Fm9 is amazing BUT...

[strabes]

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.

 

[Lolo-G]

My buddy and I have a running joke about this. We'll frequently walk over to the FM9 and one of us will say, "Will you just LOOK at that TONE? It's gorgeous!"

Keep working on the sonic aspects of it. I don't give a rat's rear end about how the UI looks.

The look influences the taste! The look influences the listening too!! Besides, we can also say that the brand influences the feeling of the sound quality....but that's already another story.
I have a small NUX MG-101 that I sometimes use when I travel. This small simulator also offers a graphic view of the amps/effects/speakers etc......Sometimes it annoys me because I tend to click on certain switches in the image that are not implemented in the digital model!! Of course it's always nice to have a visual of the material that is modeled but it's not essential for me.

 

[playmusic]

Fractal Audio scenes are quite different than Helix or Quad Cortex, both of which allow you to configure any parameter for scene control. That’s great, but Fractal Audio scenes support channels on blocks that give you parameter control (although somewhat less flexible than Helix and Quad Cortex) in addition to the ability to load different models into the blocks. Helix and Quad Cortex don’t support that (although the plugin amp models on Quad Cortex do provide different models for the same amp configuration, See the Soldano 100 plugin - bright switch and OD channel are different models in the same block. But switching them has a big dropout that makes this somewhat unusable in gigging situations). This is a huge advantage for Fractal Audio because it gives way more tonal options through channels than would be available in just parameter changes on a single block.

I suspect this is the root of it. Given that not only can we change models with scene change (via channel change), we can change channels inside a scene, parameters between scenes would make no sense. You can't adjust a parameter that no longer exists, or didn't exist. The bookkeeping here would be a chore.

I do love the Fractal's ability to switch channels allowing it to switch the model within the block. This grants a lot of extra flexibility within the FM9's processing limits. Limits present on every modeler. An ingenious method to add the capability to completely change amp, cab, and effect models dynamically within a preset. Very cool! I do admit to missing how easy it is to assign parameters to scenes on the Helix though.

To @elvis 's point regarding it being a bookkeeping chore. I wonder what it would look like if a scenes implementation that more closely resembled the Helix existed on the FM9 and what would be involved in the way of additional overhead. Would more latency be introduced between scene changes? Would the coding requirements be onerous? Would the added complexity make the code less nimble for future enhancements or more bug-prone?

I was trying to break down what scenarios you might encounter if you attempted to incorporate the Fractal's channel capability into the Helix's user-friendly scenes implementation:

Scenario 1 - no channels are switched between scenes. This would be the scenario that most closely resembles the Helix's operation. In this case, no additional housekeeping chores, each scene honors the settings of the parameters that have been assigned to it.

Scenario 2 - channels are switched between scenes upon scene change as previously saved for that preset, but user makes no manual channel changes. Seems like this could be handled much like 'Scenario 1' as the channel changes are "baked in" to the preset as they are saved with the scene. Potentially this could be viewed as if there were additional blocks in the preset (the channel(s) that had been changed to in that scene). Complexity is definitely increasing.

Scenario 3 - User switches channel manually within a scene. Now all bets are off, and that channel's block is being managed by scenes potentially quite differently. Although, in this scenario if you switch scenes and return to that scene, the channel and any parameters assigned to scene control could be restored as set when you saved the preset - depending on how you had 'Scene Ignore' and 'Scene Revert' set. I guess these two parameters could also affect how 'Scenario 1' and 'Scenario 2' operated as well. Again, complexity definitely increasing.

Anyway, I wouldn't mind having a more streamlined simpler method for parameter assignation between scenes. With that said, much respect to Fractal for what they have built, it is an amazing device, and they no doubt have some rock-solid rationales for why it operates the way it does. Thankfully all modelers don't operate or sound the same.

 

[HarrySound]

I don't even consider other brand products, I look and I listen, don't pay much attention too but ultimately think hell would freeze over before I got something else that wasn't an axe fx

 

[mr_fender]

I do love the Fractal's ability to switch channels allowing it to switch the model within the block. This grants a lot of extra flexibility within the FM9's processing limits. Limits present on every modeler. An ingenious method to add the capability to completely change amp, cab, and effect models dynamically within a preset. Very cool! I do admit to missing how easy it is to assign parameters to scenes on the Helix though.

To @elvis 's point regarding it being a bookkeeping chore. I wonder what it would look like if a scenes implementation that more closely resembled the Helix existed on the FM9 and what would be involved in the way of additional overhead. Would more latency be introduced between scene changes? Would the coding requirements be onerous? Would the added complexity make the code less nimble for future enhancements or more bug-prone?

I was trying to break down what scenarios you might encounter if you attempted to incorporate the Fractal's channel capability into the Helix's user-friendly scenes implementation:

Scenario 1 - no channels are switched between scenes. This would be the scenario that most closely resembles the Helix's operation. In this case, no additional housekeeping chores, each scene honors the settings of the parameters that have been assigned to it.

Scenario 2 - channels are switched between scenes upon scene change as previously saved for that preset, but user makes no manual channel changes. Seems like this could be handled much like 'Scenario 1' as the channel changes are "baked in" to the preset as they are saved with the scene. Potentially this could be viewed as if there were an additional block in the preset (the channel(s) that had been changed to in that scene). Complexity is definitely increasing.

Scenario 3 - User switches channel manually within a scene. Now all bets are off, and that channel's block is being managed by scenes potentially quite differently. Although, in this scenario if you switch scenes and return to that scene, the channel and any parameters assigned to scene control could be restored as set when you saved the preset - depending on how you had 'Scene Ignore' and 'Scene Revert' set. I guess these two parameters could also affect how 'Scenario 1' and 'Scenario 2' operated as well. Again, complexity definitely increasing.

Anyway, I wouldn't mind having a more streamlined simpler method for parameter assignation between scenes. With that said, much respect to Fractal for what they have built, it is an amazing device, and they no doubt have some rock-solid rationales for why it operates the way it does. Thankfully all modelers don't operate or sound the same.

Simplest way to close the gap would be to increase the number of channels in each block to 8. You could then have a separate channel per scene if desired and the behavior could be just like the Helix. That would essentially double the size of the block's parameter data. Overhead cost would be larger presets, more memory consumption, and longer load, save, and boot up time.

Whether the units have enough extra memory and storage to allow that is another matter.

A lot of it boils down to people making assumptions on how things work. If you switch from an iPhone to an Android phone do you assume the functions all work the same? You'll likely be pretty disappointed and frustrated if you do. Which is "better" is largely subjective preference and expectations. You have to learn each device for what it is. Don't assume. RTFM.

 

[ElectricPhase]

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.

 

[Bruce Sokolovic]

Just to play devils advocate (more against myself than anyone here but doing it out loud will probably contribute to the discussion) here, I do fully admit cartoon representations of actual modeled gear are more FUN than a generic knob or button. That has led me to learn more about the original gear and make purchases of original amps and studio gear (when I used the cartoon plugin first). Having a generic GUI probably doesnt have the same WOW! effect visually. WOWing usually is a multi sense WOW of visual and audio WOW because lets face it, most of us also hear with our eyes, too. I know I do (being aware of it helps make better decisions down the road). FAS stuff lets you change things down to a component level, to the point I do not understand what said component does because I’m no amp builder. How do you cartoon represent that stuff? Maybe 10 generations down the line it’ll be a touch screen where you can click on the cartoon amp, click on cartoon screws to open a cartoon head shell and swap out cartoon tubes. I guess it does sound pretty cool, but as for my use cases it is certainly nothing I need tomorrow.

 

[elvis]

I guess I have to see how deep this rabbit hole goes. When you adjust the deeper parameters, do you want virtual gut-shots of the amp as well? Do you want to see the bright cap change with value? Tube type? Transformer winds? Unlike MANY modelers, there is a ton more to the adjustments than the front-panel knobs.

 

[MayPRS]

About the "looks" and "ease of use"... wouldn't be a major step forward to just integrate the FM-9 Edit (and for the other units as well) on the FM itself? For instance a self-contained Android app accessible via touchscreen? Or even a native FasOS that runs the editor on a touchscreen?

 

[mr_fender]

Nowhere near enough resolution on the front panel screens for that. A touch interface would need to be several times larger to not be irritating to use. Something small like a smart phone screen is tolerable because you hold it in your hands, can use both thumbs to navigate quickly, and can hold it close to your face to see the details. Good luck doing that with a floor pedal or rack unit.

Would make much more sense to add Bluetooth and tablet apps for portable editing on the next gen units.

 

[MayPRS]

Nowhere near enough resolution on the front panel screens for that. A touch interface would need to be several times larger to not be irritating to use. Something small like a smart phone screen is tolerable because you hold it in your hands, can use both thumbs to navigate quickly, and can hold it close to your face to see the details. Good luck doing that with a floor pedal or rack unit.

Would make much more sense to add Bluetooth and tablet apps for portable editing on the next gen units.

Of course I was talking about a future overhaul of the unit... less knobs, more space for a bigger screen, as the knobs/arrows will be less important when you have touchscreen. But I also agree that Android/Bluetooth would already be great.

 

[golfnut]

The FM9 is amazing, no buts. There isn't a modeler in existence that doesn't have some limitation. They all work differently I'm not about to waste my time stressing about why the FM9 doesn't do this thing that Helix or QC does. I make it work for me and appreciate what it can do.

 

[elvis]

I moved from a TC Electronic G System to Fractal AXE 2. I looked at the Fractal through the lens of the G System for YEARS. In particular, I wanted MORE BUTTONS. So I had an MFC101 and even added external switch controllers to it. It was only after putting together a small fly-rig based on the HX Effects that I finally learned how to be effective with few buttons, use scenes, etc. That made the leap to FM9 possible for me.

 

[DrGreencock]

A lot of it boils down to people making assumptions on how things work. If you switch from an iPhone to an Android phone do you assume the functions all work the same? You'll likely be pretty disappointed and frustrated if you do. Which is "better" is largely subjective preference and expectations. You have to learn each device for what it is. Don't assume. RTFM.

I really appreciate your smartphone comparison because I deal with businesspeople every damn day that get frustrated on little usability things on both platforms. Or they make the switch and then can't handle the differences/don't want to spend the time/rely on platform-specific functions so they go back to what they know. But we all know Android is superior.

IMO/IME with Helix, Headrush, and Fractal, we have the edge in the FASverse on sheer sound quality. There's a ton of stuff under the hood that you don't need to touch but YOU CAN IF YOU WANT, and even if you don't, you can detect a positive difference when you've used the others. Yes there are UI gripes, but I've had my FM9T as long as OP and I've learned to accept the limitations in favour of a far superior sound and feel!

Some of those "limitations" are actually things we can do better, like channels as others have mentioned, great customizable layouts, and more-than-usable Dyna Cab options. Whatever. When I gripe, I remember I'm happier with my sound than ever before and I shrug it off.

Am I the only one who also kind of likes the idea that other people look at my gear and think, "oh man that looks so complicated omg", and meanwhile I'm the special pilot with the certification to drive the mofo any way I want and still knock their socks off?

 

[jetdriver1775]

I for one am glad that the FM units do not have a big screen with skeuomorph graphics. IMO it s a bit gimmicky on the unit itself. Neat to look at, but makes it seem less pro level to me. I much prefer the current screens high contrast and crisp fonts. I'm also glad that they chose not to rely on other outboard gear to edit (like iOS devices etc...not a PC). Perhaps, a compromise would be to have the high quality skeuomorphs in the FM Edit software. But I really like the editor as is too, it's the best editor of any modeler I've used. Once in a while I use Helix Native and it drives me crazy with those ugly colors, and weird sliders instead of knobs. Yuck lol.

 

[leagueofkruger]

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

 

[Bruce Sokolovic]

Hear me out on this……..how about a hologram that projects back onto a blank projector scrim in your backline of the very amp/cab combo you have pulled up.

Yea I’m kidding but wouldn’t that be cool? Maybe on the turbo version you can unlock the bud light girls, cheering you on as you play the 99000th rendition of Sweet Child of Mine…….

 

[Karl Houseknecht]

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.

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.

 

[JRod4928]

Hi everybody.

I've used my Fm9 Turbo for two years now (time flies!!) and I've never been happier with a modeler.

But as time pass and there are new kids on the block (Fender Tone Master Pro and others) you realize that your Fractal Unit still lacks (in my opinion) in three areas:

- Design language: Fm9 is like having dinner in a three Michelin Star restaurant but without enjoying the presentation of the dishes... Yes, the meal is amazing, but the look of it, it's not. Look at the Tone Master Pro: the graphical representation is gorgeous and you are instantly more connected to the gear it represents. Also, it's like having all those beautiful amps and pedals with you for future, the way they looked. Is it necessary? NO. It is cool? YEAH.

Just imagine our editor, where you have the amps control (for example), below the grid, with graphics like the TMP, is beautiful and I don't think we would lose any functionality, it would be easy to implement the rest of the pages with an advanced mode.

Same goes with pedals. There are so many I've never heard about that is a very sterile experience to only see the same knobs through all of them.

I´m not an software engineer and don't want to underestimate the difficulty of implementing something like this, but the TMP has done it beautifully and I would bet that the Fractal Team is WAYYYYY BETTER. I guess the philosophy of the company, but this is one of the few arguments against Fracrtal products. They look over complicated and the navigation is not the best.

-Scenes: I get the power of the scenes, I understand how to use them and the benefits of the different things you can do with just one Scene controller, but man, sometimes you just want to change the decay, or the mix control of a delay and the reverb, and maybe the gain on the drive pedal... and it is a pain in the ...

Come on, let us just adjust any parameter from one scene to another with a single click, Helix it's been doing for seven years, TMP has already implemented, and already have something similar in the editor, because you can save and recall any change you've done to a preset.

It is another company decision that I don't understand, because, again, The Fractal Team is freaking awesome and surely this can't be that hard to implement.

We could have scenes for more complicate things, like ramping up effects, and so on and photographs (cool name) for simple parameters adjustments.

- Cool Pedals: I would love to have a more diverse selection of pedals, exotic ones to experiment. I wouldn't mind to pay for new ones because the quality of everything that Fractal does with second to none.


Obviously, I am not in possession of the thrust (jejejeje) and can be completely wrong, but I do think that having conversations like this helps to think about things that can be used to take the product we love to another level, not sonically because we are already THE BEST, but to enjoy much more the experience and help to be more creative.

I hope nobody gets annoyed with me. Just a reflexion and a kind of a wish-list because I love my Fm9 and I would like to see it evolve in the near future.

Peace!!!

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.

 

[Dave Merrill]

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

That's not a great example of complexity in my book. Volume pedal taper was weird because there was a compressor and/or a drive in the chain too. As @Karl Houseknecht pointed out, if they did that with analog gear they would have gotten those same results.

I don't mean to be snide or anything, but you can't always just hook stuff up and turn knobs, sometimes you have to actually understand what's happening. That not a Fractal-exclusive thing, or a fault in Fractal gear. It's more like physics -- how the pieces of the chain work, and how they interact with each other.