Tired of band discussions about my git sound

You have to have a good knowhow + experience in sound engineering if you want it to work with FRFR. If you are just a hobby guitarist, you can probably forget it. I think the 15" speakers are to lame anyhow.

There is a factory preset, something with Plexis. It sounds instantly good. Maybe you can try it out and adjust it to your taste. Try the factory ones, turn off the delays and effects to clean up the sound to hear the amp+cab better. Good luck.
 
2112 said:
IMO the easiest way to get the "amp in the room" sound is to get a power amp and guitar cab. Perhaps try your FM3 (with cab sims disabled) into the fx return of the ENGL rig and see how your band mates like that?
Click to expand...

This is the best advice.

My opinion of FRFR tone is the same as your bandmates. Personally I don't like FRFR for the reasons they cited. A proper 4x12 sounds amazing with the FM3.

It's also possible they're listening with their eyes.
 
It almost apples to oranges. Like said above - your best bet would be a power amp/cab set up. I usually find bands that have FRFR and traditional have "on stage" issues/dynamics going on. To me it usually getting closer to the middle. I saw AAL pull off a mixture of traditional and AXE sounds but they still had cabs on stage. The only way to get a thump is with a cabinet - imo. You can get plenty loud with FRFR but is still not the same kind of loud.
 
Can/do you record the band, multitrack ideally?
Do that, then play it back through your band's pa, see what YOU think.
If it's multitrack, you can also reamp in context to tweak your tones.

And make sure your rig has enough power. I played in a huge barn, 8 piece band with horn section, sounded excellent where I was standing (Helix days), but it just wasn't loud enough in the room. I was playing through a pair of Alessis 12" "1000W" cheapo powered monitors.
 
I have tried a few FRFR solutions such as Yamaha DXR10, Celestion F12-X200, Matrix FR12 (best of them)...

FM3 always sounded fantastic at home, recording or sending to FOH.

But for live playing (mainly clean) I always felt my sound "different" in comparison with the other guitarrists using traditional cabs. It is personal, but in my case this "different" meant worse. And none of them have tube amps. All solid state amps!

Even the effects, reverb and delay sounded more open and live on the real speaker. Of course I tried to adjust all the possible settings to achieve what I wanted. But never could get there...

After trying FM3 into a real cabinet and comparing it side by side with my FRFR I realised that the sound I want relies on the traditional speaker sound and feel, and not a mic'd cab. That was the "missing" link to my sound.

I actually have the opinion the speaker is one of the most significant aspect on tone/feel of a guitar.

I must say that even when I was using FRFR on stage, everybody liked my tone.

It is a personal preference and depends on the situation as well. Sometimes it's just not possible to have a loud stage.
 
JRod4928 said:
This is the best advice.

My opinion of FRFR tone is the same as your bandmates. Personally I don't like FRFR for the reasons they cited. A proper 4x12 sounds amazing with the FM3.

It's also possible they're listening with their eyes.
Click to expand...

Add me to the FX Return of a Tube Amp and traditional Guitar Cab list. I don't care if other people
have more experience and know more than me either. I likes what I likes. :)

It's great to seek advice, and get different views, but we also have to know our own situation (which no one
else is in) and the context of that in regards to the entire band, and where we want our guitar to fit in. For me,
on stage, I don't want no mother-fucking tweeters negatively impacting my stage sound. FOH is different.
 
My rig is FM3 through the FX return of a Marshall JCM900 and Marshall 1936 cab. I turn off Power amp modeling and don't use any IRs. Sounds great.

However, I tried the FM3 into a Crown XLi2500 into the Marshall 1936 cab with the FM3 Power amp modeling turned on. I thought that sounded slightly better. So you don't actually need a tube power amp but the real guitar cab seems to make the biggest difference, at least for me.
 
I recently noticed the FM3 responds better, faster and more reliably (for me anyway) with cabs globally disabled. I assume the cab block adds to latency (lag to responsiveness of foot switching- nothing to do with timing of the guitar signal) and obviously cpu.
 
Last edited:
musicianof1 said:
I recently noticed the FM3 responds better, faster and more reliably (for me anyway) with cabs globally disabled. I assume the cab block adds to latency and obviously cpu.
Click to expand...

As a matter of fact: no. The cab modeling runs separate from the DSPs.
 
yek said:
As a matter of fact: no. The cab modeling runs separate from the DSPs.
Click to expand...
Bypassing cab modeling globally drops my cpu by nearly 15% on my FM3 🤷🏻‍♂️

I should note that I also use preamp modeling in the cab block and that in itself increases cpu so when it’s all bypassed it makes a difference.
 
Last edited:
And that is another evidence pointing that these few cases claiming that their playing is affected by insignificant amounts of latency are probably subject to a cognitive bias
 
Piing said:
And that is another evidence pointing that these few cases claiming that their playing is affected by insignificant amounts of latency are probably subject to a cognitive bias
Click to expand...
I tend to agree, but I had a thought the other day that may possibly help explain why some people insist they can perceive extremely low latency levels...

You know how it's impossible to hear a complex piece of music one time, then sit down at the piano and play it perfectly? Yet some people can do just that. It's one of the ways autism plays a role into what they can and cannot do, and the things they are able to do are nothing short of astounding. Yet for the vast majority of us, it's impossible. But it proves that the human brain can have some amazing capabilities.

So, what if the ones claiming they can detect those low latency levels just happen to have something going on in their brains that truly, for them, makes it possible?
 
TSJMajesty said:
I tend to agree, but I had a thought the other day that may possibly help explain why some people insist they can perceive extremely low latency levels...

You know how it's impossible to hear a complex piece of music one time, then sit down at the piano and play it perfectly? Yet some people can do just that. It's one of the ways autism plays a role into what they can and cannot do, and the things they are able to do are nothing short of astounding. Yet for the vast majority of us, it's impossible. But it proves that the human brain can have some amazing capabilities.

So, what if the ones claiming they can detect those low latency levels just happen to have something going on in their brains that truly, for them, makes it possible?
Click to expand...
But in this case there was no actual change of latency when bypassing the CAB block. It was a purely psychological construction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom