I guess you can do the second half of that already though? Just save the scene you want as the default scene, then step through presets?
But that would be limited to the next and previous preset (and also to the default scene. I don’t want to change the default scene for every song, and I also don’t want to copy the preset for every song it is needed for, because than I have to edit all the copies I made if I want to change anything in it). If a song could consist of any scene of any preset it could change the way we use presets in a good way. Instead of building presets for particular songs one could build presets around a single amplifier (clean, crunch, high gain, dreamy) or dedicated to different playing styles (a slap bass preset with different scenes for really clean, slightly overdriven, really clean and subby, etc.). If you have to add a new song to the setlist you would just go by: “Ok it starts with a cleanish intro, let’s go with scene 4 of preset A. Next part is a slap part but is kinda djenty, let’s try scene 1 of preset D. For the following rnb’ish part I think scene 7 of preset B could fit very good.” and so on without the need to copy or edit anything preset / scene related. A change made to a preset or scene would automatically propagate to every song that uses it because the song just points to scenes in presets. The example is of course made up, but you get the point.
Just out of a weekend’s rehearsals and the gaps between presets are bugging me more than they used to. I work with one preset per song and scenes for different tones in the song. It’s great that scene switches are seamless but the non-seamless preset loading is quite obvious and jarring. More to the point they get in the way of segues between songs, or any situation where you don’t have the luxury of complete silence for a few seconds.
Assuming that full gapless preset switching is simply not possible because it’s too much strain on the hardware, a couple of thoughts of how the gaps could be made less annoying:
-
Make the gaps shorter! Could the code for loading presets be optimised somehow? You’d still get an audible audio interruption and lose delay/reverb trails etc, but at least your new sound would be available to play sooner.
-
Could a “freeze” type sample of the audio be taken at the point of switching and sustained while the new preset loads? Then either have this cut out or fade once loading is complete. It’s not a “true” spillover but it would at least cover the gaps.
Or, if fade out after load isn’t possible, fade it during the loading gap to fill the audible hole.
Just some thoughts for the dev team.
3 Likes
Even the lowly FM3 now has gapless preset switching. Let’s go Neural!!!
2 Likes
Yeah, I agree the way they use “inevitable” is strange.
The last fractal update eliminated perceived gaps between presets.
I have a triple rectifier head that has more lag than fractals FM9.
Maybe the executable part on the amp side are preloaded partially?
Idk. I’m not at all technically literate, but I can tell you that fractal is using less chips than NDSP and they’ve been able to cut boot times by over half - compared to NDSP.
Also, they’ve figured out seamless switching which has been huge for me.
I will say, the sound of the presets on the QC feel more produced / polished.
Even with the fx shortcomings - I find the lead presets feel more fun to use.
It’s not better per se, but it is notably different.
That’s why I won’t be selling either units. Both inspire in different ways… I digress.
Personally I think 4 amps is overkill and would prefer 2 amps with gapless switching.
Fractal does the gapless switching and complex signal chains.
More complex than helix.
I do not buy that this is an “impossible” request.
One more point about quad amps… I tried a couple presets out that utilize this and to me it wasn’t a “better” sound. It felt / sounded a bit convoluted or busy?
Maybe they should offer seamless switching as a mode? Letting us decide how the power is used / weather or not we would ever need or want the plethora of “extras”??
I can’t imagine people are looking at some of these options as a deal breaker…
Idk. Just thinking out loud.
2 Likes
Im wondering. Did the difference in sound you heard on the fractal. Was it always that way? Or did you notice a change in the tone after they introduced gapless switching. I dont and havent owned any of their stuff. So Im just wondering if introducing that feature compromised its sound. I experienced this with a much cheaper unit from a different brand. The more features they added compromised the overall sound.
As for the seemless switching to be impossible I would have to have someone look at the way the actual hardware works and how it wired. I think thats why they added the scene mode where you can preload presets and in that mode the switching is seamless. Though live (which i dont play live but even at home it would help) Not being able to switch from scene to stomp without touching the screen makes you kinda locked into the way those presets are. Unless I missed something.
1 Like
So seamless switching on the fractal came in the last update.
There’s not been any decrease in sound quality. If anything since they moved to Cygnus - sound quality has only gotten better.
Also, they’ve worked out better CPU usage in terms of complex signal chains.
I can honestly say the changes made by that company have always been forward moving.
It’s not a bad idea for you to post in the features section to add “mode switching” toggles.
I don’t know if that’s already an ask or not. Not a bad ideas tho.
Thats really cool. I dont know much about the actual software and hardware on either side. Its cool the fm9 is so good. Unfortunately I cant afford another unit. As for asking for feature requests Id rather just see what happens. Last time I asked for something (more high gain amp models) It was scorched earth and I was basically told that if I cant get the sound I want with the amps and tools in the unit that its a me problem. Because I didnt really care much about capture tech, and the only way I was able to get new amps was to buy compatible plugins which some amps in the plugins are pretty close to what is in the quad cortex. I must say effects arent so important to me. I use reverb, delay and an overdrive but thats about it. If i had the money id buy an FM9 for sure and keep both. But im kinda locked into the cortex. I dont think its a bad unit at all. And my only regrets have been with the quality issues I had with my first unit. Maybe when its paid off there will be an FM10 lol.
1 Like