forget what was controlling scene one, and you have to go to the parameter you don't know, right click and then, oh! that was scene controller one, leave again that page, go to the scenes tab and look the values.

At least, that scenes tab should say what scene controller one (and so on) is controlling in that given preset.

When I said cool pedals, I was referring to new pedals that are cool and we have in the market, like a Difgitech FreqOut, or any exotic delays or phasers, whatever is not implemented.

Best regards.

I rarely bother with controllers, never with scene controllers so far. My scenes change block channels, which i set up how i want them. That approach can change way more than 8 parameters, including switching to different models within each block, and there's no calculating to see how controls are set, they're set and displayed directly.

Also, i believe Helix has a limit of 32 changing parameters per scene (it's been a while), and blocks can't change models per scene. I didn't find that to be a problem myself, but as long as we're comparing.

 

[momogris]

Thanks - that would make sense. Then I would propose scene controllers may be a solution for having scene-specific settings within blocks (i.e., if 4 channels isn’t enough to cover the 8 scenes or where the user doesn’t want to use more than one channel of the block).

RE #2, i think maybe what he means is that on Helix for example, scenes are block on-off setting like Fractal, but also actual block settings, rather than channel assignments. You can just the delay level for a scene directly, rather than setting the delay to a different channel, and customizing delay settings for that channel.

It amounts to something pretty similar, except if you need more variations than there are block channels.

Flip side is that it's easier to reuse the delay settings from scene 1 in scenes 2 and 3, just set the delay to the same channel.

Hi, Dave.

Then we lose the ability to use another effect in channel two, or three and so on. What's the point then in having channels? I like to have a boost, a drive, a fuzz and an octave distortion, and use my footswitch to change from the first to the last.

All other units are using a simple right mouse click to change the value of any parameter from one scene to the next.

You could use scene controllers for more complicate things as I said in my first post.

Look, it seems to me, that this a case of not wanting to implement it because everybody in the end has had to accept it and learned it the way it is, even if it is not intuitive and limited in many ways.

Fractal is so good in almost any area that we know we are going to stay, but a company has to evolve, and use of use should be oe of the priorities. Others have understand this and are using it too their advantage.

Nobody knows if next year Line 6 or Fender up their game and catch up with the modelling, plus the look and ease of use...

Best regards.

 

[momogris]

Only thing I miss from Helix is right clicking a parameter, selecting snapshots as the controller, and going through the snapshots setting the parameter values I want. On Fractal it's an extra step going into the Controllers > Scene Controller window and setting the values that way. I understand the reasoning though: Fractal has a lot more controllers than just stomps, snapshots, midi, and expression pedals and the scenes aren't actually controllers. Such a tiny issue though compared to all the other ways Fractal is better, going back to helix sounds so plasticy now and I can't live without block channels, don't know how I got through sets before without them.

Hi,

That is what is trying to explain. Nobody said Helix sounds better and that´s why I bought my Fm9, but can't we have it all? As I have said in other responses, I don't think is something difficult to implement.

Easy of use should be key in any software/hardware company.

Others are catching up, even if we think Fractal is the best, for the majority, the difference in quality of tones is less imoportant than the look (GUI) and you achieve what you are looking for.

I just would like to recommend Fractal to my friends, but when they look at it, they really think is not for them because is it very complicated.

Best regards.

 

[momogris]

Agree with gui comments. Some people are apologetic and say it doesn't matter, yet when dynacabs came out with the fancy gui showing mic locations and suddenly everyone loves the new interface in the editor. I guarantee everyone would love it if fractal interface was as beautiful and intuitive as some competitors.

It's ok to love fractal while encouraging development on a known weakness.

HI,

THIS.

There is no harm in looking amazing and sounds fantastic. We already have the second aspect, which is the most important, but the GUI is obsolete and corky. Hell, if I´m not wrong, if you want to add an effect in the middle of a chain, you have to move all the effects to the right, include the new one and reconnect the cables... With others, they rearrange themselves you leave space for the new one.....

And it would be very nice to have a graphical representation of the model you are playing through, it gives you a sense of reality and how that amp or effect exists in real life. You can have all the advanced parameters in the next tab as we have it now.

I don't think is that complicated and it would appeal to a lot of more people.

TMP has been selling very well (I think) because the way it looks and the easy of use.

Yes, it is nowhere near the quality of Fractal, but, can we learn something from the competition???????

Best regards.

 

[mark149]

Fractal scenes make perfect sense to me. A scene is just the pile of gear you're using at any given moment. You're not changing the knobs, just which items you're using. You can have multiples of the same bit of gear with the knobs set differently.

Controllers, still confuse that bejeezus out of me sometimes. I'm slow that way.

+1

 

[momogris]

I rarely bother with controllers, never with scene controllers so far. My scenes change block channels, which i set up how i want them. That approach can change way more than 8 parameters, including switching to different models within each block, and there's no calculating to see how controls are set, they're set and displayed directly.

Also, i believe Helix has a limit of 32 changing parameters per scene (it's been a while), and blocks can't change models per scene. I didn't find that to be a problem myself, but as long as we're comparing.

I understand, but then, if I want for different drives, the channels are not available to change the value of the parameters you need.

It cant be that difficult to implement it the way others have been doing it for years, and now TMP as well.

 

[steadystate]

There is nothing wrong with any modern unit nowadays ,

And yet, here we are.

 

[unix-guy]

I understand, but then, if I want for different drives, the channels are not available to change the value of the parameters you need.

It cant be that difficult to implement it the way others have been doing it for years, and now TMP as well.

You have 2 Drive blocks. That covers 8 channels, which covers 8 scenes.

Fractal is not Helix which is not TMP...

If you want the features from those devices then you can use those devices.

One thing you may have noticed: Fractal is the leader, not a follower.

 

[momogris]

You have 2 Drive blocks. That covers 8 channels, which covers 8 scenes.

Fractal is not Helix which is not TMP...

If you want the features from those devices then you can use those devices.

One thing you may have noticed: Fractal is the leader, not a follower.

We have three drive blocks but that is not I was asking for, because then again, what if you want to stack drives? You come back to four channels. It is the ease of use in general in some areas.

There is no need to be rude, I chose to use Fractal and I’m very happy, but there always is room for improvement and for different opinions.

There’s nothing wrong wanting to have more features, and having a look to what others do.

Apple is the leader and is always taking ideas from others and implementing them when they think they are worth it or ready.

We should be more open to new ideas. I don’t think I asked or suggested anything crazy and I did it in a polite manner.

Cheers!

 

[steadystate]

The OP uses phrases like:

"it would be easy to implement"

"surely this can't be that hard to implement"

"It can't be that difficult"

"I don't think is something difficult to implement"

"I don't think is that complicated"

"It cant be that difficult to implement it the way others have been doing it"

Funny stuff. Armchair engineering is always a hoot. What's difficult to implement are astonishingly accurate models with a depth of programming orders of magnitude beyond the competition. I've used Helix, Headrush, etc. Pretty pictures and easy editing, with shallow programming capabilities, and atrocious sound and feel. UI improvements are always welcome, but there are practical limits to simplifying an interface that controls a complicated system. I'm happy to leave a universally comprehensible interface to Fisher-Price.

But sure, let's tell fractal to get on the ball because, you know, "it's not that difficult to implement."

 

[momogris]

And yet, here we are.

So? We will stay in stationary position for the rest of our lives? Software evolves constantly and all companies search for improvements.

They even might read our comments and implement ideas from the users.