Fractal FM0 - mockup thread

[Sascha Franck]

For next gen, I'd of course like to see something with a redesigned user experience.

Well, I think, if at all, any such a device would not be part of the current FAS modeling generation anyway. And it really shouldn't be, either. The current affair of hardware UI design really doesn't lend to slapping your device onto your desktop to use it instead of the editor. But IMO that's what any such "sort of desktop and not necessarily sitting on the floor" thing should be about.

---

Fwiw, not that I'd think anything like this would necessarily be a huge success, but personally, I'd like a kind of modular solution, regardless of whatever company making it. Could be one base unit with a bunch of typical I/Os and no UI elements at all (ok, maybe some emergency "kill all"switch or a volume knob). You could then either use it as is, only editing with your computer or mobile device or add:

- A dedicated touchscreen and knob controller (or maybe just a knob controller - but IMO a proprietary system to integrate a touchscreen isn't a bad thing...). This should be both attachable to the main unit but also offer remote functionality (ideally wirelessly). There should possibly be two versions (one with the essential amount of encoders, another with plenty).

- Different variatons of floor switches. 3/6/12, with or without scribble strips.

- An additional I/O board for those with more complexed needs.

 

[laxu]

Fwiw, not that I'd think anything like this would necessarily be a huge success, but personally, I'd like a kind of modular solution, regardless of whatever company making it. Could be one base unit with a bunch of typical I/Os and no UI elements at all (ok, maybe some emergency "kill all"switch or a volume knob). You could then either use it as is, only editing with your computer or mobile device or add:

- A dedicated touchscreen and knob controller (or maybe just a knob controller - but IMO a proprietary system to integrate a touchscreen isn't a bad thing...). This should be both attachable to the main unit but also offer remote functionality (ideally wirelessly). There should possibly be two versions (one with the essential amount of encoders, another with plenty).

- Different variatons of floor switches. 3/6/12, with or without scribble strips.

- An additional I/O board for those with more complexed needs.

I'd love something like that.

I really like what Luminite has built for their M1/M2 MIDI controller and would love something like that applied to a modeler. All the physical controllers are seamlessly wireless, you can add more of them as you please or leave them out, no problem.

 

[BenIfin]

F.w.i.w ... I don't think Fractal have the inclination, desire, time, wish ... and more importantly ... the capital ... to produce something along the lines of, say, a "Fractal Stomp".

YGG / L6 are big enough - and have enough of a budget and R&D and in-house / external build capacity to sink a lot of time and $$ into shrinking the electronic quality of a Full Helix Floor into a Stomp ..... and it still has an 8 Block Limit.

D.I has commented many times on the enormity of the "Stomp" project.

The Stomp design and development would not have been cheap .... but YGG / L6 are big enough to do it, knowing they have a global stockist / reseller network .... and a global brand awareness ...... not to mention the large economies of scale needed to sell it at the volumes needed for the very low price point they did / do.

Compared to YGG / L6 .... Fractal are a minnow .... i.m.h.o..... knowing the limited info about the size of their operations and selling structure etc... there is just no way they could produce such a "FM0" / "Fractal Stomp" product at a volume, price point and supply and selling capacity to even think about "making one" - they just cant.

For the same reasons as YGG / L6 ..... Kemper were able do the player ...... but have had to price it [relatively for what it is] very steeply.

You can walk into pretty much any "real" store in the world and try and buy on the spot any Helix product ..... same applies but to a lesser extent to Kemper .... in this respect, Fractal aren't even in the car park of the ball park ..... having said that - I don't think they care at all ..... they run the company how they want and more power to them.

But hey ..... w.t.f do I know :)

Ben

 

[laxu]

F.w.i.w ... I don't think Fractal have the inclination, desire, time, wish ... and more importantly ... the capital ... to produce something along the lines of, say, a "Fractal Stomp".

YGG / L6 are big enough - and have enough of a budget and R&D and in-house / external build capacity to sink a lot of time and $$ into shrinking the electronic quality of a Full Helix Floor into a Stomp ..... and it still has an 8 Block Limit.

D.I has commented many times on the enormity of the "Stomp" project.

The Stomp design and development would not have been cheap .... but YGG / L6 are big enough to do it, knowing they have a global stockist / reseller network .... and a global brand awareness ...... not to mention the large economies of scale needed to sell it at the volumes needed for the very low price point they did / do.

Compared to YGG / L6 .... Fractal are a minnow .... i.m.h.o..... knowing the limited info about the size of their operations and selling structure etc... there is just no way they could produce such a "FM0" / "Fractal Stomp" product at a volume, price point and supply and selling capacity to even think about "making one" - they just cant.

For the same reasons as YGG / L6 ..... Kemper were able do the player ...... but have had to price it [relatively for what it is] very steeply.

You can walk into pretty much any "real" store in the world and try and buy on the spot any Helix product ..... same applies but to a lesser extent to Kemper .... in this respect, Fractal aren't even in the car park of the ball park ..... having said that - I don't think they care at all ..... they run the company how they want and more power to them.

But hey ..... w.t.f do I know :)

Ben

I don't think they need to aim for the same price point at all, or even try to go as small. Fractal could easily sit at a higher "premium" price point and people would pay that, just like they do for their current gear. The Fractal pricing is more favorable in the US vs Line6, but in Europe Fractal is a lot more expensive and still sells.

 

[Sascha Franck]

I really like what Luminite has built for their M1/M2 MIDI controller and would love something like that applied to a modeler. All the physical controllers are seamlessly wireless, you can add more of them as you please or leave them out, no problem.

Yeah, nice stuff (from all I know at least).

Thing is, I'd really love a scalable device. Pretty much everything on the marked is either not sufficient or overkill, doesn't come with the right form factor, has miserable on-unit-editing or whatever. Add to this that trying to expand things yourself often ends in halfassed hacks which you will then rather leave alone again (just as my "let me try to kinda hack global blocks into it and also add more encoders to the HX Floor" attempts, using a Behringer BCR 2000 - the Helix simply wasn't up to it, no matter how hard I tried).
"Can I edit things with my mobile device?", "I would like to have more parameters exposed and routed to knobs at once!", "Can I please have another row of switches?", "I'd love to have this on my desktop, but the gazillions of footswitches aren't anything I want there!" - these are the things modeling companies should adress rather than leaving their users alone with a whole pile of largely incompatible mess ups.

Shouldn't even be much of a problem.
If NUX can add a mobile editor to a (not even all that popular) cheap device out of the blue, why can't other companies?
Things such as the Mackie HUI protocol exist since decades. Two way communication with feedback built in, basically the perfect solution to expand on encoders and switches, the only hardware requirement being a MIDI I/O.
Additional I/O boards have been a thing since decades, too. Think digital mixers, audio interfaces and what not.
But instead of being able to personalize our setups easily, we're at the mercy of developers not delivering some stuff while throwing things at us nobody ever asked for (do modelers really need AES/EBU?).

 

[Jarick]

View attachment 20864

Cute as this looks, it still has the Fractal UI which is a pain compared to others. Makes no sense to have a desktop unit that you still want to connect to PC to edit easier.

Seriously, for those who haven't played around with a QC, it's such a perfect desktop unit.

 

[Sascha Franck]

but in Europe Fractal is a lot more expensive and still sells.

Not much, though. I know plenty of potential FAS user candidates (myself included), but they rather use Kempers, Helixes, GTs and Quad Cortexes because a) money, b) support (no way to quickly get a replacement at all, even if you'd pay for it).

 

[laxu]

Yeah, nice stuff (from all I know at least).

Thing is, I'd really love a scalable device. Pretty much everything on the marked is either not sufficient or overkill, doesn't come with the right form factor, has miserable on-unit-editing or whatever. Add to this that trying to expand things yourself often ends in halfassed hacks which you will then rather leave alone again (just as my "let me try to kinda hack global blocks into it and also add more encoders to the HX Floor" attempts, using a Behringer BCR 2000 - the Helix simply wasn't up to it, no matter how hard I tried).
"Can I edit things with my mobile device?", "I would like to have more parameters exposed and routed to knobs at once!", "Can I please have another row of switches?", "I'd love to have this on my desktop, but the gazillions of footswitches aren't anything I want there!" - these are the things modeling companies should adress rather than leaving their users alone with a whole pile of largely incompatible mess ups.

Shouldn't even be much of a problem.
If NUX can add a mobile editor to a (not even all that popular) cheap device out of the blue, why can't other companies?
Things such as the Mackie HUI protocol exist since decades. Two way communication with feedback built in, basically the perfect solution to expand on encoders and switches, the only hardware requirement being a MIDI I/O.
Additional I/O boards have been a thing since decades, too. Think digital mixers, audio interfaces and what not.
But instead of being able to personalize our setups easily, we're at the mercy of developers not delivering some stuff while throwing things at us nobody ever asked for (do modelers really need AES/EBU?).

I think there's table stakes features to expect from the higher end, next gen modelers.

Wireless support is one. If a 144 € Boss Katana Go can be edited with a mobile app, then everything else coming out should be too. Even accounting for Boss/Roland's large company advantages here.

Touchscreen is another, when even a 219 € Ampero Mini has a decent size screen.

MIDI 2.0 would probably allow for the stuff the Mackie HUI could do, but adoption of MIDI 2.0 has been super slow. Not sure if it's better on synths.

My Hydrasynth Explorer is a 575 € product, but it comes with 4 encoders and a little monochrome screen that is just spot on for editing parameters on it. The up/down buttons next to it swap to the next set of 4 parameters, with 4 buttons to toggle e.g fx on/off around the screen. The difference with this vs something like a HX Stomp is that it's faster to operate because the position of the knobs, screen and up/down buttons is better. They're not cramped, the knob is always right next to the parameter and the up/down buttons are more accessible. The area this whole thing takes up is about the same as a small Source Audio pedal width and half the height.

I feel like digital modeler manufacturers should look hard at what the synth world is doing and take some ideas from there.

 

[Sascha Franck]

Touchscreen is another, when even a 219 € Ampero Mini has a decent size screen.

Personally, I'm actually split-minded about touchscreens. On a device made with desktop usage in mind, defenitely yes. But on any floor unit, I'd rather have something pretty much unbreakable. However, if it was realized as a detachable screen, defenitely yes as well.
But then, in case there's proper mobile editing, the need for an onboard touchscreen should become pretty much less relevant.

I feel like digital modeler manufacturers should look hard at what the synth world is doing and take some ideas from there.

Defenitely. Add the DAW world to it.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

I feel like digital modeler manufacturers should look hard at what the synth world is doing and take some ideas from there.

I agree to a point on this, but there is a performance aspect to using a synth that isn’t really there with modellers (aside from going nuts with pedals, which I’m not sure lends itself to something with a deep UI). For Fractal stuff, the best experience of controlling it is with a mouse and computer screen.

For some devices, they’re well enough designed that using the on board controls offers some kind of advantage. That’s not really the case for Fractal, aside from assigning footswitches and expression controls to parameters. For a desktop device, I’d happily forego the screen entirely and just use the computer monitor (or an ipad or something external).

 

[laxu]

Personally, I'm actually split-minded about touchscreens. On a device made with desktop usage in mind, defenitely yes. But on any floor unit, I'd rather have something pretty much unbreakable. However, if it was realized as a detachable screen, defenitely yes as well.
But then, in case there's proper mobile editing, the need for an onboard touchscreen should become pretty much less relevant.

I can understand that. I don't think touchscreens are particularly fragile though, have there been any incidents of people breaking the QC touchscreen for example? It's recessed just a tiny bit so it's about the same as a phone with a slight lip on a case to protect the screen.

I agree to a point on this, but there is a performance aspect to using a synth that isn’t really there with modellers (aside from going nuts with pedals, which I’m not sure lends itself to something with a deep UI). For Fractal stuff, the best experience of controlling it is with a mouse and computer screen.

Yeah realtime control is far more important in the synth world, but that doesn't mean those ideas can't be reflected on modeler onboard UIs too.

 

[Sascha Franck]

have there been any incidents of people breaking the QC touchscreen for example?

I actually don't know. I've seen broken Helix screens, though - and they should be a little more robust than your average modeler touch screen.

Anyway, as I think the best idea by far would be a detachable screen (ideally in combination with the encoders), it'd never be an issue.

 

[Whizzinby]

I could understand the uad satellite style rack dongle for DAW plugin use, if only because I doubt Cliff will ever make a Fractal plugin, and that is probably the closest thing to hope for. Something powerful with only a plugin interface (or is there already a plugin interface for Axe fx III with full daw recall? Because that would do it)

It’s pretty much my #1 wish in all of modeling, for Cliff to make these plug-in compatible.

View attachment 20864

For those that really want to focus on that UI. Looks like hell on earth.

They’d be better off making a black box with one knob, for level, and making it 100% AxeEdit dependent for tweaking.

 

[Orvillain]

The premise with the current Fractal range is that if they do something new in that range, it's going to work very much like the existing ones. The mockups I made are made with that premise - using existing parts, functionality etc.

For next gen, I'd of course like to see something with a redesigned user experience.

I think it is a poor idea personally, and I expect Fractal also think so, which is why it isn't something they offer. FM3, FM9, and Axe III are a pretty attractive selection that more or less nail the various different types of user.

These FM0 concepts are just crippled FM3's, which isn't really a viable product IMHO.

 

[Mongillo19]

I think it is a poor idea personally, and I expect Fractal also think so, which is why it isn't something they offer. FM3, FM9, and Axe III are a pretty attractive selection that more or less nail the various different types of user.

These FM0 concepts are just crippled FM3's, which isn't really a viable product IMHO.

But yeah maybe if/when the new Gen comes out, it'll be in the lineup

 

[MirrorProfiles]

Yeah realtime control is far more important in the synth world, but that doesn't mean those ideas can't be reflected on modeler onboard UIs too.

I’m all for tactile control, but even something with a lot of knobs like a kemper still doesn’t really feel like using real gear, and ultimately isn’t really advantageous to using a mouse, simply because modellers have so many pages, menus, different parameters, switches, I/O etc.

Synths tend to have a lot of knobs so they can try and get close to one knob per function. Kemper is sort of like that, but so much is still within the deeper menus than the quick controls on the device. Fractal is so much about limitless possibilities, I think (unfortunately) it’s going to be impossible not to sacrifice that without using a mouse as the primary method of using it. Another thing is that the synths are designed from the group up with these limitations, and it’s all carefully constructed for the user experience. Fractal’s starting point is a sandbox of limitless control and routing options.

A totally new product made on Fractal tech with specifically chosen limitations could allow for something for faster tactile control and simplicity, but even the FM-3 is way too complex (as in, versatile/capable) to tackle that. I don’t think the existing products could just be reduced down to simple controls, it would have to be its own thing,

Or a plugin, that actually solves the needless hassle of having to reamp guitars one by one whenever you make a tweak to the tone. Way nicer experience for recalling tones to sessions, way nicer for automation. There’s so much to gain by offering a plugin that even the flagship products can’t really contend with.

 

[Sascha Franck]

It’s pretty much my #1 wish in all of modeling, for Cliff to make these plug-in compatible.

Along these lines, it'd be interesting to know whether the existance of HX Native hurts hardware sales. Let alone cracked versions.
In a nutshell, if you want FAS modeling, you need to buy one of their units, regardless whether you're just using it at home or wherever. If you however want HX modeling and don't play out live, all you needed is an interface and an internet connection, assuming there's a cracked HXN version (which I actually don't know, I left that part of the internet behind me ages ago, but it seems likely).

 

[aerial7]

Paraphrasing what I've read, I see these as the primary design parameters for FM0:

1. No plugin version of Axe-Fx; piracy is why we can't have nice things.
2. Margins on hardware are stoopid thin, which is why the entire line-up is designed the way it is. Footswitches in groups of 3, common button cluster, common chassis, etc.

So we need an FM0 to run Axe-Fx....but it can't be a re-design of the UX. The only way the FM0 sees the light of day is with some sort of ultra-minimalist design that comes in at a price-point that works for everyone. Re-designing the UX is completely at odds with that; it's expensive with long lead times and production costs. You're basically talking another generation of Axe-Fx.

This is why I describe FM0 the way I do; just a black box of chips that Axe-Edit would see as essentially an FM3 or FM9 (whichever makes sense)....and the FM3 jacks. Tooling / production costs would be limited to the chassis, which is also the only design cost: I'm guessing thermals are the biggest consideration.

Again, I'd buy two today....let's go!

 

[Whizzinby]

Along these lines, it'd be interesting to know whether the existance of HX Native hurts hardware sales. Let alone cracked versions.
In a nutshell, if you want FAS modeling, you need to buy one of their units, regardless whether you're just using it at home or wherever. If you however want HX modeling and don't play out live, all you needed is an interface and an internet connection, assuming there's a cracked HXN version (which I actually don't know, I left that part of the internet behind me ages ago, but it seems likely).

That’s why I’m onboard with a Fractal Satellite approach. I can still contribute to Cliffs retirement fund by buying hardware, but then I also get the plugins. And if anything it would drive additional sales, because those that gig or want something that isn’t computer centric can still use the FM3/9 etc. It doesn’t have to be either or.

 

[Boudoir Guitar]

For me, an FM0 should be no bigger than a Strymon Timeline, Boss DD-500, or perhaps even Meris LVX. It really shouldn't be a cut down version of an Axe III or FM9, simply with bits chopped off it. It should be an entirely new type of device for Fractal, with a completely new user experience.

So far, none of the imagined concepts scream "viable product" to me, at all really.

It's a double edged sword and why any lengthy conversation on this topic beyond the tongue-in-cheek-shout-outs for one (that I guess some people interpret as real? Mine certainly aren't) is pretty dumb:

Any viable product from Fractal is...going to have to be able to just take the parts and firmware they already make.

An FM0 that is viable to more than a dozen people would need to use different parts, and thus a different firmware, than one Fractal already makes.

Some folks want a more desktop friendly version of the FM3, but whenever I've brought it up it has been more about using a Fractal head unit with other stuff where the FM3 does kind of turn into the kid that awkwardly hit puberty two grades before everyone else in the class.

My conversations with Cliff re: trying to convert my FM3 into an FM0 were definitely in the (paraphrasing and stuffing words in his mouth): "This seems like a dumb idea, with a high probability of you destroying the whole thing. Also, will probably get a boot failure if you just try to disconnect the footswitches and ditch them altogether." vibe

I THINK my thought was "Pull the clam-shell apart. Get a longer ribbon cable for connecting the screen/knob board to the processor/IO board. Cut the Top part of the clam-shell along the bend-line separating the footswitches from screen; mount the full UI/screen/board/metal housing bit on the top panel of the cab; cut the 2" or so of wasted length off the bottom part of the clam shell and mount it underneath the top panel of the cabinet with the IO accessible on the back". Needing the footswitches would just mean I would have needed to mount the footswtiches -- maybe like along the top part of the front of the cab, where the black panel typically is in a black panel amp?

As this conversation was unfolding, I had pretty much completely stopped playing music anywhere but my music room and so gave up on the whole thing. Needing to deal with the footswitch board also added a layer of complication that pretty much killed my motivation.