What a Difference

steadystate

steadystate

Fractal Fanatic
I've been comparing my Axe III and my FM9 using identical presets. I originally thought that the amp algorithms were basically the same. They don't sound anything like each other. The III is distinctly superior, especially regarding the attack. I can sorta kinda tweak the FM9 to make them more similar, but the III just blows it away has a quality that the FM9 does not. I'm wishing I hadn't compared them. User error suggestions?
 
Last edited:
steadystate said:
I've been comparing my Axe III and my FM9 using identical presets. I originally thought that the amp algorithms were basically the same. They don't sound anything like each other. The III is distinctly superior, especially regarding the attack. I can sorta kinda tweak the FM9 to make them more similar, but the III just blows it away. I'm wishing I hadn't compared them. User error suggestions?
Click to expand...
I haven't heard people saying that, and afaik presets that fit in both without modification should sound the same.

Have you simplified the situation as much as possible, and made sure all external factors (guitar, monitoring} are identical?
 
Dave Merrill said:
I haven't heard people saying that, and afaik presets that fit in both without modification should sound the same.

Have you simplified the situation as much as possible, and made sure all external factors (guitar, monitoring} are identical?
Click to expand...
Yep, I've simplified. Everything is identical. I've only really compared using the 1959SLP Jumped model, but man is there a huge difference in the quality of the attack.
 
The III is on firmware 25.00. The FM9 is on firmware 7.00. Don't get me wrong, the FM9 sounds great. And if you listen only to the sustaining portion, you may not notice a difference. But they are definitely not identical. If I have time, I'll make reamped clips.

Since the III has double the processing power, I'm not surprised that the algorithms might be different. I don't expect the floor unit to compare to the rack mount flagship.

I guess the end result is that I'm not going to sell my III. I'm keeping it for recording and enjoyment, and using the FM9 for gigs.
 
When the FM9 firmware was released on 15-Apr-2024, the current Axe-Fx III firmware was 25.00 (Released 9-Apr-2024)
Since then, there have been FOUR releases for Axe-Fx III. Among them was 25.04, which included changes to both Cathode Follower and Phase Inverter modeling in the Amp block, plus specific additional changes to specific amp models.
 
Admin M@ said:
When the FM9 firmware was released on 15-Apr-2024, the current Axe-Fx III firmware was 25.00 (Released 9-Apr-2024)
Since then, there have been FOUR releases for Axe-Fx III. Among them was 25.04, which included changes to both Cathode Follower and Phase Inverter modeling in the Amp block, plus specific additional changes to specific amp models.
Click to expand...
I'm using firmware 25.00 on the III.
GlennO said:
Out of curiosity, how did you ensure everything is identical? While they won't sound exactly the same, the differences when using comparable firmware versions should be quite small.
Click to expand...
The difference in basic tone could be considered small, depending on the situation. But, when you play through them both at length, I guess these small differences become more noticeable. The main difference is in the quality of the attack. The III has more clarity and separation. No doubt about it. Using the Definition parameter on the FM9 helps, but I still don't think the algorithms are identical. Not surprising or really concerning, considering the price, weight, size, thermal considerations, etc.
 
GlennO said:
Ok, but...
Click to expand...
I used the same guitar, the same guitar cable, the same mixer, same speakers, swapped the output cables between them, triple-checked to make sure the presets were identical, tried various common settings.....

I'm open to suggestions as to another source for the difference. I own both, so I don't really have a stake in this.
 
steadystate said:
I'm using firmware 25.00 on the III.

The difference in basic tone could be considered small, depending on the situation. But, when you play through them both at length, I guess these small differences become more noticeable. The main difference is in the quality of the attack. The III has more clarity and separation. No doubt about it. Using the Definition parameter on the FM9 helps, but I still don't think the algorithms are identical. Not surprising or really concerning, considering the price, weight, size, thermal considerations, etc.
Click to expand...
You said you only used the Plexi 1959
That model has a bug that has not been fixed in FM9
 
Randalljax said:
You said you only used the Plexi 1959
That model has a bug that has not been fixed in FM9
Click to expand...
This could be the key. I've been using this model all day long. I'll try some others. Thanks for the insight! Although a bug on one platform doesn't necessarily mean a bug on all, it is possible.
 
steadystate said:
I've been comparing my Axe III and my FM9 using identical presets. I originally thought that the amp algorithms were basically the same. They don't sound anything like each other. The III is distinctly superior, especially regarding the attack. I can sorta kinda tweak the FM9 to make them more similar, but the III just blows it away. I'm wishing I hadn't compared them. User error suggestions?
Click to expand...
I found some od that out the hard way and had to just get ok with it haha.
Main differences that you won't hear much about are:
  • Less latency on III (it got better with an update for FM9, but still not the same)
  • Dynacabs are lower res (if that's the right way to say it) than on III
  • Amps in 3 are oversampled more than in FM9, so while they're the same modelling, they will be more detailed with III

When I had both III and FM9, III still felt more inspiring to play in terms of feel and tone. FM9 got closer with the latency fix, but there's no substitute for the amps/cabs quality.
NOW, FM9 is still miles ahead of everyone else to me and I'd buy another if it broke in a heartbeat. I just thought I'm getting a floor version of III with a few less features, but no compromise in tone/feel - it's not the same unfortunately.

Please don't hate on me!! haha

Edit: That all being said, I wouldn't say the difference should be as drastic as it sounds from your post. My presets still sound like they did, just bit "less" and it's subtle, though you can feel it more than hear sometimes.
 
Last edited:
I'm not trying to open a can of worms here. I'm just saying that, after acquiring the FM9, I hear a difference between it and the III, a unit that is twice as powerful and more expensive. The FM9 is far more suitable for my gigging needs than the III is, regardless. And maybe the difference is due to user error, firmware, or other transient issues. I'd encourage anyone who owns both to do the same comparison. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, but I am interested in the observations of anyone who owns both.

My original comment of "They don't sound anything like each other" is hyperbole. They do sound very similar, but the III is more detailed and refined; enough to make the difference immediately noticeable to these ears and fingers; but not enough to worry about, certainly for gigging. I've edited my original post to reflect this.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom