NDSP on the Nano Cortex's infamous launch campaign: "We weren’t thinking, oh, people are gonna hate this.”

Shredder777 said:
I read alot of dissatisfaction about the QC and with the initial price it wasn't a strong consideration for me.
Click to expand...
If I'm not mistaken, the price went down... and then back up again.

Shredder777 said:
When all the plugins are ported, and at the new price, I will take a look at the effect list and the latency and see if it is the best offering. I suspect before that happens there will be a new generation Helix, which will be almost impossible to ignore.
Click to expand...
Trying to read between the lines here: are you already using and satisfied with Helix? If so, there's no pressing need to move on to QC.

Personally, as much as I loved the Helix UI and workflow, I found the QC significantly better on both counts. And I immediately preferred the sound of the amp and cab sims. But that's just my own personal taste. And having said that, QC offers a lot less in the way of effects variety, if that's an important point for you.

I don't foresee any of this changing much in this product cycle. So if you're still curious about QC, better to order one, kick the tires yourself, and decide whether to keep it or send it back, rather than waiting for new plugins or whatever.
 
Shredder777 said:
Every fractal devotee uses the PC editor, at that point they might as well be using Amplitube/ToneX or NDSP plugins.
Click to expand...
I used the editor all the time when I had a Helix too.
Always on, just grab a guitar and play. With a plugin I'd have to open a DAW, deal with longer latency etc. I dabble with Helix Native and the UA amps once in a while, but no interest in doing that full time.
 
mbenigni said:
If I'm not mistaken, the price went down... and then back up again.


Trying to read between the lines here: are you already using and satisfied with Helix? If so, there's no pressing need to move on to QC.

Personally, as much as I loved the Helix UI and workflow, I found the QC significantly better on both counts. And I immediately preferred the sound of the amp and cab sims. But that's just my own personal taste. And having said that, QC offers a lot less in the way of effects variety, if that's an important point for you.

I don't foresee any of this changing much in this product cycle. So if you're still curious about QC, better to order one, kick the tires yourself, and decide whether to keep it or send it back, rather than waiting for new plugins or whatever.
Click to expand...
Zoom G11
homer.gif
 
Shredder777 said:
Absolutely! The interface is why I have not seriously considered fractal. Every fractal devotee uses the PC editor, at that point they might as well be using Amplitube/ToneX or NDSP plugins.
Click to expand...
Realistically some things are just more straightforward to do on an editor regardless of what you use.

The UI on my Hotone Ampero 2 Stomp is basically a touchscreen Helix. So generally very nice to work with, but it's still easier to use the editor to build a preset from scratch because it's easier to pick models, arrange blocks, you see more parameters...

Similarly I'd rather figure out the presets for each of my Strymons (now that they added a bunch of pedals I own to their Nixie 2 editor) on the editor, rather than write them down in a notebook, even if editing a preset on the pedal itself is more pleasant.

Between Fractal and QC, there's just less need for the editor on the QC. With Fractal there are genuinely some things you cannot do without the editor, and some things that are way too cumbersome.
 
Shredder777 said:
A few years ago I got a deal on a Zoom G11 and have been very satisfied with that. It has limitations, but it will tide me over until the next generation. I am currently using it with an IR-X, considering adding a ToneX pedal, and am also looking at the UA and TC pedals to add different flavors. My primary use case for a hardware modeler is to use it as a harness for real amps/RL to control switching, add IRs, and effects.

I'm more inclined to audition real amps for use in my basement before spending 2K on an mfx, when my computer can do everything just as well. A MFX for me is mostly a midi switching hub, with flexible loops, and the ability to layer IRs and effects for real time monitoring while I record the DI for later reamping.

I tried to love the GT1000 but hated the interface. I dislike the Helix tones compared to the others, but assume they will fix that in the Helix2 and give it latest gen conversion.

The Quad Cortex looks great, but so does the TMP. The Helix2 is likely to be a superstar when it releases, so I'm not in any rush.
Click to expand...
Seriously, I don't mean to diss the Zoom, or anything else. I think it's all cool stuff. If the G11 meets your needs interfacing with real amps, perfect - especially if your approach tends to be "set and forget". The main added value of QC for someone like you would be that it makes re-configuring much easier when you start changing up your routing for different rigs.

I try not to spend much time speculating about how good the next gen of X or Y might be. I can't make any assumptions as to when or whether any of that will be available, whether I'll personally like it any better, or whether I'll be able to afford it.
 
Shredder777 said:
I know right?

In its defense, it has a cleaner signal path (better conversion) than most. The loops do not color the audio. The loops can be split (send A, return B) and positioned anywhere. The latency is slightly better than the Helix. It takes no assigns or hidden programming to get foot switching. You can type patch names in and drag/drop organize patches and banks. It has virtually instant patch switching. It reduces the mental stack so you can focus on other things.
Click to expand...
If I could find one cheap; I'd give it a go :bagIf it had an amp channel switching jack; even more so :bag:bag
 
Shredder777 said:
What does it do in this regard that another processor like the G11 can't?
Click to expand...
I'm not sufficiently familiar with the G11 or how you're using to answer that question. The only thing I'm confident saying is that reconfiguring the QC when you change applications (i.e. the way the rest of your rig is integrated) will be easier.

OK, I'm also pretty confident it will sound better, but that may or may not matter if you're running IRL amp tones.
 
Shredder777 said:
I know right?

In its defense, it has a cleaner signal path (better conversion) than most. The loops do not color the audio. The loops can be split (send A, return B) and positioned anywhere. The latency is slightly better than the Helix. It takes no assigns or hidden programming to get foot switching. You can type patch names in and drag/drop organize patches and banks. It has virtually instant patch switching. It reduces the mental stack so you can focus on other things.
Click to expand...
That all sounds pretty great. I may be underestimating the G11. :idk
 
Shredder777 said:
Reconfiguring the QC when changing configs... how it is easier? I will have to take a look at the manual to maybe understand what you are saying. The Zoom has two programmable loops that can be split and positioned anywhere. Any configuration has to be saved in its own patch because there are no split paths.
Click to expand...
Workflow stuff like this can only really be appreciated with hands-on time. And it won't necessarily benefit you.

I often process several instruments simultaneously, use outboard gear (including digital stuff over USB), route to multiple monitoring solutions, etc. Changing things up on the fly is extremely (I'd say uniquely) easy on the QC. But not everyone is going to care about this stuff.

(P.S. I don't really think you need a QC. I'm not sure why I blathered my way this far into this discussion LOL.)

(P.P.S. Oh that's right - I have to go assemble the ping pong table I bought my kid for Christmas, and I'd rather give myself a DIY root canal, so I'm procrastinating...)
 
Shredder777 said:
Those are the kinds of things I care about.
Click to expand...
Well, if the price isn't prohibitive for you, maybe give it a try. :idk Sweetwater will give you 30 days to make up your own mind.

P.S. I just re-read your post after you edited it, and everything after the 1st sentence seems at odds with that first sentence, so... back to not thinking you need a QC. Maybe? I'm gonna go build a ping pong table now.

nevermind-rosananadana.png
 
Last edited:
deadpool_25 said:
I think this statement is true and quite telling:

“...But at the same time, us as individuals, we love to have fun, and do goofy, silly things sometimes. Why would you work 60, 70 hours a week if you’re not having fun?”

The problem is being goofy and silly can wear on folks after a while.
Click to expand...
The other issue with this attitude is that what is fun/funny while working 60-70 hour work weeks is, in the cold light of day to someone not there working those 60-70 hour work weeks with you...really, really weird. Always. The work war stories are only funny to the people that were in the trenches fighting the battle with you.
 
Shredder777 said:
Absolutely! The interface is why I have not seriously considered fractal. Every fractal devotee uses the PC editor, at that point they might as well be using Amplitube/ToneX or NDSP plugins.
Click to expand...

I use a mix of the PC editor and the on hardware controls. My default is to use the on hardware controls and I use them for probably 80% of the editing I do. The PC editor is easier overall, but I know my way around the hardware UI quite well. The on hardware UI is totally workable even for advanced functions like modifying the slope of an expression pedal taper or adjusting the Q of the low frequency peak of the impedance curve. The layout and button utilization are not as streamlined and intuitive they could be, but the on-hardware UI is still totally adequate and I never bring a laptop when I play out. Once you learn it, the UI is not an impediment.

It comes down to a personal decision about whether or not it is worth investing the time to learn how to use it all. Fractal unabashedly designs their gear for the professional market with the expectation that the end user will be willing to learn how to use it to suit their particular needs. They give end users access to many parameters that most people won't need but are nice to have if you happen to be one of the few who finds that they benefit from the granular levels of control. Unfortunately, ease of use tends to decrease as system complexity increases. They could certainly invest more effort into making the system easier, but Cliff has chosen to focus their efforts mostly on improving the modeling algorithms and adding features. UI improvements do not seem to be a high priority.

If you value ease of use more than the ability to precisely tailor the functions of the device to fit your particular use case then FAS products may not be the best choice for you. I want to be clear, this is not a value judgement. It is perfectly valid to decide that you don't need or care about the features and adjustability and conclude that you are better served by a less complex device made by a company that places greater priority on ease of use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top