It's not for me , and why ?

[laxu]

It's the cost of the unit that makes this business model extremely unappealing to me, and I'm pretty certain I'm not alone in this.

When Christof Kemper said that he might consider 1 or 2 paid updates to the Kemper Player to bring the functionality closer to that of the full-sized units, the forum reaction, especially at TOP, was overwhelmingly negative with respect to paid updates. He at least has higher-priced units that he doesn't want to cannibalise sales of - the AmpX will be Bluguitar's top-of-the-range unit, so they don't even have that as a justification.Imagine how this forum would react if NDSP announced $50 reverb, delay, and modulation "packs" for the NanoCortex to give you more options...

Isn't that basically plugin support for QC though? NDSP does add free things as well, and we don't know what BluGuitar will do for this. But nobody has to buy NDSP plugins because the QC does plenty as is. I expect the Amp X will be like that too.

I think people balk at the paid updates for Kemper Player or (hypothetical) Nano Cortex because there exists a higher end unit that comes with all that stuff. Looking at the used market in Finland, you can buy a Kemper Toaster between 700-1000 €. Now imagine you bought the Player at 699 €, then spent say another 200-300 € on a paid update to get all the fx from the Toaster. Could have just bought the Toaster that is a better user experience but larger. Do the same for Nano Cortex and now a used QC might start to be more appealing.

People buy paid captures, IR packs or VST plugins all the time and think nothing of it. Because it's something they want, rather than something they begrudlingly buy because the base unit does not do enough.

 

[Foxmeister]

Isn't that basically plugin support for QC though?

Not in my opinion - most of the plugins carry an artist "tax", so NDSP can't just give them away to all QC users because the artists need to get their cut.

 

[laxu]

Not in my opinion - most of the plugins carry an artist "tax", so NDSP can't just give them away to all QC users because the artists need to get their cut.

With Thomas Blug saying they'd like to pay some of the money from paid upgrades to the original makers of the amps/fx they model, that sounds like a similar deal.

We also don't know what kind of deal NDSP has with their artists, or e.g Soldano.

IMO the plugin support thing has been entirely a case of "our marketing oversold the feature set, now we need to figure out how to get the QC to run plugin models with identical tone" rather than a licensing issue.

 

[Jarick]

I got a Lion for $250 +tax used on the Sweetwater reseller site this week. Got it today and I think it compares very well with the Fractal Plexis and it sounded really good into a real cab powered by a Fryette PS-2. I'm very sold on the FM9 but this is a nice change of pace. I have my complaints that everyone does, but the biggest issue I have with it is not being able to know what the factory/artist preset settings are, can't access the custom speaker cabs in those, and if you want to tweak the amp settings, you are just guessing.

I did NOT like the UA Ruby that I tried early last year - very scooped midrange. It may be true to the original modeled amp though.

I've been really eyeing the Friedman IR-D. Got the IR-X for the "no menu" thing but the clean is a little too clean and the gain is a little too compressed.

If I didn't already have too many modelers I'd be really interested in the Lion. I've nearly picked up the Ox Stomp a few times as well. It looks really cool but I hear awful things about the app.

 

[southpawdd]

I've got an IR-X and IR-D to compare with the Lion (yes, I have a FOMO problem here). The IR-D is fuller sounding when A/B'd with the IR-X which is what I've experienced owning the Dirty Shirley Mini head and a Runt 20 at lower volumes.

Generally, I think the IR-X is best with humbuckers to fill out the lower part of the frequencies. I much prefer the IR-D for Strat/Teles, but it can also be tamed for humbuckers by dropping the thump and mids, and using a TS style pedal in front for the brutalz.

I'd love for Friedman or Synergy to come out with a Morgan or Vox style pedal in the same form factor.

 

[southpawdd]

Also, between the IR-D and the UA Lion, the Friedman smoothness and filtering can be heard where the Lion (can be) more raw and aggressive. I think these are pretty dang good when compared to the amps.

 

[Foxmeister]

IMO the plugin support thing has been entirely a case of "our marketing oversold the feature set, now we need to figure out how to get the QC to run plugin models with identical tone" rather than a licensing issue.

The other big difference between the NDSP plug-in situation and the "potential" Blugprint situation is that the plug-ins are products in and of themselves and are not tied to the QC. Therefore, there's a strong argument to suggest that PCOM is a bonus for plug-in owners and not a paid upgrade for the QC in and of itself.

Regardless though, I wouldn't buy the AmpX given the Blugprint situation as we believe it currently stands.

 

[timbuck3]

Totally fair. I think it won't be for a lot of users on this forum. I have concerns how it will function, and whether the fx will deliver - and what fx will be available at release.

The one thing I do guarantee, is that it will sound great as an amp. I sometimes look at the used tube amps on my local market, have been tempted by a JVM410, Mesa Mark V 90W or Mesa Lonestar Classic a few times. Then I fire up my Amp 1 ME and go "nah, this sounds awesome for both clean and drive, I don't need anything".

The Blugprints thing does not concern me at all. The Amp 1 is already say 90% of what I'd ever want out of an amp, and if the fx selection is good enough there's no real need to buy anything except for people who are collecting stuff so they want "everything." The business model for the Blugprints does not sound predatory and I see it as no different from selling captures or IR packs.

This sounds like qc reasoning to buy..

 

[Jarick]

I've got an IR-X and IR-D to compare with the Lion (yes, I have a FOMO problem here). The IR-D is fuller sounding when A/B'd with the IR-X which is what I've experienced owning the Dirty Shirley Mini head and a Runt 20 at lower volumes.

Generally, I think the IR-X is best with humbuckers to fill out the lower part of the frequencies. I much prefer the IR-D for Strat/Teles, but it can also be tamed for humbuckers by dropping the thump and mids, and using a TS style pedal in front for the brutalz.

I'd love for Friedman or Synergy to come out with a Morgan or Vox style pedal in the same form factor.

Oh that's awesome feedback, thanks!

I dialed in a great IR-X sound last night just for cleans and using my Fractal for pedals up front, really liked it. I may move it down to the floor and put a couple pedals with it instead.

If you were to pick one to work like a single channel amp (sitting edge of breakup, then use pedals to push), which would you go for?

Side note, how do you feel the Fractal Dirty Shirley models compare with the real thing? I think the modern Dirty Shirley with the bright and structure switches is likely my dream amp.

 

[southpawdd]

how do you feel the Fractal Dirty Shirley models compare with the real thing?

I ended up trying out your side note ask first for some A/B testing between the IR-D and the FM9 as it was the easiest for me to setup this afternoon. I'm going to compare the DSM head with a Suhr load box to see how the FM9 settings compare to that, too.

I probably couldn't tell these apart in a blind test after switching back and forth in the 3 gain levels/channels. The IR-D does have a bit more dynamics, but adding the output compression on the FM9 amp helped.

• Using the top channel on the IR-D as shown in the picture. I mostly kept the noon type settings for comparison sake, but I'm sure it could be set a little differently to get an ideal tone.
• Channel A/B/C in the FM9 configs match the low/mid/high gain structure switch of the IR-D. The low structure was set for just a bit above edge of breakup to me; probably more of a light OD. Cab is bypassed on the IR-D so the same IR is used for the A/B - OH 4x12 MRBW RAW B. The subtle differences on the Fractal EQ in each channel were just me not having time and patience to refine each one and I tweaked a bit here and there.
• Suhr Classic JM with P90s was used to try to get in between single coil and HB levels.
• Used the Dirty Shirley 1 amp in the Fractal just to get going - have not yet tried the DS 2.
• Playback was a Fender FR-10 and then Kali LP-6 monitors, probably 90 dB or so in the room.
• The Fractal model has quite a bit more mids than the IR-D so that is the most significant adjustment.
• I used the 4x12 Brit 800 for speaker impedance; needed something a little less spiked in the lows to match the IR-D's bass.
• Set the output compression on the Dynamics page of the FM9 amp to about 1.3.
• I'm sure the input trim and gain will be variable for other guitars or players...I didn't spend tons of time on that (lower gain, higher trim, etc.)

I'll set this up to feed a real guitar cab and bypass power amp stuff later...that will be fun to see if the Fractal sounds the same as a preamp.

 

[southpawdd]

The DS 2 in the Fractal seems a bit closer EQ wise to the IR-D. This is where I ended up for the low gain setting (the gain in this screenshot is a bit low compared to the other test).

Interesting results in another test: @Jarick - the real DSM head into Suhr RL sounds a bit thin and has a lot of presence and missing low mids compared to the IR-D and Fractal model(s). This reminds me of some of the not so great profiles/captures I've heard.

 

[[Nathan]]

New fractal unit, no amps no buy
Just putting this as a placeholder

 

[gy1900s]

Inspired by a recent threads and posts on the Nano cortex on other forums I figured I would start this with the sole purpose so that people can express , what Not is for them and why ( just in case someone gives a crap)

I will start the Boss GX100, because even though after 2 years they fixed the IR issues , the Recto still sounds like swamp poop

TB3 other than price barriers, lack of stereo effects loop is there anything you would like to share with the group ?

I find that Boss does low gain and medium gain tones really well, but their high gain stuff sounds like shit.
I own both a Katana and an IR-2. The Katana sounds good up to 70's classic rock plexi type gain. the IR-2 will get you to
80's hair metal JCM 800 type gain. I have yet to hear Boss do a quality modern high gain tone. Everything they've done so far sounds way too scooped and mushy.

 

[ian_dissonance]

I find that Boss does low gain and medium gain tones really well, but their high gain stuff sounds like shit.
I own both a Katana and an IR-2. The Katana sounds good up to 70's classic rock plexi type gain. the IR-2 will get you to
80's hair metal JCM 800 type gain. I have yet to hear Boss do a quality modern high gain tone. Everything they've done so far sounds way too scooped and mushy.

I always felt like the high gain was like overcompensated with some sort of compression or something with Boss.

 

[TSJMajesty]

Probably all of it. I'm quite content with Fractal. Enough so that I would have to have an opportunity come along for me to play through something else, which would have to be in the context of my using someone else's rig, because there's no way I'd go out and spend money on something different, just so I can see if I might like it better.

If I ever get to the point of not enjoying the Axe III, my first remedy would be to dig deeper, and learn more about it. Because I'm pretty damn sure it can do everything I'd ever want, even if I'm not currently using it in that manner.

Iow, I've barely scratched the surface (I just play through the damn thing!) in almost 4 years of ownership, that if I wanted it to do something new, I'd look within, as opposed to looking for something different. I like it that much!

I guess I'm really just here for the memes.

 

[laxu]

If I ever get to the point of not enjoying the Axe III, my first remedy would be to dig deeper, and learn more about it. Because I'm pretty damn sure it can do everything I'd ever want, even if I'm not currently using it in that manner.

One of the reasons why I sold mine was that I figured I just didn't need all it could do, didn't care for the rack format, and hated the onboard UI. In hindsight I should have stuck with the FM3 as a more compact unit that did enough.

 

[Orvillain]

One of the reasons why I sold mine was that I figured I just didn't need all it could do, didn't care for the rack format, and hated the onboard UI. In hindsight I should have stuck with the FM3 as a more compact unit that did enough.

Generally I have two ways of working with a spectrum in between, and one side is more prevalent than the other depending on whether I'm in a studio environment, a rehearsal environment, or a gigging environment.

Either I want to quickly grab a parameter or control, adjust it, and move on. Without even thinking about having to save a preset, name a preset, reload a preset, program midi PC's or CC's, program loop switchers, set colours, set routing, or anything like that. I simply want to bend down or lean over to a physical control, turn it, and go back to playing guitar.

Or I want to get really nitty gritty. Throw up a delay, flip over to the EQ page, set one band to 1.6kHz with a 3dB boost so that with a high enough feedback it creates a squeal effect. I then want to link the feedback to an expression pedal. I then want to bring the block in and out based on a scene, whilst also changing my amplifier channel. I want to have tons of amps to choose from, tons of delay and reverb algorithms to choose from, some modulation effects to mess around with, etc etc. In these times, I want to go deep and I can explore a bit of kit or a sound for hours.

The former is more likely when I'm at rehearsal or playing a gig. The latter is more likely when I'm at home doing sound design or songwriting.

I feel like there isn't anything else out there that really rivals the Axe FX III for the latter. But for the former, there's quite a few options out there that can do it, from single stomp pedals to the Helix and/or QC, to some well thought out digital pedals like the Timeline.

 

[Stone]

One thing is for sure FM9 does everything I need and want or ever will, so no no reason to look elsewhere

 

[laxu]

Generally I have two ways of working with a spectrum in between, and one side is more prevalent than the other depending on whether I'm in a studio environment, a rehearsal environment, or a gigging environment.

Either I want to quickly grab a parameter or control, adjust it, and move on. Without even thinking about having to save a preset, name a preset, reload a preset, program midi PC's or CC's, program loop switchers, set colours, set routing, or anything like that. I simply want to bend down or lean over to a physical control, turn it, and go back to playing guitar.

Or I want to get really nitty gritty. Throw up a delay, flip over to the EQ page, set one band to 1.6kHz with a 3dB boost so that with a high enough feedback it creates a squeal effect. I then want to link the feedback to an expression pedal. I then want to bring the block in and out based on a scene, whilst also changing my amplifier channel. I want to have tons of amps to choose from, tons of delay and reverb algorithms to choose from, some modulation effects to mess around with, etc etc. In these times, I want to go deep and I can explore a bit of kit or a sound for hours.

The former is more likely when I'm at rehearsal or playing a gig. The latter is more likely when I'm at home doing sound design or songwriting.

I feel like there isn't anything else out there that really rivals the Axe FX III for the latter. But for the former, there's quite a few options out there that can do it, from single stomp pedals to the Helix and/or QC, to some well thought out digital pedals like the Timeline.

Amen.

I've been recently on a "Is the Strymon Volante better than the El Cap V2 and can the SA Nemesis do those things too" testing spree. By the time I have to start messing with the SA Neuro Editor to adjust the things on the Nemesis that you find as knobs on the Strymons, is when my inspiration goes out of the window. I think the Nemesis can get pretty close with the Binson Echorec algorithms, but it's such a chore to work with for that, because it's designed as a multi-type delay instead of a purpose-built one like the El Cap or Volante. Nemesis does more, but the drawback is that it might not do the things you want for the delay types you care about.

Working with Fractal was a little bit like that. All I wanted was to tweak some preset settings to better match my guitar, adjust some fx mix etc and it often became a bit of a chore to do compared to grabbing a knob on a pedal. Even if I had luckily remembered to program those things into the Performance View, it just wasn't the same because I still needed to menu around to get there.

3 years later I still feel the QC is the best when it comes to this "just adjust something a little bit" task out of all modelers on the market, but it comes with a pile of its own drawbacks in other areas.

 

[[Nathan]]

New fractal unit, no amps no buy
Just putting this as a placeholder

Can confirm, not for me.
Back to passively browsing for an Ax3. Seems like the only thing that would have been better for me is a Desktop/QC style device with ax3/fm9 capabilities or you know, fractal native