I Gotta Wonder About Fractal's, er, "Perception"

[Sascha Franck]

I do have a car and yet, as long as the weather permits, I drive to inner city gigs using a bike and trailer.
And yes, I am an anti-car freak for all the best reasons in the world.

 

[Orvillain]

@Orvillain
What’s the go to across the pond for vinegar?
Apple cider vinegar is popular here .

Any old shite. It really doesn't matter.

We get Sarsons vinegar. It tastes like Californian wine.

 

[laxu]

If you're going to be doing some deep diving with the Fractal, why not use the looper and put down the guitar?

I do, but I don't always feel like doing that. Sometimes you just want to experiment with the sound and feel rather than try to dial in something real specific.

 

[TSJMajesty]

You need to actually focus on UX, with a dedicated UX designer. Then you need that person (or team) to actually be involved in the process of designing the physical units and not just the computer editors.

And you should put someone on that team who has never used a modeler.

 

[timbuck3]

Or even for buying one in the first place. I think the touch screen is fine on the QC and it and the Helix are definitely a better UI design experience than others. That said while UI is important to me what is more important is the tone and mostly the feel when it comes to digital. If that’s not at least in the ballpark of a real amp then it’s all hard pass for me.

Cool thing is you can definitely get in the ballpark these days with units with great UI’s and ones that don’t. Just use what works for you.

Yea but why cant fractal just give us both??

 

[paisleywookiee]

Yea but why cant fractal just give us both??

“Us”.

 

[timbuck3]

“Us”.

 

[GTR37]

Yea but why cant fractal just give us both??

Because they are in the middle of a product life cycle
You can’t just modify the existing hardware
I suspect the next few product releases will still be based off the FM series like VP4 was

 

[Tanax]

And you should put someone on that team who has never used a modeler.

IMO an experienced UX designer should know how to do that regardless of previous modeler experience, their job is to make the UX powerful enough for seasoned veterans, but simple enough for beginners.

But perhaps that's the issue with current design philosophy at Fractal, that they only take into account the seasoned veterans?
Either way, I agree that it should be designed in such a way that it's intuitive for a beginner. It should ideally be as easy as using an analog amp.

 

[Orvillain]

Fractal just expect you to know what you're doing, to an extent. Whereas the QC and TMP come at it from the angle that their unit may very well be the first bit of digital kit that you've purchased. They hold your hand throughout the user experience, and they limit the possibilities and how much you can access at any given time, in order to curate the experience for someone who might not have a clue what they are doing.

They target totally different types of user profiles. At least that's how it seems to me from the outside.

 

[laxu]

IMO an experienced UX designer should know how to do that regardless of previous modeler experience, their job is to make the UX powerful enough for seasoned veterans, but simple enough for beginners.

But perhaps that's the issue with current design philosophy at Fractal, that they only take into account the seasoned veterans?
Either way, I agree that it should be designed in such a way that it's intuitive for a beginner. It should ideally be as easy as using an analog amp.

It's easy to come blind to your own work, so having a fresh perspective (someone who has never used it) can be useful.

I feel Fractal's approach to UI design has often been based on:

• This is how it was easiest to program.
  • That's why moving blocks is a nightmare on the onboard UI. It makes sense from a programming point of view: "Execute function to move block/row/column left/right/up/down" as row/col matrix manipulation. But it is completely unintuitive for the end user.
• Cram the new features somewhere in there, but don't spend time making them truly user friendly.
  • For example on the Triple Crown model, you just need to know to turn on a TS input boost to match the amp's "Tight switch". Why not just have a "Tight" toggle switch in the Authentic view that does that for you behind the scenes?
• Don't spend any effort iterating on the onboard UI until next gen.

By comparison we have seen some improvements and redesigns on Axe-Edit that are most welcome. I guess this is because those are much easier to do compared to the onboard UI code.

Overall all modelers are somewhat unfriendly to new (most likely hobbyist) users because they expect you to know about:

• Effects order and routing. The idea of "fx after the amp/cab" is foreign because you don't do that in anything but a studio environment.
• Amps vs cabs. For many people amp = combo amp = speaker.
• Micing an amp. Many people who have been playing real amps don't have any idea how to do it, at most they've used a smartphone to record themselves. So when you throw them things like movable mics, different mic models, low/high cuts etc they don't know what to do.
• Output systems. "Why my cheap ass headphones don't sound as good as my relatively decent combo speaker at twice the volume in the room?"

I don't like the Fender TMP for example because in some ways it feels too dumbed down for someone like me. But can see why it'd be liked by people who are used to using a combo with some pedals. Helix UI and its derivatives (QC, Hotone) strike a good balance where they work pretty well for both less experienced and power users, but obviously they have their own issues too.

 

[Mikael Dez]

It's easy to come blind to your own work, so having a fresh perspective (someone who has never used it) can be useful.

I feel Fractal's approach to UI design has often been based on:

• This is how it was easiest to program.
  • That's why moving blocks is a nightmare on the onboard UI. It makes sense from a programming point of view: "Execute function to move block/row/column left/right/up/down" as row/col matrix manipulation. But it is completely unintuitive for the end user.
• Cram the new features somewhere in there, but don't spend time making them truly user friendly.
  • For example on the Triple Crown model, you just need to know to turn on a TS input boost to match the amp's "Tight switch". Why not just have a "Tight" toggle switch in the Authentic view that does that for you behind the scenes?
• Don't spend any effort iterating on the onboard UI until next gen.

By comparison we have seen some improvements and redesigns on Axe-Edit that are most welcome. I guess this is because those are much easier to do compared to the onboard UI code.

Overall all modelers are somewhat unfriendly to new (most likely hobbyist) users because they expect you to know about:

• Effects order and routing. The idea of "fx after the amp/cab" is foreign because you don't do that in anything but a studio environment.
• Amps vs cabs. For many people amp = combo amp = speaker.
• Micing an amp. Many people who have been playing real amps don't have any idea how to do it, at most they've used a smartphone to record themselves. So when you throw them things like movable mics, different mic models, low/high cuts etc they don't know what to do.
• Output systems. "Why my cheap ass headphones don't sound as good as my relatively decent combo speaker at twice the volume in the room?"

I don't like the Fender TMP for example because in some ways it feels too dumbed down for someone like me. But can see why it'd be liked by people who are used to using a combo with some pedals. Helix UI and its derivatives (QC, Hotone) strike a good balance where they work pretty well for both less experienced and power users, but obviously they have their own issues too.

I don’t like that they crammed little graphics of amps and pedals into that TMP screen - I like that with Helix and QC, the UI is pretty straightforward and isn’t very flashy - I don’t care what the graphic representation of my modeled device is, but I do care that by quickly looking at my preset I can see where the chorus, OD, etc are based on their standard colors and design.

 

[laxu]

I don’t like that they crammed little graphics of amps and pedals into that TMP screen - I like that with Helix and QC, the UI is pretty straightforward and isn’t very flashy - I don’t care what the graphic representation of my modeled device is, but I do care that by quickly looking at my preset I can see where the chorus, OD, etc are based on their standard colors and design.

There's pros and cons to this. Graphics tell you quickly that "this drive is a Tube Screamer"...if you know what a TS looks like.

The problem with Fractal, Helix, QC and Hotone UIs is that they make no distinction about Drive 1 vs Drive 2 blocks or channels so you have to remember yourself what each of them do or open them to see the model.

In that sense the Fender graphics are more immediately distinctive, but the flipside is that a drive or chorus look just like two pedals and you have no idea what effect they are unless you know the pedals.

 

[Orvillain]

.....because they expect you to know about.....

And this is the thing - there's a fundamental philosophical question at play here. Is it reasonable for a company or product to expect you to have previous knowledge of something in order for you to be able to use it most effectively?

I would say yes.

When your answer to that question is yes, then you quickly realise that a hell of a lot of gear is very usable, and any usability "issues" observed on forums like this, really just boil down to opinion.

When your answer is no, or maybe... that's when you get into trouble.

The one thing I see on forums when discussing usability and workflow, is a lot of people have very fixed ideas about what they think is good and bad, and most often it is based only on their opinion.

 

[Sascha Franck]

The problem with Fractal, Helix, QC and Hotone UIs is that they make no distinction about Drive 1 vs Drive 2 blocks or channels so you have to remember yourself what each of them do or open them to see the model.

Fwiw, this is where I could defenitely see a major improvement in using a bit of photorealistic design. While it obviously wouldn't work on, say, the HX series hardware, at least in HX Native and HX Edit it'd be cool to see some more indicators than just the block type. The available space would allow for that, too. Same goes for the QC, it's rather "modern" screen should as well allow for some more detailed icons borrowing some almost-photorealistic elements.
Especially when looking at my old Helix Floor kitchen sink presets, after 2+ years of not owning it anymore, I have absolutely no idea what the individual blocks are representing, others than them being drives, delays or modulation (etc.) units.

 

[Stone]

Granted but one does not really need to see anything if you built your patch and you know what's what and where they are placed

 

[laxu]

And this is the thing - there's a fundamental philosophical question at play here. Is it reasonable for a company or product to expect you to have previous knowledge of something in order for you to be able to use it most effectively?

I would say yes.

I would agree.

With a tube amp you need to know how to turn it on, how to use the standby switch, how to avoid blowing up the transformer..or your ears with too loud volume. With a pedal the expectation is that you know how to connect cables to it, and how to power it (battery or power supply).

With a modeler the "need to know" amount is just exponentially bigger, like throwing the guitarist from "I know how to use my amp and pedals" to "I need to know how to operate an entire virtual studio."

When your answer to that question is yes, then you quickly realise that a hell of a lot of gear is very usable, and any usability "issues" observed on forums like this, really just boil down to opinion.


The one thing I see on forums when discussing usability and workflow, is a lot of people have very fixed ideas about what they think is good and bad, and most often it is based only on their opinion.

To be fair, I don't think there's much "guitar modeler usability research" articles to refer to for scientific data. But there's a lot of things that are related to UI/UX design, but obviously not everyone understands that field so they have an opinion based on how they'd like to work.

But this stuff also has a lot of things that are literally a matter of opinion.

For example: The Mesa Mark V has 90/45/10W power scaling, where 10W is parallel single ended for a different sound and feel. But using the 10W mode means it pops when changing channels that use a different power mode. Mark VII avoids the popping by having 90/45/25W power scaling, but you lose that single ended sound and feel. You could approach this from different points of view: VII is more useful for power scaling between channels, whereas V offers more sound/feel shaping options. Neither is wrong, and both have pros and cons.

There's also a lot of difference in what user experience people find palatable. There's people who feel like old rack gear operation is fine, therefore Fractal's UI is also fine. Then there's people like me who get frustrated by how much better it could be with fairly simple changes, or more effort in usability and workflow.

Even the brand new VP4 for me missed the mark hard. I'm sure there are plenty of people on this forum who are perfectly happy using it. But I know I would just get annoyed by what it could be with just a few design changes. I feel like Fractal could have even fixed what I feel makes it annoying to use (Boss GT-1000 style scroll knob and back and forth between views). But without knobs with push encoders it's not possible.

 

[JiveTurkey]

Making footswitch assignments easier is the only improvement I feel like it needs. Therefore; that's what should be focused on. Duh!

No other modeler/profiler comes close sound wise with the least amount of effort on the actual sounds the thing(s) make by default.

 

[metropolis_4]

Making footswitch assignments easier is the only improvement I feel like it needs. Therefore; that's what should be focused on. Duh!

No other modeler/profiler comes close sound wise with the least amount of effort on the actual sounds the thing(s) make by default.

The thing that’s great about Fractal footswitches is the whole “you can make each individual footswitch do anything you want”

The thing that’s stupid about Fractal footswitches is the “each switch can only do ONE single thing. If you want to do multiple things you have to make the footswitch do one thing and then make that thing do multiple things”

 

[Orvillain]

Making footswitch assignments easier is the only improvement I feel like it needs. Therefore; that's what should be focused on. Duh!

No other modeler/profiler comes close sound wise with the least amount of effort on the actual sounds the thing(s) make by default.

For which unit, the VP4?