Modular Amp Newbie: Is Kemper Stage right for me? Or Fractal FM3?

    The Kemper and FM3/9/Axe III fx are very different products IMO.


    The Kemper is targeted at tube amp + pedal board players that have made the jump to digital. The Fractal offerings (and NQC, and Helix) are really framed more around computer routing and blocks processing.


    Two very different approaches, mostly the same result.


    If you want to spend most of your time USING your new digital amp, the Kemper is the best product out there. It is VERY easy to get to about any tone you can imagine and to have it sound great.


    If you really like messing with your tone in complex ways (combinations of series - parallel - and more setups of blocks), The FM3/9 are going to be better products for you.


    Just a note: I don't think the FM3 is a good option for live gigging at all. If you have any hope of doing this successfully, the Kemper Stage is a much much better option. The FM9 is a different story. As stated above, this is a more apt comparison of apples to apples.


    Here is my overview comparison (scale 1 = slightly better, 2= more than slightly better, 3=noticeably better):


    1) Amp Tone: Kemper (2)

    2) Efx: FM9 (1)

    3) Routing and flexibility: FM9 (3)

    4) Ease of use: Kemper (3)

    5) Gigging: Kemper (1)

    6) Recording: FM9 (1)


    As you can see, it isn't black and white. Personally, I greatly prefer Kemper. I gig and am an old tube amp snob. YMMV.

    Quote from OneEng1

    The Kemper is targeted at tube amp + pedal board players that have made the jump to digital.

    I hope this is no longer the case. New, digital-first, generation of players is growing at rapid pace and I do really believe that this constat obsessive looking back at old tech is leading nowhere. Just like new cars are not targeted at fancy horse-carriage fans (there are still many - I even took a ride at my wedding :) ), modern musical equipment should offer much more than just replication of old habits.

    Quote from piotrmaj

    I hope this is no longer the case. New, digital-first, generation of players is growing at rapid pace and I do really believe that this constat obsessive looking back at old tech is leading nowhere. Just like new cars are not targeted at fancy horse-carriage fans (there are still many - I even took a ride at my wedding :) ), modern musical equipment should offer much more than just replication of old habits.

    Well, it depends really IMO.


    If your goal is to produce tone and effects like those used on classic tracks from music that has been recorded either today or in the past, then it makes sense to create a guitar processor that is basically laid out the same way that the original musician did it. To date, nearly all of our examples of "legendary tone" is from this kind of a setup.


    If your goal is to produce tone and effects unlike what anyone has done before, then I agree. Digital-first based guitar processing is the better approach.


    The reason people are obsessively "looking back" is because in the minds of many people (musicians and audience participants), they "did it right". "They" did it with a traditional guitar setup, not with digital-first approaches.


    YMMV.

    Quote from alexreinhold

    May I ask, why you would say that? From what I have seen, many use the FM3 with a midi pedal and love it live. Apparently, it's more than enough for most scenarios.

    If you add a MIDI pedal, you also add more cables, more stage space, and more power connections to make. IMO this is NOT a good gigging situation. The FM9 would be a much preferred setup to the FM3 for gigging. Similarly, the Kemper Stage (or rack/toaster with a FC) make good gigging setups that are superior to the FM3.


    Further, unless you get a pretty expensive MIDI controller, you will not have integration into the FM3 to get patch names, control over the efx chain, etc.