I was wrong about the QC

[SeeD]

I recall them changing their screen somewhere after the initial batch shipped and it fixed touch point issues and some dead pixel complaints
I had the first one and did not find it that bad , but I assume the part change they made iimproved it

I don`t think they changed the screen. They just did a good job (finaly) on touch screen software. ( I think )

 

[Whizzinby]

Imagine thinking the FM3 screen is better than the QC

 

[Aleksi]

Imagine thinking the FM3 screen is better than the QC

Hey, I had both side-by-side. The QC screen was bigger, but far worse in every other way

 

[2dor]

The QC Sweetwater had on display in January 2024 was pretty mediocre in terms of the screen. Not super responsive, crappy looking. But it could have been an older unit.

They may have had low sensitivity set up; there was a way to tweak that IIRC from when I had mine. TBH, the touch screen was not among the things I didn't like about the unit. I think its form-factor, touch-screen and routing ease / flexibility were the things I enjoyed the most while I had it.
...that PSU and Wi-Fi connectivity though... what a joke.

 

[Aleksi]

Screen brightness on 20 is not a good thing! You should turn that down, I have it on 2 i think.

No idea what you mean? I didn't max out brightness. I had it fairly low to minimise light bleed, but it didn't help much

 

[norminal]

Imagine thinking the FM3 screen is better than the QC

Well, I can at least confirm that the FM3 screen is bright, has acceptable viewing angles, and can be seen in moderate daylight.

 

[OrganicZed]

Let’s invite Doug over here. I’d love to know what kind of pickles he prefers.

I believe that he's already a member.
Edit: Never mind. I missed that it was a reference to Doug Castro and I had another Doug in mind.

 

[Mongillo19]

I believe that he's already a member. @Doug B

Why would you do this to us

The person you tagged is essentially anti Doug Castro

 

[norminal]

I believe that he's already a member. @Doug B

Different Doug. I was referring to Doug Castro.

 

[OrganicZed]

Different Doug. I was referring to Doug Castro.

Oh, I see. I thought you were talking about Doug B. I will remove the tag.

 

[norminal]

Oh, I see. I thought you were talking about Doug B. I will remove the tag.

Doug B wouldn’t respond anyway. He’s currently being coddled by the TBP Army.

 

[mbenigni]

I think the obvious answer would be a simple capture player, wouldn’t it?

QC-X

I don't know. I expect NDSP would get the biggest bang for the buck with a new hardware SKU whose OS were as similar to the QC's as possible. Preferably, the very same codebase/ deliverable, auto-detecting which platform it's running on and enabling/ disabling features accordingly.

Eliminating the ability to create new captures makes sense, if that's what you mean - if for no other reason, because it allows them to remove some I/O, preamplification, and ADC/DAC hardware, reducing cost and footprint. But I don't see any reason for any of the capital-M Models and effects to be omitted; and the screen and UI should be very similar if not the same. Plug-in compatibility (S O O N) should also be present - it's a potential revenue draw for no additional R&D cost.

That's the way I'd do it... who knows what NSDP will arrive/ has arrived at after crunching numbers on cost vs. "what the market will bear". (Acknowledging that someone present in this very thread already knows exactly what they've done LOL.)

 

[mbenigni]

No, he bench-pressed him while eating a side of beef and smoking a Cuban.

At Al Di Meola's house?

 

[mbenigni]

I think it would be a cool idea but I do not see it ending well for anyone

Sad but true.

 

[DrewJD82]

I don't know. I expect NDSP would get the biggest bang for the buck with a new hardware SKU whose OS were as similar to the QC's as possible. Preferably, the very same codebase/ deliverable, auto-detecting which platform it's running on and enabling/ disabling features accordingly.

Eliminating the ability to create new captures makes sense, if that's what you mean - if for no other reason, because it allows them to remove some I/O, preamplification, and ADC/DAC hardware, reducing cost and footprint. But I don't see any reason for any of the capital-M Models and effects to be omitted; and the screen and UI should be very similar if not the same. Plug-in compatibility (S O O N) should also be present - it's a potential revenue draw for no additional R&D cost.

That's the way I'd do it... who knows what NSDP will arrive/ has arrived at after crunching numbers on cost vs. "what the market will bear". (Acknowledging that someone present in this very thread already knows exactly what they've done LOL.)

If they did that, I would LOVE to see how “the QC and the plug-in teams are separate” + “So….which team was designing this new unit while we’ve all been waiting on the QC development?” gets answered.

 

[mbenigni]

My unit sucks

Flashback to Tim Henson "this one fucks" quote.

 

[mbenigni]

Hey, I had both side-by-side. The QC screen was bigger, but far worse in every other way

Every other way? I mean, one's a touch screen and one isn't. There's "not perfectly responsive", and then there's "DOA by design".

That's without getting into the content presented on said screen in any given moment, since I know the whole UI/ organization thing is highly subjective.

 

[mbenigni]

Doug B wouldn’t respond anyway. He’s currently being coddled by the TBP Army.

 

[laxu]

I don't know. I expect NDSP would get the biggest bang for the buck with a new hardware SKU whose OS were as similar to the QC's as possible. Preferably, the very same codebase/ deliverable, auto-detecting which platform it's running on and enabling/ disabling features accordingly.

The QC uses the Analog Devices ADSP-SC589 processor, dual core 500 MHz. What they want is a single core version of that, and the closest would be the SC582, at a quick glance. The SC582 is about $15 cheaper than the SC589. That doesn't sound like a lot but we are talking about things purchased in 1000+ unit lots.

Other cost savings could be e.g a cheaper chassis design (plastic instead of aluminium?), less footswitches/encoders, I/O etc.

 

[mbenigni]

If they did that, I would LOVE to see how “the QC and the plug-in teams are separate” + “So….which team was designing this new unit while we’ve all been waiting on the QC development?” gets answered.

Yeah, there's no getting around the reality that new product development (hardware, firmware) would certainly have slowed down QC updates. From a consumer standpoint, though, it's all water under the bridge: the time has passed, the progress (or lack thereof) is what it is.

Same old mantra: you either dig the QC or you skip it/ sell it. Holding your breath because "S O O N" is folly. (See also: don't keep turning on your FM3 expecting it to be easier to use LOL.)