Having owned both, I much much preferred the FM9 which I have kept and I use more than my amps. The QC, out of the box sounded inferior and even with a deep dive, it just doesn't have the same quality as the Fractal.
Having tried both i disagree. "Quality" was imperceptible. Different models (factory captures) performed similarly and traded blows. It worked out better for you, but there is no real metric for one being better other than the different features of rach. It really comes down to preference as guaranteed no one could pick out the fm9 vs a quad cortex in a blind sound comparison
If you can afford the FM9, it's by far the better unit. If it's outside of your price range then the Quad Cortex is still an amazing tool to make music!
Gotta disagree like the video said it's reakly dependent on what you are doing. Overall regardless of tweakability the end tone pretty much winds up being identical.
Better is subjective. I find the UI on QC superior and the tones are nearly identical. The QC lacks the nitty gritty depth I would love to be able to dive into sometimes, but for the ease of use - I will dial my tones in in other ways using the QC environment.
Fractal's channels and (nearly) seamless channel switching allows a single patch to have up to 8 completely different full resolution amps, provided you only use at most two of them at a time. Can do similar with other types of effects. My only gripe is that detuner and pitch shifters are in the same *effect type" so you can't run a virtual capo or a pitch shifter while also having a detuner active (FM9). Can do so on AxeFx3 due to two pitch blocks. If you want to use some delay also, there is a hack to use the detuners in the plex delay block to make a short diffusive delay with simultaneous detune. But really wish fractal would consider detune effect to be in a different category than the more aggressive shifters to avoid this problem.
Still using my AX8. Still sounds good, but yeah the biggest weakness is how quickly you use up the CPU. The ceiling is stupid low. Every now and then I consider upgrading, but I always wind up getting new guitars instead. 💀💀
I was on the waitlist for my FM9 for so long, I was almost tempted to just get an AX8. One of my favorite guitarists still uses it, absolutely still relevant in 2024.
Kudos for truly nerding out. This is an mazing comparison. I have been using a QC for a few months and an Axe III before that. I have decided to grab a FM9 and keep the QC as well. It’s not practical but I am a fan of both and I am not sure if I can choose. Perhaps I will capture the FM9 with the QC!
I'm running a mic pre > balanced input into the fm9. Really great unit for home studio. You can then record completely dry, processed with eq and compression, and with effects all to seperate paths over USB. I do wish it had a mic input built in though.
I have an eleven rack that has a mic pre and it was useful for recording acoustic guitar. But I often wonder if that mic pre is any good and if a better quality external mic pre would be better. But yes, better to have it there as an option for sure.
I really wish that the quad cortex came in the FM 9 chassis, with the FM 9 power supply , the FM 9 effects, and the FM 9 button spacing, lol! Still Loving the quad cortex, but it has some quirks.
I'm also torn between both of these. I get that the FM9 is way more tweakable, but the QC is a bit more user friendly. How would you compare them in useability? E.g. footswitch control/navigation during a gig? While the FM9 is more tweakable...I am more of a set and forget type. Or more precisely....I hate tweaking tones and prefer to just download presets. So from that perspective, if I want to say, get a similar tone from say....Marty Friedman Rust In Peace lead sound....how much more likely or how much closer am I likely to get from QC/FM9? Like can you say the FM9 has enough tweakability that someone with the patience could nail it and upload a preset? Or, can someone do a capture on the QC that would get just as close and because I dont plan to tweak it, it would also take less DSP etc?
If the FM9 is good enough for Neil Schon it's good enough for me. That pretty much tells you how great it is. Had a QC BUT lack of customer support sucked, sold it. FAS updates every few months and also has the highest quality effects from any modeler. Maybe some day QC will get there but they found out the bar is very high at this price point. FAS has been doing this for a few decades now!
@@spawn302 You do realise those guys are getting paid for working with Neural DSP and their plug ins.. I'm not biased by any means but most the guys talking positively about Neural are all paid sponsorship.
@WillyhoweGuitar I'm not gonna say that they don't have contractual obligations, but I know just as much as you, which is nothing. We don't know if they HAVE to use the QC, or HAVE to use the plug ins, etc. I will say that at the VERY least there is going to be some bias in their opinions. I can't imagine that even if they weren't bound by their contract that they would speak bad about their own signature plugins that worked closely to make and say it sucks, lol. Regardless, it is clear that they all have put out countless content showing what Neural DSP is capable of.
@@spawn302 Absolutely. I see a lot of those guys as salesman tbh rather than somebody who actually plays and enjoys the unit. Im sure if anyone was given free reign to have a plug in suite made of their own amps and effects they would be extremely biased and then to also have a unit that could load all of that into also..
@WillyhoweGuitar I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, though, unless they deliberately lie or do anything immoral. I think it just means their opinions have to be taken with a grain of salt.
@@willmims3859 sounds like a pita to be honest. Much rather pick one unit and let the gig determine the presets. Specially if you are talking about switching between Fractal/Neural units. FX III for studio and FM9 for gigs makes sense but bring a floor unit to one gig, and a rack unit to the next, where you prob need to also bring an FCB etc.
QC is about the same price with much less as far as amps, cabs, effects and the BIG one... lack of customer support with upgrades. FAS is the king of upgrades imo FM9 has high quality effects, QC not so much. I had a QC but comparing it to my FM9 it wasn't even close so I sold it.
I ha an Axe Fx 3 and now a QC. The QC is better for amp tone because of the capture technology. The Axe Fx 3 is better for soundscapes. My current rig is QC and H90. It works for my situation. If fractal gets capture technology, nothing will compare.
You can have all the power in the world but if it doesn't do the thing..then it doesn't matter. Quad Cortex and FA are not even in the same ballpark, but I would take fractals emulation over QC's profiling anyday. And I own both.
Eh, you still can't run more than 2 amp blocks at once, so if you're running a whole band with one floor unit, QC still wins. But yeah, for one musician, the FM9 can do a lot more.
@@TheGooseChaseMusic That's fair. That's the only use case to me where QC would make sense, but most users aren't doing that as it's very limiting in what a full band can do. If QC managed to get gapless switching like fractal has, then that use case becomes a lot more compelling to me.
Lol. The QC can't even hold a flame to the FM3 Turbo. I've had 3 QCs because I wanted to convince myself that it was "the most powerful". I've had two FM3s. The first one I didn't know what I was doing so I sold it and got a QC, and my second one because I sold the QC and got a FM3 Turbo. Fractal kills all modellers! Fight me
Not gonna listen to the advice of a guy who had to buy these things 5 times, FIVE TIMES, to make a decision. lol you sound full of shit to be honest. Sounds like a "didn't happen"
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 88 | คู่เอก "ป้อมเพชร vs อัสลามจอน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1ZqTVVbMgbo/mqdefault.jpg)
Just noting here, my FM9 is a Turbo.
Having owned both, I much much preferred the FM9 which I have kept and I use more than my amps. The QC, out of the box sounded inferior and even with a deep dive, it just doesn't have the same quality as the Fractal.
Having tried both i disagree. "Quality" was imperceptible. Different models (factory captures) performed similarly and traded blows. It worked out better for you, but there is no real metric for one being better other than the different features of rach. It really comes down to preference as guaranteed no one could pick out the fm9 vs a quad cortex in a blind sound comparison
If you can afford the FM9, it's by far the better unit. If it's outside of your price range then the Quad Cortex is still an amazing tool to make music!
Gotta disagree like the video said it's reakly dependent on what you are doing. Overall regardless of tweakability the end tone pretty much winds up being identical.
Better is subjective. I find the UI on QC superior and the tones are nearly identical. The QC lacks the nitty gritty depth I would love to be able to dive into sometimes, but for the ease of use - I will dial my tones in in other ways using the QC environment.
Aren’t they effectively the same price? Maybe a $200 difference?
Fractal's channels and (nearly) seamless channel switching allows a single patch to have up to 8 completely different full resolution amps, provided you only use at most two of them at a time. Can do similar with other types of effects. My only gripe is that detuner and pitch shifters are in the same *effect type" so you can't run a virtual capo or a pitch shifter while also having a detuner active (FM9). Can do so on AxeFx3 due to two pitch blocks. If you want to use some delay also, there is a hack to use the detuners in the plex delay block to make a short diffusive delay with simultaneous detune. But really wish fractal would consider detune effect to be in a different category than the more aggressive shifters to avoid this problem.
Still using my AX8. Still sounds good, but yeah the biggest weakness is how quickly you use up the CPU. The ceiling is stupid low. Every now and then I consider upgrading, but I always wind up getting new guitars instead. 💀💀
I was on the waitlist for my FM9 for so long, I was almost tempted to just get an AX8. One of my favorite guitarists still uses it, absolutely still relevant in 2024.
Also using ax8 😊
❤
Kudos for truly nerding out. This is an mazing comparison. I have been using a QC for a few months and an Axe III before that. I have decided to grab a FM9 and keep the QC as well. It’s not practical but I am a fan of both and I am not sure if I can choose. Perhaps I will capture the FM9 with the QC!
I own both. Both are great. I use complex presets. The Fractal FM9 Turbo is more powerful in both DSP and configurability.
I wish fractal had a mic input. It would be perfect. Some play guitar and sing. I bet fractal woulf process vocals so superb too
vocals would sound fantastic with their reverbs, it is 100% a missed opportunity to not have a mic pre.
i've mixed bands that used their fm9 as an IEM system with a return line...it was pretty interesting utilizing the fm9 as a personal mixer as well.
I'm running a mic pre > balanced input into the fm9. Really great unit for home studio. You can then record completely dry, processed with eq and compression, and with effects all to seperate paths over USB. I do wish it had a mic input built in though.
I have an eleven rack that has a mic pre and it was useful for recording acoustic guitar. But I often wonder if that mic pre is any good and if a better quality external mic pre would be better. But yes, better to have it there as an option for sure.
No!! Any good powerful guitar system pedal should not have Mic. If you want a mic, plug a PA.
You can run 2 guitars a bass and vocal through the Fm9 at the same time.
Fractal is king. For gigging professionals, there is really no better option
I really wish that the quad cortex came in the FM 9 chassis, with the FM 9 power supply , the FM 9 effects, and the FM 9 button spacing, lol! Still Loving the quad cortex, but it has some quirks.
I'm also torn between both of these. I get that the FM9 is way more tweakable, but the QC is a bit more user friendly.
How would you compare them in useability? E.g. footswitch control/navigation during a gig?
While the FM9 is more tweakable...I am more of a set and forget type. Or more precisely....I hate tweaking tones and prefer to just download presets. So from that perspective, if I want to say, get a similar tone from say....Marty Friedman Rust In Peace lead sound....how much more likely or how much closer am I likely to get from QC/FM9? Like can you say the FM9 has enough tweakability that someone with the patience could nail it and upload a preset? Or, can someone do a capture on the QC that would get just as close and because I dont plan to tweak it, it would also take less DSP etc?
If you can use a smartphone or a modern computer you'll have no issue with a Fractal.
If the FM9 is good enough for Neil Schon it's good enough for me. That pretty much tells you how great it is. Had a QC BUT lack of customer support sucked, sold it. FAS updates every few months and also has the highest quality effects from any modeler. Maybe some day QC will get there but they found out the bar is very high at this price point. FAS has been doing this for a few decades now!
If the qc is good enough for Nolly, Rabea, and Plini. Then its good enough for me. Not to mention Gojira coming
@@spawn302 You do realise those guys are getting paid for working with Neural DSP and their plug ins.. I'm not biased by any means but most the guys talking positively about Neural are all paid sponsorship.
@WillyhoweGuitar I'm not gonna say that they don't have contractual obligations, but I know just as much as you, which is nothing. We don't know if they HAVE to use the QC, or HAVE to use the plug ins, etc. I will say that at the VERY least there is going to be some bias in their opinions. I can't imagine that even if they weren't bound by their contract that they would speak bad about their own signature plugins that worked closely to make and say it sucks, lol. Regardless, it is clear that they all have put out countless content showing what Neural DSP is capable of.
@@spawn302 Absolutely. I see a lot of those guys as salesman tbh rather than somebody who actually plays and enjoys the unit. Im sure if anyone was given free reign to have a plug in suite made of their own amps and effects they would be extremely biased and then to also have a unit that could load all of that into also..
@WillyhoweGuitar I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, though, unless they deliberately lie or do anything immoral. I think it just means their opinions have to be taken with a grain of salt.
currently own the QC I often miss my FM3.
I totally wish I could combine features of both together.
I'm owning FM3, want to switch to FM9, but prices in EU are wild. If you can afford it - you definitely should give it a try.
It's always crazy hearing how much more the FM9 goes for in EU
Thanx for that video friend, I'm currently trying to decide between the two. The QC's dimensions and price tag tempt me but still...
You can't go wrong with either, but the QC is definitely much easier to carry than the FM9.
QC easily
Do like I did... get an Axe FX III, FM9 Turbo, and a Quad Cortex... the gig determines who goes out to dance....
@@willmims3859 sounds like a pita to be honest. Much rather pick one unit and let the gig determine the presets. Specially if you are talking about switching between Fractal/Neural units. FX III for studio and FM9 for gigs makes sense but bring a floor unit to one gig, and a rack unit to the next, where you prob need to also bring an FCB etc.
QC is about the same price with much less as far as amps, cabs, effects and the BIG one... lack of customer support with upgrades. FAS is the king of upgrades imo FM9 has high quality effects, QC not so much. I had a QC but comparing it to my FM9 it wasn't even close so I sold it.
I ha an Axe Fx 3 and now a QC. The QC is better for amp tone because of the capture technology. The Axe Fx 3 is better for soundscapes. My current rig is QC and H90. It works for my situation. If fractal gets capture technology, nothing will compare.
You can have all the power in the world but if it doesn't do the thing..then it doesn't matter. Quad Cortex and FA are not even in the same ballpark, but I would take fractals emulation over QC's profiling anyday. And I own both.
Ah, the Angus Young test.
HAHAHA totally.
Quad has a great amount of DSP, but it’s very limited in FX and amp models. Fractal kills it in terms of tone tweaking and shit tons of FX.
Whatever DSP advantage the QC has is negated by the gapless switching recently implemented on the FM9. In my opinion the FM9 is far superior.
Eh, you still can't run more than 2 amp blocks at once, so if you're running a whole band with one floor unit, QC still wins. But yeah, for one musician, the FM9 can do a lot more.
@@TheGooseChaseMusic That's fair. That's the only use case to me where QC would make sense, but most users aren't doing that as it's very limiting in what a full band can do. If QC managed to get gapless switching like fractal has, then that use case becomes a lot more compelling to me.
FM9 ALL DAY
Lol. The QC can't even hold a flame to the FM3 Turbo. I've had 3 QCs because I wanted to convince myself that it was "the most powerful". I've had two FM3s. The first one I didn't know what I was doing so I sold it and got a QC, and my second one because I sold the QC and got a FM3 Turbo. Fractal kills all modellers! Fight me
Not gonna listen to the advice of a guy who had to buy these things 5 times, FIVE TIMES, to make a decision. lol you sound full of shit to be honest. Sounds like a "didn't happen"
I think FM9' sounds is much better than Quad Cortex.
Still? Ugh, it never was. The only reason it’s had any success is because they sent them free to influencers.
Who's opinion? Fractal is still the most powerful system in the world. It's not QC.😅
The “still” on title is a bit irrelevant and click baiting … the unit is only 2 years old…
It never was.