NDSP Quad Cortex

[AFKAEjay(retired)]

I also got my QC used at a great price. I feel like the used gear prices are coming down (or will be) as a lot of the huge demand from the pandemic led to a huge supply surplus in the market. My local used gear store for instance has 3-4 times as many used guitars as they did five years ago.

Personally I wouldn't bother with buying captures at least until there's a marketplace or some better way to buy and load them. Not sure it's necessary, but I haven't found a lot of captures on the cloud that blew me away. The stuff I did with a few pedals was impressive, although the factory models were pretty dang close.

In my mind there’s a lot of low hanging fruit in DI captures…I mean…those are so easy to make.. not much can go wrong with those…

 

[2dor]

In my mind there’s a lot of low hanging fruit in DI captures…I mean…those are so easy to make.. not much can go wrong with those…

Actually a lot of those can turn out bad if folks use the Suhr RL for instance (vanilla one) which has a Line out balanced output and the QC's input is Mic level. The output impedance of the Suhr's too high for the QC's and it screws things up. Stuff like this really rain on your parade when you're trying to nail stuff down & most folks probably just look down on the tech partially because of issues such as this.

 

[synthpenguin]

So, as the QC stands with its current feature set (not taking into account possible or promised future things) today in July 2024: if you . . .

• aren't especially interested in high gain, primarily living in the distortion range from sparkly clean to (80s) Ratt rhythm parts,
  
  
• are mainly interested in the classic / boring amps from Fender (Princeton, Deluxe), Vox (AC30), and Marshall (JCM800, Super Lead) and similar sounds,
  
  
• want dual amp setups without worrying about quickly hitting a DSP ceiling (and it's the primary reason you want to upgrade from your HX Stomp at all),
  
  
• are open to, but not specifically looking for captures,
  
  
• often play through a power amp and into a guitar cab (so cab sim block disabled),
  
  
• typically have pretty simple patches (most are just amp, cab, reverb, stereo delay, boost),
  
  
• don't need any FX past simple stereo reverbs, stereo chorus, stereo delay, and basic mod FX like flangers (no accurate models even needed; generic FX that sound good are great), and
  
  
• don't especially care about interface complexity while you are initially setting up patches because you've spent a lot of time programming entire patches on tiny LCD screens on 80s rackmounted synths. . .

. . . do you get a QC or a Helix (LT or Floor)?

[ Yes, this is extremely specific, and "you" is me haha, but I ask because a lot of (justified!) criticism of QC's lacking areas seems to be focused on things and sounds I would never really use anyway, as my needs are pretty simple and "classic."

I basically want to upgrade from my HX Stomp at some point, as I've talked about in the Helix thread, because I've found myself using dual amps a lot, and while the Stomp can do it, it hits the DSP limits pretty quickly--even with my simple patches and especially with the newer amp models. The Helix LT is a consideration, and the price is right, but 1. it's way bigger than I'd like it to be (the QC being a little over 1/3 of the footprint is a huge selling point for me), and 2. I'm not convinced that Line 6 isn't going to release a successor to the Stomp next year that'll do what I want it to at the size I'd like.

So, right now, I'm in between waiting until 202? for a new Helix line or getting a (presumably slightly more futureproof) QC now, and if the best answer to the above is "Helix", I will probably just wait.

Also, I know where I am, so for sake of argument, let's say Fractal doesn't exist (Either way: the FM3 won't do what I want, and the FM9 is too large) ]

 

[the swede]

So, as the QC stands with its current feature set (not taking into account possible or promised future things) today in July 2024: if you . . .

• aren't especially interested in high gain, primarily living in the distortion range from sparkly clean to (80s) Ratt rhythm parts,
  
  
• are mainly interested in the classic / boring amps from Fender (Princeton, Deluxe), Vox (AC30), and Marshall (JCM800, Super Lead) and similar sounds,
  
  
• want dual amp setups without worrying about quickly hitting a DSP ceiling (and it's the primary reason you want to upgrade from your HX Stomp at all),
  
  
• are open to, but not specifically looking for captures,
  
  
• often play through a power amp and into a guitar cab (so cab sim block disabled),
  
  
• typically have pretty simple patches (most are just amp, cab, reverb, stereo delay, boost),
  
  
• don't need any FX past simple stereo reverbs, stereo chorus, stereo delay, and basic mod FX like flangers (no accurate models even needed; generic FX that sound good are great), and
  
  
• don't especially care about interface complexity while you are initially setting up patches because you've spent a lot of time programming entire patches on tiny LCD screens on 80s rackmounted synths. . .

. . . do you get a QC or a Helix (LT or Floor)?

[ Yes, this is extremely specific, and "you" is me haha, but I ask because a lot of (justified!) criticism of QC's lacking areas seems to be focused on things and sounds I would never really use anyway, as my needs are pretty simple and "classic."

I basically want to upgrade from my HX Stomp at some point, as I've talked about in the Helix thread, because I've found myself using dual amps a lot, and while the Stomp can do it, it hits the DSP limits pretty quickly--even with my simple patches and especially with the newer amp models. The Helix LT is a consideration, and the price is right, but 1. it's way bigger than I'd like it to be (the QC being a little over 1/3 of the footprint is a huge selling point for me), and 2. I'm not convinced that Line 6 isn't going to release a successor to the Stomp next year that'll do what I want it to at the size I'd like.

So, right now, I'm in between waiting until 202? for a new Helix line or getting a (presumably slightly more futureproof) QC now, and if the best answer to the above is "Helix", I will probably just wait.

Also, I know where I am, so for sake of argument, let's say Fractal doesn't exist (Either way: the FM3 won't do what I want, and the FM9 is too large) ]

I’d say get whatever fits you the best, I’d lean towards Helix because of its maturity and it has very useful expression pedal. But if size weighs more as a deciding factor, go with QC.
Also (if you gig or play in a band) consider switch spacing/placement/practicality. QC has very tightly spaced switches (imo) but helix scribble screens and wider (probably not much though) spacing of switches.

 

[mbenigni]

So, as the QC stands with its current feature set (not taking into account possible or promised future things) today in July 2024: if you . . .

• aren't especially interested in high gain, primarily living in the distortion range from sparkly clean to (80s) Ratt rhythm parts,
  
  
• are mainly interested in the classic / boring amps from Fender (Princeton, Deluxe), Vox (AC30), and Marshall (JCM800, Super Lead) and similar sounds,
  
  
• want dual amp setups without worrying about quickly hitting a DSP ceiling (and it's the primary reason you want to upgrade from your HX Stomp at all),
  
  
• are open to, but not specifically looking for captures,
  
  
• often play through a power amp and into a guitar cab (so cab sim block disabled),
  
  
• typically have pretty simple patches (most are just amp, cab, reverb, stereo delay, boost),
  
  
• don't need any FX past simple stereo reverbs, stereo chorus, stereo delay, and basic mod FX like flangers (no accurate models even needed; generic FX that sound good are great), and
  
  
• don't especially care about interface complexity while you are initially setting up patches because you've spent a lot of time programming entire patches on tiny LCD screens on 80s rackmounted synths. . .

. . . do you get a QC or a Helix (LT or Floor)?

[ Yes, this is extremely specific, and "you" is me haha, but I ask because a lot of (justified!) criticism of QC's lacking areas seems to be focused on things and sounds I would never really use anyway, as my needs are pretty simple and "classic."

I basically want to upgrade from my HX Stomp at some point, as I've talked about in the Helix thread, because I've found myself using dual amps a lot, and while the Stomp can do it, it hits the DSP limits pretty quickly--even with my simple patches and especially with the newer amp models. The Helix LT is a consideration, and the price is right, but 1. it's way bigger than I'd like it to be (the QC being a little over 1/3 of the footprint is a huge selling point for me), and 2. I'm not convinced that Line 6 isn't going to release a successor to the Stomp next year that'll do what I want it to at the size I'd like.

So, right now, I'm in between waiting until 202? for a new Helix line or getting a (presumably slightly more futureproof) QC now, and if the best answer to the above is "Helix", I will probably just wait.

Also, I know where I am, so for sake of argument, let's say Fractal doesn't exist (Either way: the FM3 won't do what I want, and the FM9 is too large) ]

It sounds like all of the above are overkill in many ways, but if you want dual amps and you value the small footprint... the question kind of answers itself.

 

[the swede]

Let’s hope Line 6 for once decide to actually follow a trend instead of always innovating (unlikely, they do their best to stay out of doing what everybody else does), and by that I mean to offer something along the size of QC/TMP with at least the power of Helix Floor (as an example). Let people add expression themselves, one less manufacturing cost also.

Personally I was always interested in QC and if I could justify the prize I’d own one. Great form factor and capability.

 

[synthpenguin]

I’d say get whatever fits you the best, I’d lean towards Helix because of its maturity and it has very useful expression pedal. But if size weighs more as a deciding factor, go with QC.
Also (if you gig or play in a band) consider switch spacing/placement/practicality. QC has very tightly spaced switches (imo) but helix scribble screens and wider (probably not much though) spacing of switches.

Yeah, the Helix Floor or LT is really not a consideration for me currently, as much as I like the LT in a lot of ways. Space and practicality are concerns for me right now, and either unit would mean I wouldn't easily have space to use my handful of external pedals. I was originally thinking I could get rid of those if I went with an LT, but decided against the idea as I just enjoy having them. So, really it's QC now vs wait, deal with current limitations, and see if an upgraded Stomp (or similarly smaller unit) that can do what I want comes out next year. Thanks!

It sounds like all of the above are overkill in many ways, but if you want dual amps and you value the small footprint... the question kind of answers itself.

Thanks for the response! Why do you say it would be overkill?

Let’s hope Line 6 for once decide to actually follow a trend instead of always innovating (unlikely, they do their best to stay out of doing what everybody else does), and by that I mean to offer something along the size of QC/TMP with at least the power of Helix Floor (as an example). Let people add expression themselves, one less manufacturing cost also.

Personally I was always interested in QC and if I could justify the prize I’d own one. Great form factor and capability.

Agreed. I sort of expect they'll launch with a Floor and Stomp again, with similar power differences, but it would be nice to have an LT without an expression pedal that is more or less the size of a QC.

 

[mbenigni]

Thanks for the response! Why do you say it would be overkill?

From your original question, it just sounded like with either of the options proposed, you’d be paying for features or content that aren’t that important to you. With Helix Floor/LT, tons of effects modeled after real world products. With QC, a great UI that facilitates programming on the fly.

That said, overkill is better than… underkill?

 

[synthpenguin]

From your original question, it just sounded like with either of the options proposed, you’d be paying for features or content that aren’t that important to you. With Helix Floor/LT, tons of effects modeled after real world products. With QC, a great UI that facilitates programming on the fly.

That said, overkill is better than… underkill?

Haha yeah, well the frustrating part--and the part that has me feeling so indecisive--is that if not for the dual amp thing, the Stomp would be perfectly fine for me (even if I AM slightly jealous of the larger screen on the LT / Floor). That's why I'm not necessarily in a hurry and decided more or less to not make the LT switch with its trade-offs.

You're right though: the QC is much more than I need in a lot of ways, as the LT would be too, but the dual amp thing... maybe it would have been better to not try that at all and live in the bliss of ignorance haha. At least I can squeeze Princeton + JC-120 + stereo reverb and delay out of the Stomp.

 

[Thrifty]

I picked up a Quad Cortex today.

Initial impressions are that it is well built, and the user interface is really well thought out and practical. No need to dive through sub menus, everything is right there on the screen. It’s really compact and lightweight as well, perfect for what I plan to use it for, which is for jams and any gigs (should I choose to play out).

I’m yet to hook it up to my computer.

On the sounds, I don’t have access to my Axe FX at the moment to compare, but what I heard was definitely usable.

A word of warning here: I wouldn’t know a good recording tone if it hit me in the head. So take my view on tone with a massive dollop of salt.

There were some good presets in there, though, I really liked one of a Friedman amp which was perfect for “Ain’t Like That” by Alice in Chains, or the dual amp profile that paired the Friedman with a 5150. The latter was pretty brutal. A 5150 lead preset was also pretty heavy.

And there’s a Toxic Synth patch that was pretty cool, I just soloed over it (badly) while pressing the buttons to manipulate the note being played. I imagine if they port over the Rabea plugin, it will work in a similar fashion.

Haven’t messed with creating my own presets yet, and I don’t have my monitors at hand, so all I have is the preset sounds through the headphones at the moment.

 

[molul]

The Helix LT is a consideration, and the price is right, but 1. it's way bigger than I'd like it to be (the QC being a little over 1/3 of the footprint is a huge selling point for me)

QC is a little over 1/3 of Helix LT? Wow, I knew it was small, but not that much :O

Edit: just saw a size comparison. Impressive.

 

[laxu]

So, as the QC stands with its current feature set (not taking into account possible or promised future things) today in July 2024: if you . . .

• aren't especially interested in high gain, primarily living in the distortion range from sparkly clean to (80s) Ratt rhythm parts,
  
  
• are mainly interested in the classic / boring amps from Fender (Princeton, Deluxe), Vox (AC30), and Marshall (JCM800, Super Lead) and similar sounds,
  
  
• want dual amp setups without worrying about quickly hitting a DSP ceiling (and it's the primary reason you want to upgrade from your HX Stomp at all),
  
  
• are open to, but not specifically looking for captures,
  
  
• often play through a power amp and into a guitar cab (so cab sim block disabled),
  
  
• typically have pretty simple patches (most are just amp, cab, reverb, stereo delay, boost),
  
  
• don't need any FX past simple stereo reverbs, stereo chorus, stereo delay, and basic mod FX like flangers (no accurate models even needed; generic FX that sound good are great), and
  
  
• don't especially care about interface complexity while you are initially setting up patches because you've spent a lot of time programming entire patches on tiny LCD screens on 80s rackmounted synths. . .

. . . do you get a QC or a Helix (LT or Floor)?

[ Yes, this is extremely specific, and "you" is me haha, but I ask because a lot of (justified!) criticism of QC's lacking areas seems to be focused on things and sounds I would never really use anyway, as my needs are pretty simple and "classic."

I basically want to upgrade from my HX Stomp at some point, as I've talked about in the Helix thread, because I've found myself using dual amps a lot, and while the Stomp can do it, it hits the DSP limits pretty quickly--even with my simple patches and especially with the newer amp models. The Helix LT is a consideration, and the price is right, but 1. it's way bigger than I'd like it to be (the QC being a little over 1/3 of the footprint is a huge selling point for me), and 2. I'm not convinced that Line 6 isn't going to release a successor to the Stomp next year that'll do what I want it to at the size I'd like.

So, right now, I'm in between waiting until 202? for a new Helix line or getting a (presumably slightly more futureproof) QC now, and if the best answer to the above is "Helix", I will probably just wait.

Also, I know where I am, so for sake of argument, let's say Fractal doesn't exist (Either way: the FM3 won't do what I want, and the FM9 is too large) ]

Familiarity with how Helix works would be a plus...but the QC UI is basically a copy with all the same processor management quirks.

To me there's not a whole lot on your list except dual amps that really needs the QC. You could probably get another HX Stomp, HX One or some other "augment the HX Stomp to alleviate DSP use" pedals for much less. You could even give the Boss GT-1000 Core a spin too if you don't mind using Boss's own models.

 

[2dor]

QC is a little over 1/3 of Helix LT? Wow, I knew it was small, but not that much :O

Edit: just saw a size comparison. Impressive.
View attachment 25143

Yeah - can't beat the QC form-factor to be honest.

 

[Sedaxel]

Yeah - can't beat the QC form-factor to be honest.

I guess I agree for the majority of users... BUT, as a personal taste, for me it´s a bad form factor.

It´s too small to be used as an only-one unit (footswitches too cramped).

It´s too big to be used as a pedalboard integration unit.

Again... just my personal taste. I would´ve much preferred it a little larger.

 

[laxu]

I guess I agree for the majority of users... BUT, as a personal taste, for me it´s a bad form factor.

It´s too small to be used as an only-one unit (footswitches too cramped).

It´s too big to be used as a pedalboard integration unit.

Again... just my personal taste. I would´ve much preferred it a little larger.

I like it mainly because of the sheer amount of knob control in a relatively compact form factor. I do agree it's not necessarily the best unit for pedalboard integration, but I like it as a compromise over behemoth boards like the Helix LT/Floor.

For any modeler on the market it's very easy to replace the footswitching with either manufacturer proprietary footswitches like Helix Control, Fractal FC6/12, or just use a MIDI controller you like. All of them support this pretty decently.

By comparison adding more physical knobs to a modeler works like shit on every single modeler out there. It's just not practical at all.

So I'd rather have the tradeoff be in footswitching than editing convenience. As a desktop/"on top of something" unit, QC is hard to beat.

 

[molul]

I guess I agree for the majority of users... BUT, as a personal taste, for me it´s a bad form factor.

It´s too small to be used as an only-one unit (footswitches too cramped).

It´s too big to be used as a pedalboard integration unit.

Again... just my personal taste. I would´ve much preferred it a little larger.

I agree that footswitches are a bit too close for me. Something between QC and Helix LT (closer to Helix) would be perfect for me.

I hope that, if Line6 ever gets to create a similar form factor for another Helix device, they don't copy that size 100%. Removing the exp pedal would be great for me, but I'd rather have the footswitches as currently, or just a bit closer.

 

[mbenigni]

I guess I agree for the majority of users... BUT, as a personal taste, for me it´s a bad form factor.

It´s too small to be used as an only-one unit (footswitches too cramped).

It´s too big to be used as a pedalboard integration unit.

Again... just my personal taste. I would´ve much preferred it a little larger.

Legitimate concerns, for sure. Making it a little larger with wider footswitch spacing (and maybe using that additional space for an internal PSU... TMP anyone?) would have been one solution. Alternately, leave the enclosure size the same, and remove one column of switches, spacing things out a bit. (You'd have to go back to the drawing board on some other UI considerations, though, having sacrificed two encoders.)

The QC really excels as a desktop unit IMO. You can throw it on a desk with a PC/Mac, and not much else, and have an incredibly usable home studio with a well-integrated control surface. It's also uncommonly easy to control with an external MIDI footswitch, e.g. el cheapo MIDI Captain.

I don't think its size is so terrible for pedalboard integration when you consider how much it can actually do (effects, amp/cab simulation, extensive routing, presets, etc.) in comparison with a couple of conventional stomps. But I agree you'd probably want an external footswitch solution in light of its own cramped switches.

 

[AFKAEjay(retired)]

For me it’s hard to imagine a better format then the QC. It’s “full enchilada of switches and IO” cranked into the smallest possible unit.
And sure …everything comes with a tradeoff… no it’s not as small as a stomp…and yes, a little more risk of a miss step while switching.

But non if it has materialized as a problem tbh…I guess it all depends on your use case.
My “analogboard” would be smaller with the QC then with the Boss core…cause with the QC I wouldn’t need to add a midicontroller.
I do bargigs….the switches a bit close to eachother haven’t caused more miss step while switching…but even if it did…it’s bargigs!! I don’t even care.
Maybe if Stevie wonder finally calls me…I’d add a midicontroller with switches the size of pancakes ;

 

[molul]

Actually, that's a question I'd like to ask to QC users: do you get used to the reduced footswitch spacing, or do you get used to paying more attention when switching?

 

[Thrifty]

I think one thing to note when pros use the device, it isn’t on the floor. They usually have it racked up somewhere, and then control it either with a laptop or with a larger midi controller.

Can’t offer any further insights. I have it on my desk as of now.