Fractal Talk

[Orvillain]

If connected via SPDIF in/out you could probably even run 4CM with it.

But the cost is pretty high. Let's assume the cost is 2x VP4, so in the US that would be $1398 + tax, fairly close to the FM9. Probably makes sense only if you want the modularity or prefer how the VP4 operates.

In Europe it'd be 1950 € incl VAT which would buy you a used Axe-Fx 3.

Yeah, I think I'll wait for next gen.

I think the workflow for the VP4 is really good, and different and fluid enough versus my Axe3 and FC12 combo, that a VA4 with similar functionality would appeal to a lot of people. You've also got the two camps:

- People who have their own effects but want Fractal amps.
- People who have their own amps but want Fractal effects.

Neither of those camps are invested enough to buy an FM3/FM9/Axe3 setup.

Modularity and a more diverse line up of products is going to do really well for Fractal I think.

 

[laxu]

I think the workflow for the VP4 is really good, and different and fluid enough versus my Axe3 and FC12 combo, that a VA4 with similar functionality would appeal to a lot of people. You've also got the two camps:

- People who have their own effects but want Fractal amps.
- People who have their own amps but want Fractal effects.

Neither of those camps are invested enough to buy an FM3/FM9/Axe3 setup.

Modularity and a more diverse line up of products is going to do really well for Fractal I think.

The discussion was about buying both for use via SPDIF. I think you need to be into the modularity aspect big time to go for that over the FM3/9 products.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

The discussion was about buying both for use via SPDIF. I think you need to be into the modularity aspect big time to go for that over the FM3/9 products.

Tbf, a VA4 would essentially have 1:1 (or very close) controls, a preconfigured layout (less need to patch cables and add blocks) as well as offering 2 screens and sets of controls. For controlling on HW, I’d much rather do it like that.

 

[[Nathan]]

I’d personally rather an all in one like an fm3, but Amp in a box pedals sell like crazy (just look at UAD). The VA would be the ultimate digital amp in a box pedal imo. In one light if you’re into pedalboards and have a lot of existing stuff and are just looking for arguably the best fx and best amps to slot alongside it, these totally make sense. But if you’re looking for a succinct all in one then the fm3/9 also exists.

I kind of want an axe3 but I know I wouldn’t use 90% of what it can do, and I think the VA pedal would fill that void enough for a while

 

[GTR37]

If it has to be a “4” format, then Drive, Amp, Cab with two instances of each possible. That can give us a Drive-Drive-Amp-Cab setup, Amp-Amp-Cab-Cab setup, Drive-Drive-Amp-Amp (into stereo PA+real cab) and so on.

The problem is the drive block already being in the VP4 you really would not want to double up , you would have all the amp boost choices , I think it would most likely be Gate , Amp , Cab
Eq or FX loop
If it’s me personally and we had very limited effects
I would chose Echo Plate
Echo Hall over the drive block
But that the problem I think when you start adding stuff everyone wants something different like a wah drive
Couple of reverb choices , a compressor and then you have a product that might as well be an FM3

 

[laxu]

Tbf, a VA4 would essentially have 1:1 (or very close) controls, a preconfigured layout (less need to patch cables and add blocks) as well as offering 2 screens and sets of controls. For controlling on HW, I’d much rather do it like that.

Yeah the 2 blocks to control at once is appealing, but I'm not sold on the VP4 user interface for quick editing and moving between blocks.

Expanding the Perform views for more controls or pages would do that on the other models.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

Yeah the 2 blocks to control at once is appealing, but I'm not sold on the VP4 user interface for quick editing and moving between blocks.

Expanding the Perform views for more controls or pages would do that on the other models.

Yeah, I also think on current gen Fractal, the layout of the amps doesn’t lend itself particularly well to this concept and would need a total overhaul to be really slick and effective.

Ideally the controls the user is presented with match the actual amp, with a hierarchy of real controls, additional controls and deep controls behind. Dumping everything together just means there’s more tabbing through pages and menus and searching for a relevant piece of text.

It’s an absolute ballache to do simple things like swapping channels on a BE or Mark without everything resetting. Even though the amps sound just like the real thing, using a BE/Mark/ENGL/Herbert/Recto/JVM/CCV/Revv etc model still basically depends on being familiar with the quirks of the real amp to be able to get the right tones from them.

Fractal could easily just port things as they are but IMO it would be a missed opportunity to take advantage of what a more concise platform can offer.

 

[laxu]

Yeah, I also think on current gen Fractal, the layout of the amps doesn’t lend itself particularly well to this concept and would need a total overhaul to be really slick and effective.

Ideally the controls the user is presented with match the actual amp, with a hierarchy of real controls, additional controls and deep controls behind. Dumping everything together just means there’s more tabbing through pages and menus and searching for a relevant piece of text.

It’s an absolute ballache to do simple things like swapping channels on a BE or Mark without everything resetting. Even though the amps sound just like the real thing, using a BE/Mark/ENGL/Herbert/Recto/JVM/CCV/Revv etc model still basically depends on being familiar with the quirks of the real amp to be able to get the right tones from them.

Fractal could easily just port things as they are but IMO it would be a missed opportunity to take advantage of what a more concise platform can offer.

Yeah Marks are a tough one in particular when it's a constant shuffle between the output EQ and tone pages to balance the two. By comparison on the real deal it's just reaching left or right.

To be fair other modelers have the same issue.

With two VP4 style boxes at least e.g drive vs amp would be easy as you can set up both on two screens. But amp vs cab still needs the scroll-enter-exit-scroll-enter shuffle and without one button cycling it's more cumbersome than on the bigger boxes.

If Fractal had put in push buttons on the encoders they could have made those the one button block jump during editing. Or just 4 dedicated buttons for each block edit mode.

 

[Orvillain]

The discussion was about buying both for use via SPDIF. I think you need to be into the modularity aspect big time to go for that over the FM3/9 products.

Yeah and I think the pool of people who are more into the modular approach rather than all-in-one approach is actually quite big. Things seem to be swinging back the other way in terms of where people's gear interests are going right now. I would wager that Fractal have observed this too and are riding the wave.

I'm not sold on the VP4 user interface for quick editing and moving between blocks.

I don't know what to tell you other than, as someone whose had an Axe3 since 2022 at this point, and I just got the VP4.... editing on the VP4 and getting to the sounds I want is much faster than on the Axe3. Axe3 almost necessitates a computer being attached; because it just does so much. The VP4 is extremely well thought out and streamlined, while also still offering a level of depth that the competition don't have.

This is what I keep trying to explain when we have these sorts of discussions - necessarily, there is an inverse relationship between feature scope and ease of use. It just is. So one way of making things easier is to reduce scope. Which is what the VP4 does. No, I cannot have 8 effects, no I cannot have 4 parallel paths with 3 effects on each. But yknow what? When do I ever need to do that stuff? So rarely as to be equivalent to never.

Moving from a block in column 1 to a block in column 12 on the Axe3 hardware involves a lot of clicks, or holding down a button and waiting. Jumping from block to block on the VP4 involves pressing a footswitch and hitting the enter button. It is so quick. I'm not exactly sure how quickly you're expecting to do this stuff - it's never going to read your mind!

The one thing that does kinda suck and I hope they fix it is swapping blocks around. You basically can't and you need to hook up the software. But for everything else - even setting up modifiers - the VP4 is a gajillion times easier and faster to use than the Axe3. They've achieved that in a couple of ways:

1 - Reducing the feature scope which necessarily and by definition leads to improvements in ease of use and speed.
2 - Enhancing a few key areas - selection mechanics, button combinations, page and parameter reduction

Even just being able to jump between easy view and expert view by pressing the two page buttons really gives you a fast way to jump between a simple parameter and an advanced parameter. So you can quickly tweak mix and diffusion on a delay block by jumping between them in a fast manner, rather then constantly scrolling up and down a list.

I would go as far to say that if you think the VP4 is just as awkward to use as the Axe3, then you're being disingenuous.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

Yeah Marks are a tough one in particular when it's a constant shuffle between the output EQ and tone pages to balance the two. By comparison on the real deal it's just reaching left or right.

To be fair other modelers have the same issue.

To some extent, but I think Fractal is way more messy with regards to stuff like this:

As an example, the Mark V models take up 7 spots. Mark IV is 6 spots and IIC+/++ 5, Triaxis 5. That's essentially 4 amps taking up 23 "models". Revv Generator takes up 9, Quick Rod 6, JMP-1 8, Friedman BE100 12, JVM 6 etc. I think some "like for like" amps could even be combined into the same model, rather than having different versions of Plexi's, VH4's etc. Some care would need to be taken for that to ensure its only amps with the same controls and minor differences.

I think with a simple/direct/concise HW unit in mind, there's so much room to clean up the bloat and make the experience slick and more akin to real life. Scrolling, reading text and navigating lists is not really the one in 2025.

Even just grouping and nesting things so I can spend less time scrolling would help a ton. An alphabetical list relies on the user memorising the modelled name and correlating it to the HW. A Marshall might come under Brit, Plexi, JS, JM or something else (like 1959/1987).

 

[Boudoir Guitar]

Yeah, I also think on current gen Fractal, the layout of the amps doesn’t lend itself particularly well to this concept and would need a total overhaul to be really slick and effective.

Ideally the controls the user is presented with match the actual amp, with a hierarchy of real controls, additional controls and deep controls behind. Dumping everything together just means there’s more tabbing through pages and menus and searching for a relevant piece of text.

Isn’t that “authentic” mode? I find I always like it in theory, until I hit an amp that doesn’t have a mid knob and I want a mid knob. Which is almost every amp I use.

 

[Orvillain]

To some extent, but I think Fractal is way more messy with regards to stuff like this:

View attachment 39916View attachment 39917View attachment 39918View attachment 39919

As an example, the Mark V models take up 7 spots. Mark IV is 6 spots and IIC+/++ 5, Triaxis 5. That's essentially 4 amps taking up 23 "models". Revv Generator takes up 9, Quick Rod 6, JMP-1 8, Friedman BE100 12, JVM 6 etc. I think some "like for like" amps could even be combined into the same model, rather than having different versions of Plexi's, VH4's etc. Some care would need to be taken for that to ensure its only amps with the same controls and minor differences.

I think with a simple/direct/concise HW unit in mind, there's so much room to clean up the bloat and make the experience slick and more akin to real life. Scrolling, reading tests and navigating lists is not really the one in 2025.

I mostly agree. On the one hand, it sorta goes hand in hand with the concept of channels... because a single amp block can be a Fender/Marshall/Recto/Mark selection of tones. Which you'd lose if you had a full amp with all switches and channels available within it, because you would really rinse your CPU having to have 4 of those loaded up all at once, in order to make the channels function work.

But the VA4 wouldn't have to be like that. Although I expect it will be like that because of how derivative the architecture inherently is from the Axe3.

So in some ways.... I agree with you, but in others... I kinda like being able to go "Okay, I don't give a fuck about having access to Revv Green... I don't care. Just give me a Twin Reverb" which is what the Fractal separation is really helpful for.

And this is something you hear a lot from people too - I only like channel 1 on the Kraken... I only like the blue channel on the EVH5150III.... I hate the drive channel on the Fender Hot Rod Deluxe, etc etc, etc.

I think there is some precedence in the real world for separation.

At the same time - I'd love to just have a skeuomorphic display of every amp, with the right switches and pots and everything laid out. Because for instance, I didn't really know how to dial in the Mark amps on the Axe3 until I got a real Mark amp!!! That is a problem.

 

[Orvillain]

Isn’t that “authentic” mode? I find I always like it in theory, until I hit an amp that doesn’t have a mid knob and I want a mid knob. Which is almost every amp I use.

Tag them as purple, and then never look at anything that is purple!

 

[MirrorProfiles]

Isn’t that “authentic” mode? I find I always like it in theory, until I hit an amp that doesn’t have a mid knob and I want a mid knob. Which is almost every amp I use.

No, not really. On the authentic page, you don't get a C45 switch, or the different Mark series push/pulls, or the Herbert mid cut. Ideally the authentic page would have options for changing channels, all modes from an amp, and have all of the actual controls from the amp. Anything that isn't found on the real amp should be on another page behind the main one.

As it currently is, it's not really one thing or the other - some simple adjustments on a real amp require you to rebuild a whole preset from scratch, while others are available. And some things like a Rectifier Bold/Spongy or Tube/solid state rectifier need approximating with similar controls.

Add all that together and you don't really have much of a chance of landing on tones you would with the real amp UNLESS you are extremely familiar with the real thing.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

you would really rinse your CPU having to have 4 of those loaded up all at once, in order to make the channels function work

tbf we are in the age of gapless switching. I'm not saying it would be easy, but I think think having some kind of a layer to present things to the user in a more realistic and straightforward way would be very beneficial. I'm not sure it's worth charging on with new products if it means being tied to how things are for another decade - one way or another it needs to be improved, so it may as well be built in from the ground up.

I didn't really know how to dial in the Mark amps on the Axe3 until I got a real Mark amp!!! That is a problem.

Exactly. All the sounds are there, but unless you are very familiar with the real thing you're more likely to end up somewhere totally different. There is more that goes into an amplifiers design than just the sounds you get, and I think its important that the overall experience is considered when modelling. I don't think its completely disregarded but there's definitely room to bridge the gap.

 

[[Nathan]]

I'd love to just have a skeuomorphic display of every amp, with the right switches and pots and everything laid out.

 

[Orvillain]

I kind of want an axe3 but I know I wouldn’t use 90% of what it can do, and I think the VA pedal would fill that void enough for a while

Yeah, I don't use the Axe3 to anywhere near its capabilities.

I mean, this is the last patch I came up with:

I do use the channels quite a bit. Not just for amps, but delays and reverbs as well. I wouldn't have bought the VP4 if it didn't have channels I don't think.

I do have a few odd presets like this one:

But even that is only hitting 56% or so.

 

[yek]

No, not really. On the authentic page, you don't get a C45 switch, or the different Mark series push/pulls, or the Herbert mid cut. Ideally the authentic page would have options for changing channels, all modes from an amp, and have all of the actual controls from the amp. Anything that isn't found on the real amp should be on another page behind the main one.

As it currently is, it's not really one thing or the other - some simple adjustments on a real amp require you to rebuild a whole preset from scratch, while others are available. And some things like a Rectifier Bold/Spongy or Tube/solid state rectifier need approximating with similar controls.

Add all that together and you don't really have much of a chance of landing on tones you would with the real amp UNLESS you are extremely familiar with the real thing.

Mark IIC+ Amp and its many pull knobs

The unified GUI and split amp models have advantages. Let's say you have a single Fractal Audio model for the Ecstasy amp, and/or one for the Cameron CCV and one for the Mark IV. You would then need to have a virtual "Structure Modern/Vintage" switch in the Ecstasy model, a virtual "Gain...

forum.fractalaudio.com

 

[MirrorProfiles]

Mark IIC+ Amp and its many pull knobs

The unified GUI and split amp models have advantages. Let's say you have a single Fractal Audio model for the Ecstasy amp, and/or one for the Cameron CCV and one for the Mark IV. You would then need to have a virtual "Structure Modern/Vintage" switch in the Ecstasy model, a virtual "Gain...

forum.fractalaudio.com

Would a hypothetical new product with a focus on being simpler with a reduced feature set not be a good place to improve this?

 

[DrewJD82]

I’d love a VA4. Ideally I’d snag a VA and VP4 and have several board options; both together on one board, the VA4 with individual stomp boxes for effects or the VP4 doing all the effects with a tube amp. I don’t even think in terms of One Rig To Rule Them All anymore, but more along the lines of having numerous options for numerous situations.