What a Difference

For what it's worth, I hear/feel the same thing. Doing quick A/B comparisons on identical presets, with sync'd firmware versions. It's different from Amp model to Amp model IMHO. Some are virtually indistinguishable, some are not? It's subtle, but it is there.

I end up adding some 'High Treble' or 'Presence' in the Amp block, and/or bumping up the 'High-Cut' in the Cab block on the FM9 and FM3 versions to compensate a bit.
 
steadystate said:
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.
Click to expand...
Agreed
 
steadystate said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah, hard to beat the form factor of fm9 for gigging and tones are so close. If I didn't care about the size and aimed for no compromise though, I'd get the III and Fc12 for sure.
 
Gonash said:
Yeah, hard to beat the form factor of fm9 for gigging and tones are so close. If I didn't care about the size and aimed for no compromise though, I'd get the III and Fc12 for sure.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the III with a foot controller is out of the question for fly dates with our budget. The FM9 is the best balance.
 
I thoroughly compared the two when I receveid my fm9 (almost 2 years ago) and honestly didn't notice any difference in tones at the time, the only measurable difference was the aliasing level but definitely not hearable in normal conditions... and in fact I decided to sell the axe in the end.
Maybe something changed during these last 2 years?
 
Dave Merrill said:
They're not on the same firmware versions, making any other factors moot, end of story.
Click to expand...
Of course they aren't. They use entirely different firmware. My III is on firmware 25.00 and my FM9 is on firmware 7.00. They were concurrent. As the III has had four firmware updates since my current version, I would expect the gap to be widened, not narrowed. Sorry that my observations don't sit well with you, but there is a difference in tone and feel, as would be expected from the difference in resources.
 
DLC86 said:
I thoroughly compared the two when I receveid my fm9 (almost 2 years ago) and honestly didn't notice any difference in tones at the time, the only measurable difference was the aliasing level but definitely not hearable in normal conditions... and in fact I decided to sell the axe in the end.
Maybe something changed during these last 2 years?
Click to expand...
I don't perceive a difference in aliasing or latency; really only in the character of the attack. As Moke wrote, adjusting the high frequency content (especially before or within the amp model) can help. Excellent tone, just not identical to the III. Again, not surprising or concerning. It's not a III, it's an FM9; an entirely different product. The FC switching and scribble strips, combined with the lower power requirments and smaller form, all at a lower price, make it a no-brainer for it's intended purpose. No need for anyone to get their undershorts in a bunch over it. I was a bit surprised at first, but now it makes total sense and is not an issue.
 
Last edited:
steadystate said:
I don't perceive a difference in aliasing or latency; really only in the character of the attack. As Moke wrote, adjusting the high frequency content (especially before or within the amp model) can help. Excellent tone, just not identical to the III. Again, not surprising or concerning. It's not a III, it's an FM9; an entirely different product. The FC switching and scribble strips, combined with the lower power requirments and smaller form, all at a lower price, make it a no-brainer for it's intended purpose. No need for anyone to get their undershorts in a bunch over it. I was a bit surprised at first, but now it makes total sense and is not an issue.
Click to expand...
Was just sharing my experience which doesn't match yours, that's all... But I'd check that all parameters (both preset and global ones) are really the same before drawing conclusions, cuz being that many it's easy to overlook something... and the different oversampling rate alone probably compensates for the whole cpu difference.
 
The first thing I would do is choose an amp that doesn't have a known bug on both platforms. That bug may very well manifest itself in different ways from one to the other. I would create a new preset, IN>AMP>CAB>OUT on the FM9 using any amp other than the Plexi 100W or the 1959SLP models, export it to the III & compare.
 
notalemming said:
The first thing I would do is choose an amp that doesn't have a known bug on both platforms. That bug may very well manifest itself in different ways from one to the other. I would create a new preset, IN>AMP>CAB>OUT on the FM9 using any amp other than the Plexi 100W or the 1959SLP models, export it to the III & compare.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I plan to do this, hopefully today.
 
DLC86 said:
I thoroughly compared the two when I receveid my fm9 (almost 2 years ago) and honestly didn't notice any difference in tones at the time, the only measurable difference was the aliasing level but definitely not hearable in normal conditions... and in fact I decided to sell the axe in the end.
Maybe something changed during these last 2 years?
Click to expand...
That was my experience as well. And I kept A/Bing them back and forth with an ABY switch.
If there was a difference, I didn't perceive it. Like you sold the III and stuck with the FM9.
 
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 has a quality that the FM9 does not. I'm wishing I hadn't compared them. User error suggestions?
Click to expand...
Have you checked your bias? :D
 
DangMe said:
Have you checked your bias? :D
Click to expand...
Pun aside, how would bias serve me? I own both. I can't tour with the III, so I must use the FM9. If I had a bias, it would be in favor of the FM9 being identical in tone. The difference I clearly hear could potentially come from several sources other than the units themselves (including user error), but confirmation bias is not a possibility. I'll keep investigating. But I have no problem with it as is. Honestly, I think expecting to get the performance of a III and an FC for way less money with the FM9 is just silly.

Maybe the algorithms are in fact identical and what I'm hearing is totally my doing. Totally possible. If so, Fractal can delete the whole thread and rightfully chastise me. I'd welcome it. I hear a difference, and I'm fine with it. Whatever. Sorry I even brought it up at this point.

Let's just assume that I'm wrong and an idiot. If that works for me, it should work for anyone. Now everyone can be happy.
 
Last edited:
steadystate said:
Pun aside, how would bias serve me? I own both. I can't tour with the III, so I must use the FM9. If I had a bias, it would be in favor of the FM9 being identical in tone. The difference I clearly hear could potentially come from several sources other than the units themselves (including user error), but confirmation bias is not a possibility. I'll keep investigating. But I have no problem with it as is. Honestly, I think expecting to get the performance of a III and an FC for way less money with the FM9 is just silly.

Maybe the algorithms are in fact identical and what I'm hearing is totally my doing. Totally possible. If so, Fractal can delete the whole thread and rightfully chastise me. I'd welcome it. I hear a difference, and I'm fine with it. Whatever. Sorry I even brought it up at this point.

Let's just assume that I'm wrong and an idiot. If that works for me, it should work for anyone. Now everyone can be happy.
Click to expand...
Nah bud, you're good! There are some differences between them and all it shows is that you've got good ears for that stuff :)
 
Gonash said:
Nah bud, you're good! There are some differences between them and all it shows is that you've got good ears for that stuff :)
Click to expand...
Perhaps, or it's an external influence that I have yet to identify. Or, maybe it has to do with the inauthentic enhancements available on the III. The FM9 sounds stellar in any case. In retrospect, I would have worded the OP differently. I was surprised at first, and that influenced the content. But I think one should own what one posts, hence the strike-throughs instead of a full out edit. I'm really digging the FM9.
 
I have wondered about this myself because I have a FM3. I have wondered if I would notice a tone and feel difference if I were to switch to the Axe III. I know it has lower latency. You could also get a difference if you are using the parameters that are in the Axe only, like the Input Dynamics, and Cab Smoothing.
 
steadystate said:
Pun aside, how would bias serve me? I own both. I can't tour with the III, so I must use the FM9. If I had a bias, it would be in favor of the FM9 being identical in tone. The difference I clearly hear could potentially come from several sources other than the units themselves (including user error), but confirmation bias is not a possibility. I'll keep investigating. But I have no problem with it as is. Honestly, I think expecting to get the performance of a III and an FC for way less money with the FM9 is just silly.

Maybe the algorithms are in fact identical and what I'm hearing is totally my doing. Totally possible. If so, Fractal can delete the whole thread and rightfully chastise me. I'd welcome it. I hear a difference, and I'm fine with it. Whatever. Sorry I even brought it up at this point.

Let's just assume that I'm wrong and an idiot. If that works for me, it should work for anyone. Now everyone can be happy.
Click to expand...
You’re a true digital guy. I was talking about the tube bias. So much for my sh@tty sense of humor. Haha
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom