FM9 is perfect (an FM3 perspective)

fcs101

Axe-Master
I was somewhat disappointed with the FM9 announcement. The extra power attracted me, but not the form factor. I've written about my desire for that amount of power (or more) in a smaller unit.

The thing is though that Fractal was right to launch this product (despite not consulting me). The FM9, as launched, protects the FM3 product line. Any smaller version would've obsoleted the FM3 and created a lot of animosity. It simultaneously allows Fractal to launch a more powerful floor modeler (which is what many want).

I do believe I'll eventually get what I (and others) want, which is a smaller version, but that moment is probably at least two years away. I think (hope) we may see something like an FM9 mini version at some point. That will allow Fractal to gracefully retire the FM3 and still maintain the three product lines.
 
I think it's really that everything is a balance of cost, technology and form factor.

Axe3 is insanely powerful because of the chips that it uses. Why not use them in the smaller form factor units? Because they require active cooling and are more complicated overall. This means that power equates to larger form factor and a higher price.

FM9 has double the cores of the FM3, which presumably takes more space and possibly more space for passive cooling. Not to mention the fact that it has the onboard switches and additional I/O. The result is that more hardware is used and competes with the market for FM3 and FM3+FC6 that are not being treated as truly modular.

I get the sense that FAS strives to create the best product they possibly can. I trust that a lot of R&D goes into product development. If there was a way to make the FM3 more powerful from a hardware design perspective, I'd imagine the team would identify it (at least in a way that doesn't push the price way higher from components). If we get a unit as powerful as the FM9 in an FM3 (or smaller) form factor, we may be looking at the next generation (assuming no major breakthroughs in processing through algorithm optimization) - especially given the fact that all FM* and FC* units use a parts-bin approach.

You never know though, who am I to say? :)
 
I think it's really that everything is a balance of cost, technology and form factor.

Axe3 is insanely powerful because of the chips that it uses. Why not use them in the smaller form factor units? Because they require active cooling and are more complicated overall. This means that power equates to larger form factor and a higher price.

FM9 has double the cores of the FM3, which presumably takes more space and possibly more space for passive cooling. Not to mention the fact that it has the onboard switches and additional I/O. The result is that more hardware is used and competes with the market for FM3 and FM3+FC6 that are not being treated as truly modular.

I get the sense that FAS strives to create the best product they possibly can. I trust that a lot of R&D goes into product development. If there was a way to make the FM3 more powerful from a hardware design perspective, I'd imagine the team would identify it (at least in a way that doesn't push the price way higher from components). If we get a unit as powerful as the FM9 in an FM3 (or smaller) form factor, we may be looking at the next generation (assuming no major breakthroughs in processing through algorithm optimization) - especially given the fact that all FM* and FC* units use a parts-bin approach.

You never know though, who am I to say? :)
Maybe there's some truth in there, but common sense tells you it could've been made a lot smaller and at least approached the FM3 in size with the exclusion of the extra foot switches.
 
FAS is a smart company, both in terms of technology but also running a profitable business. Give the people what they want but also make sure your keeping the company growing and profitable.

not always easy to balance both sides but FAS has been stellar in that regard since my first Ultra purchase and I’ve bought every new product they’ve done since lol
 
Maybe there's some truth in there, but common sense tells you it could've been made a lot smaller and at least approached the FM3 in size with the exclusion of the extra foot switches.
Common sense tells me something different.

FAS is a very small company. Common sense tells me they have to be careful in how they spend their capital on unique designs. That this is based on the FC12 form factor makes a lot of sense for getting an economy of scale in how they get parts made.
 
:) 🤘
FM9_on_QuadQC_Mockup.jpg
But photoshop kidding aside, while I might have preferred this form factor I have to say. Given a choice between the real Fractal FM9 and the competitor's product that resembles this mockup, for me it's absolutely no contest. Fractal gets my money. In the end, for me, it's about the sound and live usability. Smaller form factor, touchscreens, footswitch encoder knobs, all just extra stuff in the "nice to have" category.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I'm not 8 years old, my size 12 feet would hit two buttons on that other design all the time.
It's an instant "nope" regardless of what is in the box. I'd have the same problem with a super-crowded pedalboard.
I leave space between my pedals. I'm playing guitar not doing ballet.
 
Yeah, I'm not 8 years old, my size 12 feet would hit two buttons on that other design all the time.
It's an instant "nope" regardless of what is in the box. I'd have the same problem with a super-crowded pedalboard.
I leave space between my pedals. I'm playing guitar not doing ballet.
You're not wrong. I think they went too small on that other design. But I do wish the Fractals had the outermost switches closer to the side edges. Seems like unnecessary chassis width.
 
:) 🤘
View attachment 87944
But photoshop kidding aside, while I might have preferred this form factor I have to say. Given a choice between the real Fractal FM9 and the competitor's product that resembles this mockup, for me it's absolutely no contest. Fractal gets my money. In the end, for me, it's about the sound and live usability. Smaller form factor, touchscreens, footswitch encoder knobs, all just extra stuff in the "nice to have" category.
Fwiw, the footswitch encoder knobs keep me from ever considering the QC. Bar floors, and multiple things to fail, creeps me out like a weird dream. :)
 
Common sense tells me something different.

FAS is a very small company. Common sense tells me they have to be careful in how they spend their capital on unique designs. That this is based on the FC12 form factor makes a lot of sense for getting an economy of scale in how they get parts made.
Really, so all the internal components of an FC-6 take up less than nothing?!? LMAO!

There's a reason common sense isn't too common.
 
Last edited:
Really, so all the internal components of an FC-6 take up less than nothing?!? LMAO!

There's a reason common sense isn't too common.
Have no idea what you are saying or why. This is just a word salad to me. Glad you are amusing yourself at least!

My point was it was unlikely they were going to make anything bigger than an FM3 (same size as an FC6) but also smaller than FC12.
They have two shapes they are putting multiple things in. The FM3/FC6 and the FM9/FC12. This way they control costs and inventory complexity. It's smart.
 
Have no idea what you are saying or why. This is just a word salad to me. Glad you are amusing yourself at least!

My point was it was unlikely they were going to make anything bigger than an FM3 (same size as an FC6) but also smaller than FC12.
They have two shapes they are putting multiple things in. The FM3/FC6 and the FM9/FC12. This way they control costs and inventory complexity. It's smart.
Maybe you should refer to the OP. My point was that I do believe something with the same or greater power as the FM9, but with a smaller footprint will be released at some point.
 
:) 🤘
View attachment 87944
But photoshop kidding aside, while I might have preferred this form factor I have to say. Given a choice between the real Fractal FM9 and the competitor's product that resembles this mockup, for me it's absolutely no contest. Fractal gets my money. In the end, for me, it's about the sound and live usability. Smaller form factor, touchscreens, footswitch encoder knobs, all just extra stuff in the "nice to have" category.
I on the other hand would pick this thing in a hot minute. I had the QC and sold it because it was so half-baked in the effects department. Fractal has a big lead in that area and I did not want to wait for NeuralDSP to catch up. The capture functionality, form factor, onboard knobs/switches were all excellent. It was really quick, easy and fun to use and that's not how I would describe Fractal's hardware user experience.

Soundwise I could dial its amp modeling to sound the same as my FM3, depending on the amp model and using the Fractal as a reference sound and using the same 3rd party IRs. Fractal sounded better for some models like the SLO and equal for others like the JTM45. Fractal has way more options to tweak the amp model further while the QC works within the limits of the real amp.

I have little interest in the FM9 because it's significantly larger and I'm moving towards having the footswitching elsewhere and onboard control higher up. My current setup has FM3 controlled wirelessly using CME WIDI Master dongle and XSonic Airstep footswitches. I can keep the FM3 on a desk, plonk it on top of a cab etc. so it's always easy to reach to adjust something and easier to read that tiny text on its display.

I think Fractal was on the right track with the modularity of the FM3 but just didn't quite hit it out of the park for this generation. Next gen I would love to see something closer in design and size to the Quad Cortex - powerful yet compact but with good onboard control. One of my favorite features of the AX8 was the dedicated amp controls so I would love to see Fractal explore that in future products again, but applied as context based controls you could map to your favorite functions for an actual physical performance view.
 
Maybe there's some truth in there, but common sense tells you it could've been made a lot smaller and at least approached the FM3 in size with the exclusion of the extra foot switches.
Common sense tells me nothing like that. I think that Fractal’s design was extremely well thought out.

Adding additional DSP chips result in a lot more heat. Adding heat to a chassis the size of the FM3 would require constant forced air cooling or much larger air vents along with much larger heat sinks to dissipate the additional heat, which wouldn’t fit and could lead to thermal cycling board failures over time.

There has been a lot of feedback from the community asking for a larger and more powerful FM product since the FM3 launch. The number of foot switches could have been crowded into a smaller footprint, but that would have collided with the heat dissipation problem. They could have gone with fewer switches to allow a smaller size but the heat problem would still have remained and very likely resulted in forced cooling and the people who asked for more switches would be yelling.

When designing a product like these a smart company works with mock-ups to test the ergonomics and lets multiple people use them and rate the usefulness of the design. The size isn’t something pulled from the air, it’s based on the engineering/design needs and testing feedback, and when they think they have a workable product it’s sent to the beta team to use in their worlds. To finally get to market a design has to have met the approval of a number of people who have a lot of experience working with units like this in real world situations.

It’s really easy for people to second-guess and act like back-seat engineers but, without the street credentials of having multiple extremely successful launches of highly respected products such as Fractal’s, the criticisms and “I wish they’d done it the way I think is best” comments sound very much like egoism instead of coming from knowledge gained by hard work and experience.

So, common sense tells me that Fractal has a winning design that sits nicely nestled in the product line at a great price point given the underlying DSP chips available. It also tells me that Fractal will adjust the product line as the chips get smaller and their power and cooling needs reduce but they are not going to sacrifice robust designs, useability and quality to fit a frivilous target.
 
Common sense tells me nothing like that. I think that Fractal’s design was extremely well thought out.

Adding additional DSP chips result in a lot more heat. Adding heat to a chassis the size of the FM3 would require constant forced air cooling or much larger air vents along with much larger heat sinks to dissipate the additional heat, which wouldn’t fit and could lead to thermal cycling board failures over time.

There has been a lot of feedback from the community asking for a larger and more powerful FM product since the FM3 launch. The number of foot switches could have been crowded into a smaller footprint, but that would have collided with the heat dissipation problem. They could have gone with fewer switches to allow a smaller size but the heat problem would still have remained and very likely resulted in forced cooling and the people who asked for more switches would be yelling.

When designing a product like these a smart company works with mock-ups to test the ergonomics and lets multiple people use them and rate the usefulness of the design. The size isn’t something pulled from the air, it’s based on the engineering/design needs and testing feedback, and when they think they have a workable product it’s sent to the beta team to use in their worlds. To finally get to market a design has to have met the approval of a number of people who have a lot of experience working with units like this in real world situations.

It’s really easy for people to second-guess and act like back-seat engineers but, without the street credentials of having multiple extremely successful launches of highly respected products such as Fractal’s, the criticisms and “I wish they’d done it the way I think is best” comments sound very much like egoism instead of coming from knowledge gained by hard work and experience.

So, common sense tells me that Fractal has a winning design that sits nicely nestled in the product line at a great price point given the underlying DSP chips available. It also tells me that Fractal will adjust the product line as the chips get smaller and their power and cooling needs reduce but they are not going to sacrifice robust designs, useability and quality to fit a frivilous target.
couldn´t agree more !
 
Common sense tells me nothing like that. I think that Fractal’s design was extremely well thought out.

Adding additional DSP chips result in a lot more heat. Adding heat to a chassis the size of the FM3 would require constant forced air cooling or much larger air vents along with much larger heat sinks to dissipate the additional heat, which wouldn’t fit and could lead to thermal cycling board failures over time.
Quad Cortex is significantly smaller and more powerful with no fan in it afaik. I don't think that's the reason. Different manufacturers architectures are hard to compare though and better chip options may have come to market after the FM3 was designed.

It's all about hitting the FM3 price point as well as reusing the enclosures they had for the FC6 and FC12 which again is part of hitting the price point. The FM3 is a great entry to Fractal for many because at its original US pricing more people would be interested when the Axe-Fx 3 was too expensive for most. For most FM3 is going to be powerful enough. It's also small enough that it might go together with whatever gear they already own.

It would have been nice if Fractal had offered the FM9 earlier rather than several years after FM3 release but I'm sure they have their reasons.
 
Common sense tells me nothing like that. I think that Fractal’s design was extremely well thought out.

...

It’s really easy for people to second-guess and act like back-seat engineers but, without the street credentials of having multiple extremely successful launches of highly respected products such as Fractal’s, the criticisms and “I wish they’d done it the way I think is best” comments sound very much like egoism instead of coming from knowledge gained by hard work and experience.

So, common sense tells me that Fractal has a winning design that sits nicely nestled in the product line at a great price point given the underlying DSP chips available. It also tells me that Fractal will adjust the product line as the chips get smaller and their power and cooling needs reduce but they are not going to sacrifice robust designs, useability and quality to fit a frivilous target.
Here we go again...

@laxu made some good points above. Unless you are on the design team I'll take your second guessing with a huge grain of salt.

There is no egoism in my OP (maybe some humor), but you have to come to reality. The reality is that Fractal has a business to maintain. Could the FM9 have been launched in a smaller form factor by sacrificing some footswitches? I believe so. Would it have been smart from a business sense? Absolutely not.

And I do believe we will absolutely see a smaller more powerful version of the FM9 on the horizon. The market will demand it and other companies are continuing to refine their products as well to supply what consumers want. Like it or not Neural is really close with the QC and has garnered a lot of attention.

Again common sense is not always so common.
 
Last edited:
couldn´t agree more !
Common sense tells me nothing like that. I think that Fractal’s design was extremely well thought out.

Adding additional DSP chips result in a lot more heat. Adding heat to a chassis the size of the FM3 would require constant forced air cooling or much larger air vents along with much larger heat sinks to dissipate the additional heat, which wouldn’t fit and could lead to thermal cycling board failures over time.

There has been a lot of feedback from the community asking for a larger and more powerful FM product since the FM3 launch. The number of foot switches could have been crowded into a smaller footprint, but that would have collided with the heat dissipation problem. They could have gone with fewer switches to allow a smaller size but the heat problem would still have remained and very likely resulted in forced cooling and the people who asked for more switches would be yelling.

When designing a product like these a smart company works with mock-ups to test the ergonomics and lets multiple people use them and rate the usefulness of the design. The size isn’t something pulled from the air, it’s based on the engineering/design needs and testing feedback, and when they think they have a workable product it’s sent to the beta team to use in their worlds. To finally get to market a design has to have met the approval of a number of people who have a lot of experience working with units like this in real world situations.

It’s really easy for people to second-guess and act like back-seat engineers but, without the street credentials of having multiple extremely successful launches of highly respected products such as Fractal’s, the criticisms and “I wish they’d done it the way I think is best” comments sound very much like egoism instead of coming from knowledge gained by hard work and experience.

So, common sense tells me that Fractal has a winning design that sits nicely nestled in the product line at a great price point given the underlying DSP chips available. It also tells me that Fractal will adjust the product line as the chips get smaller and their power and cooling needs reduce but they are not going to sacrifice robust designs, useability and quality to fit a frivilous target.
Well said, Greg.
 
Back
Top Bottom