Fractal Audio's New FM3

Status
Not open for further replies.

mikah912

Member
Messages
6,599
I'm just going on what's visible. Fractal seems to use about twice as much DSP as Helix in their amp modeling and exposes about 5 times as many parameters for amp adjustments.

Would you be insecure about using a less complex amp model? What difference does it make if you like the sound, the flexibility, and the price?
Insecurity plays no role here. If I were insecure about any of my gear choices, I'd be a fool to ever hang out here. And I would splash out for an Axe-FX III, FC-12 and whatever the FRFR du jour is, for sure. That's objectively the most processing power, most signal chain flexibility, most amp models, etc.

And I have no interest in that setup. I've tried all of the platforms except for the Ares Fractal (had AX8, Kemper, Amplifire, etc.). Despite the fact that it gets the most guff around here, Helix has been mainstay through all of those and will continue to be because it works best for my workflow (e.g. small portable gig machine to great VST recording tool to everything else inbetween). That being said, I think the FM3 is something exciting, new and different that could possibly hit those same notes....so I'm down.

If someone were able to definitely and measurably prove Fractal amp modeling was more complex.....it wouldn't change a thing. The arguments here are fun trifles, but they cease to matter when I actually have to sit down and play. No one in my P&W or local cover band circle cares one iota about any of this stuff, and they use a gamut of gear from elaborate Mesa rack stuff to Kemper to Mustang III to all analog pedals.

They all sound good too.
 

yeky83

Member
Messages
2,615
It's controversial because it's all guesswork.

This whole idea that Fractal amp modeling has more detail and requires more processor power originally cropped with Fractal fans trying to explain the one amp "limitation" of the AX8. It also dovetailed into an explanation for why some people prefer the way Fractal sounds. The logic is simple to follow. Fractal sounds better because the modeling is more accurate and detailed. It's more accurate because it's more "complex" and of course a more complex model needs more compute resources. How do we know the model is more complex? Because it uses more compute resources. {Please tell me that other people see the circular reasoning going on?} And the entire argument is largely to prove the point that L6 can run so many amp models only because their amp modeling isn't as good.

Why not conclude that Fractal modeling was based on less efficient coding choices and/or they have some design limitations in how they can access the CPU resources? Again, all conjecture.
It's not all guesswork/conjecture. Oversampling and aliasing performance is objective, and it takes considerably more processing power to perform better. Fractal does it more and put out a graph to show it. If you think Fractal lies and puts out BS info, sure it amounts to nothing, but that's a different discussion then.

And a lot of things can be "circular reasoning" if you put it like that. Helix UI is better cus it's easier to use. It's easier to use cus it needs less clicks. Because it needs less clicks, Helix UI is better. I don't quite see the point.
And really - what difference does it make? Use what sounds and works best to each of us.
Agreed.
 
Last edited:

Mark Al

Member
Messages
838
It's not all guesswork/conjecture. Oversampling and aliasing performance is objective, and it takes considerably more processing power to perform better. Fractal does it more and put out a graph to show it. If you think Fractal lies and puts out BS info, sure it amounts to nothing, but that's a different discussion then.
What's the so called sampling rate here? Do we know that for sure from FAS or Line6...? I highly doubt that... Also what's the objective aliasing performance that you are referring to? Are you referring to the one fishy comparison from FAS forum a while ago, that has been debunked long ago by other forum members, if I recalled correctly....

Otherwise, please kindly link the actual data, I'd love to discuss that :)

mis-information just never die....

Again, blind test use your ear and playing-hand. Anything else to justify your gears could just be smoke and mirrors...
 

yeky83

Member
Messages
2,615
What's the so called sampling rate here? Do we know that for sure from FAS or Line6...? I highly doubt that... Also what's the objective aliasing performance that you are referring to? Are you referring to the one fishy comparison from FAS forum a while ago, that has been debunked long ago by other forum members, if I recalled correctly....

Otherwise, please kindly link the actual data, I'd love to discuss that :)

mis-information just never die....
https://forum.fractalaudio.com/threads/ooooh-charts-and-graphs.135900/
If you think it's fishy that's one thing, but it hasn't been debunked. A moderator in the Helix FB group tried to "debunk" it but he had no idea what he was talking about.
Again, blind test use your ear and playing-hand. Anything else to justify your gears could just be smoke and mirrors...
Agreed.
 

veritechc

Member
Messages
2,799
Yeah, I'm not sure I wanna switch to a channel workflow/mentality is more the issue, and if the number of instances is arbitrary not sure why the device should try to force me to do so.
Channel switching is roughly equivalent to using a snapshot on the Helix. But on my Axe Fx III they are not gapless. There is a small but discernible gap.


Agreed. Would have been nice to see the same rationale applied here.
"The DSP capabilities of one path on the Helix and the Stomp are pretty much exactly the same. There may be some very minor differences just based on how a few of the auxiliary things are run, but I haven't really seen any evidence of that. Basically, I've always hit the DSP limit at the same time on one path with the Helix as I have with the Stomp.

I think a big reason for not giving a lot more blocks is simply that they don't want to mislead people into thinking that it's necessarily common to be able to run 10 or however many blocks in a preset. Sure, you can do that with some setups, but not all. I still think the main thing is that it was primarily envisioned as a device that integrated with your existing, not one that was necessarily meant to replace it."
I have been in the lab when a Helix amp was being modeled and compared. There was no difference between the model and the actual amp ran through the same Cabs. Does it matter at that point which unit has the most DSP as long as they sound like the real amp?

And the Hx Stomp is NOT that same as one DSP of the Helix. It's limited to 6 blocks.

AX8 has limitations due to CPU limits on both the number of blocks and modeling quality. Helix has the same horse power but runs a much less complex amp modeling. Either way is a compromise.
As I said above that is just incorrect. The Helix modeling sounds as good and is a different design philosophy then Fractal. What I like about the Helix is that I can put amps on either of the DSP's and I can fit three if I want. Nothing wrong with my Axe Fx III either. They both sound amazing.

That’s a very blatant claim, where did you learn that? You say it as if it’s true. People read it might think it’s true. And this misconception continues...

what if I tell you line6 mastered the efficiency of the algorithm after its its years of experience in modeling, and Helix modeling is as real/complex but efficient as well so it doesn’t need a dedicated core...

I have compared FX II and Helix, one can dial them up indistinguishable. None is more “complex” than the other.
And sound great.

Can’t offer the same product for less than half price ... no?

It’s an FAS entry point. Good on fractal audio. I’m sure they will sell thousands of these.

Also, don’t forget that Cliff Chase is quite openly transparent about his business. Something that most companies would never even consider.
Um Line 6 has to be one of the most transparent companies in ANY industry. Hell, you can talk to the head of marketing and all of the employees right here on TGP any time you want. The have a 20K+ person official group on Facebook I run that you can get any question answered. You can get their product literally anywhere. I don't know what else a company can do unless its posting their taxes in public.
 

MaxTwang

Member
Messages
3,109
And yet the Friedman still sounds better. :D
Don't tell me that :bonk, I've been Gassin' for a Friedman DS Mini head. Almost bought one of the 2 reasonably priced used ones on Reverb last week and the other used one's disappeared from Reverb today. I've been fighting the urge to get a new one all day (anyone know a good dealer? I'm jonesing man, I'm jonesing :p).
 
Last edited:

ejecta

Supporting Member
Messages
5,903
Don't tell me that, I've been Gassin' for a Dirty Shirley Mini head. Almost bought one of the 2 reasonably priced used ones on Reverb last week and the other used one's disappeared from Reverb today. I've been fighting the urge to get a new one all day (anyone know a good dealer? I'm jonesing man, I'm jonesing).
This wont help but the DS is my favorite Friedman amp..... they sound great!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.




Top