NDSP Quad Cortex

[mbenigni]

I can't quite follow the mods point, maybe I just don't understand, but yes. He states that TINA doesnt make capturing faster but instead the time between captures faster therefore we shouldn't have expected an increase in amp models? Whether it's a human or TINA, it will still be say 10x longer to recreate more complex amps. But idk who is going to tell him 10 x 5 min for a robot vs 10 x 60 min for a human (obviously made up numbers) is a huge difference lol

Idk it just sounds like mental gymnastics to me. And very confusing.

Yeah, I'm completely lost LOL.

 

[laxu]

I can't quite follow the mods point, maybe I just don't understand, but yes. He states that TINA doesnt make capturing faster but instead the time between captures faster therefore we shouldn't have expected an increase in amp models? Whether it's a human or TINA, it will still be say 10x longer to recreate more complex amps. But idk who is going to tell him 10 x 5 min for a robot vs 10 x 60 min for a human (obviously made up numbers) is a huge difference lol

Idk it just sounds like mental gymnastics to me. And very confusing.

Yeah sounds like spin doctoring to me.

You could set up TINA to run all night on amp A, then swap it for amp B when people come to work, if we assume that it takes really long to capture one amp's data set. If we assume that it takes 8h for a single channel amp, you could have 10 amps data done in a week if you do two every day. A lot more if it takes only say 2h.

Of course, having the data is only one part, multi-channel and more complex amps take more time and so on. But with a dedicated crew working on just more amps, you'd think they'd be able to put out a few amps each month along with some bug fixes.

 

[Orvillain]

I can't quite follow the mods point, maybe I just don't understand, but yes. He states that TINA doesnt make capturing faster but instead the time between captures faster therefore we shouldn't have expected an increase in amp models? Whether it's a human or TINA, it will still be say 10x longer to recreate more complex amps. But idk who is going to tell him 10 x 5 min for a robot vs 10 x 60 min for a human (obviously made up numbers) is a huge difference lol

Idk it just sounds like mental gymnastics to me. And very confusing.

If someone actually said that, then they should probably taste the bitter end of a railroad spike.

 

[Jynx]

Just like with real life news cycles in '25, I'm a lot happier since I tapped out of keeping up with news on the QC.

 

[GTR37]

I am starting to see a few more failures on FB again unfortunately like this quote

“I have two and they make fart noises non stop . So I never use them anymore I need to ship them in for repair .

 

[Mongillo19]

I am starting to see a few more failures on FB again unfortunately like this quote

“I have two and they make fart noises non stop . So I never use them anymore I need to ship them in for repair .

What the hell does that even mean

 

[GTR37]

What the hell does that even mean

Your guess is as good as mine but it was damn funny

 

[mbenigni]

What the hell does that even mean

It means it's time to clean your poo switches.

 

[jellodog]

I got off the complaint train a good ways back. And this is sort of hypocritically popping in to say hi to that train in it's own way; but they should have never promised plug-in porting. Imagine if they didn't have that still hanging around their neck.

At least the Ozymandias quote concerning hubris was fully realised!

 

[mbenigni]

 

[deadpool_25]

Yeah at this point it's not a shock and should be expected. It's too bad. I wonder what the QC would have looked like if they had not even mentioned PCOM

Without PCOM I wouldn't even have one probably

 

[deadpool_25]

Not a professional device, not a professional company.

I get the point about the company but the device itself is used by enough professional and touring people to make the first part of that literally incorrect. But I still understand your general feelings in that regard. IJS

 

[Mongillo19]

Without PCOM I wouldn't even have one probably

That's fair! I don't want to discount plugins on the QC because it is really neat. But at what cost?

I just really expected the new ones to be PCOM compatible from the start. That would seem to make the most sense

 

[namathan_zirwir]

I get the point about the company but the device itself is used by enough professional and touring people to make the first part of that literally incorrect. But I still understand your general feelings in that regard. IJS

Yes, lots of touring bands using them. I’ve seen many. Not defending NDSP, because they deserve a lot of flack they get. But calling it not a professional device is laughable.

 

[mbenigni]

I just really expected the new ones to be PCOM compatible from the start. That would seem to make the most sense

See above re: hare-brained misnomers. If NDSP were down for making sense, they would have just called the plugins (where applicable) Quad Cortex-compatible. Or what they actually are: (mostly) equivalent paid expansions.

Plugins that are not compatible with plugin compatibility? I'm gonna need a moment to process this.

 

[mikah912]

I get the point about the company but the device itself is used by enough professional and touring people to make the first part of that literally incorrect. But I still understand your general feelings in that regard. IJS

Yeah, I don't think there's any gear you can discount as "not a professional device", really. From Peavey Bandits to Johnson J-Stations to red POD kidney beans....lots of humble stuff has been used as a primary tool by some badass musicians on a record or tour or two.

 

[Orvillain]

I get the point about the company but the device itself is used by enough professional and touring people to make the first part of that literally incorrect. But I still understand your general feelings in that regard. IJS

I understand your point also. But just bear in mind I'm speaking for myself here. Not for everyone else.

There are pretty unacceptable issues with the Quad Cortex when it comes to integrating it into a wider rig. Most of the artists I've seen who use the Quad Cortex - one of my favourites being a band called The Ocean - are using it as a standalone device, where most of the issues I am talking about are drastically minimized. You simply wouldn't notice how poor the signal quality is unless you were running 4-cable-method, or integrating external pedals into the FX loops.

Even the guys around here who do that have corroborated my view.

At various times in the past couple of years, I've had the Helix, Boss GT1000, Axe FX III, Kemper, and Quad Cortex, side-by-side in various combinations, along with a raft of pedals, and I can honestly say that the Quad Cortex is the nosiest bit of equipment I've ever tried to use with a valve amp. It simply is not professional enough in that context.

It doesn't really factor into my assessment the fact that a band can tour with the unit, plug in the main outs into the FOH, and route the other outputs to their IEM's and play a show. That isn't my world, and the fact it can do it is irrelevant to me.

And it really is a shame. Because algorithmically, I think it sounds great. Not as good as the Axe FX III, but better than the Helix in many cases. The stock effects were not even that bad, there just wasn't enough variety. Being able to load plugins on it is really cool, and I did enjoy running the plugins I own on it. It was a shame that not everything I owned was already supported - considering the device launched in 2020. That was five years ago if we're counting.

The looper block is genuinely really good. They nailed that. To this day, I'm still not sure if I'm a shit guitarist, or if the Axe FX III and default FC12 layout is buggy or what. I don't know. But I rarely seem to get a good loop using the Axe III and FC12; whereas with the QC I did. With the Flashback X4 I did. With the DD500 I did. Kinda strange.

Ultimately, I think they made a consumer device. Not a professional one. Which is fine. There is space - arguably most of it at this point - for consumer electronics. But I think Fractal wipe the floor with it just for raw circuitry and understanding of digital audio conversion and how to best optimize it to reduce noise, aliasing, and harmonic distortion.

 

[Orvillain]

Yeah, I don't think there's any gear you can discount as "not a professional device", really. From Peavey Bandits to Johnson J-Stations to red POD kidney beans....lots of humble stuff has been used as a primary tool by some badass musicians on a record or tour or two.

I don't think we're sharing the same definition of professional. That's the issue here.

Whether a thing is used - or even conversely, not used - just simply doesn't factor into my assessment of professional or consumer. I'm talking pure objective RAW statistical analysis of frequency response, dynamic range, total harmonic distortion, noise-floor, sample-rates, bit-depth, etc etc.

Put it this way - Peavey Valvekings sounded pretty decent. But no-one could argue that they were more professional than Friedman amps; even though objectively, the Peavey Valveking was used by way more people all over the world than any single Friedman amp.

 

[Mikael Dez]

The fact they reacted to their customers’ pleas for information with literally “we’re working on it” makes me think it’s going to be months before we get an update - because why even spend the time to update with nothing?

That being said, I’ve already said don’t buy the QC based on updates. I like it as is, just want Rabea and Petrucci PCOM and I could care less what they do.

 

[mbenigni]

To this day, I'm still not sure if I'm a shit guitarist, or if the Axe FX III and default FC12 layout is buggy or what. I don't know. But I rarely seem to get a good loop using the Axe III and FC12; whereas with the QC I did. With the Flashback X4 I did. With the DD500 I did. Kinda strange.

Whenever I get tripped up with a looper (including the QC's), it turns out to be some synchronization setting I've forgotten to disable. Have you looked into that on the AxeFX III?