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

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...)
 
mbenigni said:
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.)
Click to expand...
Those are the kinds of things I care about. I spent too many years with Boss processors and I have an aversion to complexity that doesn't have any real benefit.

For instance, boss assigns. They seem great and powerful, but every time I have used them, I had to spend 15 minutes to figure it out, and old patches that had assigns in them were lost to time because there was no visual of how the hidden parameters were set. I mean how great is is that you can assign a pedal to toggle any effect in the processor?? Great amirite? How many times have I used that in practice? Never.
 
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.
 
laxu said:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree, the QC being incredibly intuitive to use, it’s still easier on the editor. If I’m doing a fresh preset, or diving in, I’m booting up my Mac.
 
Only thing I ever used the editor for with both my FM9 and FM3 was organizing presets and doing updates.

Always worked right on the units when actually using them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top