NDSP Quad Cortex

[GTR37]

Fender seems more dedicated with the temp updates then neural

The biggest issues with NDSP and its well documented and known is how much the completely under estimated the time to port plugins and rather than a simple porting of current models it has forced them to go back and create all new X versions of every plug so they wil be able to get them to work . this has totally stopped their progress and bottlenecked development for I think 12 months and counting now

 

[Jarick]

He said he really liked the responsiveness of the Morgan model (which was post launch, correct?) IIRC the newer models were generally quite good

Maybe. I'm not sure how many models were changed, I think the Tube Screamer and maybe one other one? But it's not like Helix where there was a big global amp modeling change.

BTW I love Studio Rats demos and Paul's a killer player. But saying "oh hey it's so much better because of the feel (which by the way you can't really measure or capture)" is a bit silly. Same with Jason Sadites...I'm sure he just genuinely started getting really interested in the QC as a platform and that has nothing to do with selling captures.

While I'm crapping on guys that could play circles around me and make tons of free content, because it came up here, I don't watch Pete Thorn videos anymore. He makes great demo songs that all sound really good and he's a pros pro and that's just the polar opposite of me. I'm a lot more interested in seeing what some jackass in his basement can do with a piece of gear, and he had to pay $1500 for one so what gets him excited and what gets him annoyed.

Anyways.

I don't find any of the models to have more or less responsiveness or feel...they're all pretty good to me.

Hey all. I don’t have a QC but my buddy has one.
We were talking about the Cory Wong NDSP archetype and was wondering if there was any talk about porting this to the QC.

No idea if or when that's available. The Plini and Gojira ones are supposed to be ported soon. First thing is the plugin needs to be updated to the X version, then they need to I guess port that to the QC hardware, and then beta test for six months or so. I would guess if Plini/Gojira goes smooth the others should go quicker, but NDSP doesn't seem to do anything quickly or smoothly.

But the hardware is killer and the stuff that's in the unit today is really damn good. They just desperately need better product management.

 

[2dor]

I don't know if popularity is the deciding factor. The X version plugins completed thus far seem kinda random to me.

Whatever order they settle for, can't wait to get the Nameless and the NTS in the QC

 

[mbenigni]

I'm a lot more interested in seeing what some jackass in his basement can do with a piece of gear, and he had to pay $1500 for one so what gets him excited and what gets him annoyed.

 

[laxu]

BTW I love Studio Rats demos and Paul's a killer player. But saying "oh hey it's so much better because of the feel (which by the way you can't really measure or capture)" is a bit silly. Same with Jason Sadites...I'm sure he just genuinely started getting really interested in the QC as a platform and that has nothing to do with selling captures.

While I'm crapping on guys that could play circles around me and make tons of free content, because it came up here, I don't watch Pete Thorn videos anymore. He makes great demo songs that all sound really good and he's a pros pro and that's just the polar opposite of me. I'm a lot more interested in seeing what some jackass in his basement can do with a piece of gear, and he had to pay $1500 for one so what gets him excited and what gets him annoyed.

I watch Pete Thorn for those lovely demo songs mostly, but I see it more like "if he's getting a great tone out of it, then so can I" situation. It means that the only limitation is my playing ability vs what the gear can do.

Unfortunately the Joe Average scale tends to go straight to "smartphone filming a dude in cargo pants" which gives you no real idea about how the amp sounds. Of course, modelers are easier to record direct so that takes at least part of it out of the equation.

"Pro" demos/reviews do tend to have a very surface level approach to modelers though and you need deep dives from people who actually use them.

I don't find any of the models to have more or less responsiveness or feel...they're all pretty good to me.

I didn't find the QC models to feel any better than Fractal FM3 or Helix when I had all of them 3 years ago. So I'm not really buying that QC is doing something better than the competition.

 

[Jarick]

I didn't find the QC models to feel any better than Fractal FM3 or Helix when I had all of them 3 years ago. So I'm not really buying that QC is doing something better than the competition.

IMO QC does three things better than the competition: hardware (power/size), usability (giant color touch screen and knob switches), and amp/pedal captures (takes about 10 minutes to create and can run several of them at once). I don't find a big feel difference across the units.

 

[JiveTurkey]

How do the poopswitches compare to the TMP? All the yapping about everything needing a touchscreen but I actually liked those the most

 

[Jarick]

How do the poopswitches compare to the TMP? All the yapping about everything needing a touchscreen but I actually liked those the most

Never seen a TMP in the wild. I like the switches for fine adjustments on the QC quite a bit. I'd say I do most of my adjustments there.

 

[mbenigni]

How do the poopswitches compare to the TMP? All the yapping about everything needing a touchscreen but I actually liked those the most

It’s the combination of the two (touchscreen and many, well-spaced encoders) that makes it so much fun to use. Either/ or wouldn’t cut it IMO.

TMP brings both of these plus scribble strips to the table, which seems like a good recipe. The only question is how effectively that touchscreen is put to use.

 

[JiveTurkey]

The only question is how effectively that touchscreen is put to use.

It's not imo. Bunch of wasted space for what is very rudimentary.

 

[laxu]

It's not imo. Bunch of wasted space for what is very rudimentary.

That's my beef with it. It's not something designed for someone who will use it for years (and thus learn it well), it's designed to be approachable by first time modeler users. From everything I've seen it's kind of like having training wheels on at all times with the need to swipe between blocks or zoom in/out of them.

 

[JiveTurkey]

That's my beef with it. It's not something designed for someone who will use it for years (and thus learn it well), it's designed to be approachable by first time modeler users. From everything I've seen it's kind of like having training wheels on at all times with the need to swipe between blocks or zoom in/out of them.

All of this. Playskool modeler, 100%

 

[Achilles]

It's designed to be approachable by first time modeler users.

You say this like it's a bad thing. What you refer to as training wheels I'd label as a ridiculously efficient and easy UI.

EDIT: I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE QC WHILE LAXU WAS REFERRING TO THE TMP.

 

[LCW]

I watch Pete Thorn for those lovely demo songs mostly, but I see it more like "if he's getting a great tone out of it, then so can I" situation. It means that the only limitation is my playing ability vs what the gear can do.

Unfortunately the Joe Average scale tends to go straight to "smartphone filming a dude in cargo pants" which gives you no real idea about how the amp sounds. Of course, modelers are easier to record direct so that takes at least part of it out of the equation.

"Pro" demos/reviews do tend to have a very surface level approach to modelers though and you need deep dives from people who actually use them.


I didn't find the QC models to feel any better than Fractal FM3 or Helix when I had all of them 3 years ago. So I'm not really buying that QC is doing something better than the competition.

I got used to the lazy eye but after he went with the Robin Hood Men in Tights haircut I just couldn’t watch and take him seriously anymore.

 

[laxu]

You say this like it's a bad thing. What you refer to as training wheels I'd label as a ridiculously efficient and easy UI.

It's the opposite of efficient. Quad Cortex UI is efficient, while still being pretty easy to understand for newcomers despite its more abstract graphics.

Example preset:

IN - [Comp] - [Drive] - [Mod] - [Amp] - [Cab] - [Delay] - [Reverb] - OUT

Scenario:

"I want to edit my Amp block settings, then I find out I now need to adjust my Drive block to compensate. Oh and now I want to adjust the reverb mix a bit."

TMP:

1. Tap Amp block.
2. Wait for it to zoom in.
3. Turn knobs.
4. Swipe to Mod.
5. Swipe to Drive.
6. Turn knobs.
7. Tap outside the block.
8. Wait for it to zoom out.
9. Tap Reverb block.
10. Wait for it to zoom in.
11. Turn knobs.

Alternatively on TMP:

1. Tap Amp block.
2. Wait for it to zoom in.
3. Turn knobs.
4. Tap outside the block.
5. Wait for it to zoom out to the grid.
6. Tap Drive block.
7. Wait for it to zoom in.
8. Turn knobs.
9. Tap outside the block.
10. Tap Reverb block.
11. Wait for it to zoom in.
12. Turn knobs.

QC:

1. Tap Amp block.
2. Turn knobs.
3. Tap Drive block.
4. Turn knobs.
5. Tap Reverb block.
6. Turn knobs.

Now you might say "eh, who cares about having to wait a bit for those zooms" or "meh, that's just a few more steps to swipe between blocks". But when you do this enough, it adds up, without really having any benefit to being like that.

QC lets you access any block in the preset with one tap, that's why it's pretty damn fast for general editing, which is IMO the one thing where being fast and efficient makes for a more pleasant experience. Plus all the UIs are pretty similar so there's less need to reorient yourself to looking at a very different pedal or amp UI.

The TMP of course has good bits like the scribble strips making it easier to mentally map function and knob. I just think it could use some "power user" oriented tweaks to make it faster to operate. There's plenty of space on the screen so it could just have e.g a row of controls at the bottom while still showing the grid like QC does.

 

[Achilles]

It's the opposite of efficient.

My apologies. I got the QC and TMP mixed up in the conversation.

My reply was referring to the QC - not the TMP.

 

[JiveTurkey]

It's the opposite of efficient. Quad Cortex UI is efficient, while still being pretty easy to understand for newcomers despite its more abstract graphics.

Example preset:

IN - [Comp] - [Drive] - [Mod] - [Amp] - [Cab] - [Delay] - [Reverb] - OUT

Scenario:

"I want to edit my Amp block settings, then I find out I now need to adjust my Drive block to compensate. Oh and now I want to adjust the reverb mix a bit."

TMP:

1. Tap Amp block.
2. Wait for it to zoom in.
3. Turn knobs.
4. Swipe to Mod.
5. Swipe to Drive.
6. Turn knobs.
7. Tap outside the block.
8. Wait for it to zoom out.
9. Tap Reverb block.
10. Wait for it to zoom in.
11. Turn knobs.

Alternatively on TMP:

1. Tap Amp block.
2. Wait for it to zoom in.
3. Turn knobs.
4. Tap outside the block.
5. Wait for it to zoom out to the grid.
6. Tap Drive block.
7. Wait for it to zoom in.
8. Turn knobs.
9. Tap outside the block.
10. Tap Reverb block.
11. Wait for it to zoom in.
12. Turn knobs.

QC:

1. Tap Amp block.
2. Turn knobs.
3. Tap Drive block.
4. Turn knobs.
5. Tap Reverb block.
6. Turn knobs.

Now you might say "eh, who cares about having to wait a bit for those zooms" or "meh, that's just a few more steps to swipe between blocks". But when you do this enough, it adds up, without really having any benefit to being like that.

QC lets you access any block in the preset with one tap, that's why it's pretty damn fast for general editing, which is IMO the one thing where being fast and efficient makes for a more pleasant experience. Plus all the UIs are pretty similar so there's less need to reorient yourself to looking at a very different pedal or amp UI.

The TMP of course has good bits like the scribble strips making it easier to mentally map function and knob. I just think it could use some "power user" oriented tweaks to make it faster to operate. There's plenty of space on the screen so it could just have e.g a row of controls at the bottom while still showing the grid like QC does.

Yeah the touchscreen on the TMP seems like a big waste when it's still so clunky. I've already made my clunky bed of choice

 

[GTR37]

It's the opposite of efficient. Quad Cortex UI is efficient, while still being pretty easy to understand for newcomers despite its more abstract graphics.

Example preset:

IN - [Comp] - [Drive] - [Mod] - [Amp] - [Cab] - [Delay] - [Reverb] - OUT

Scenario:

"I want to edit my Amp block settings, then I find out I now need to adjust my Drive block to compensate. Oh and now I want to adjust the reverb mix a bit."

TMP:

1. Tap Amp block.
2. Wait for it to zoom in.
3. Turn knobs.
4. Swipe to Mod.
5. Swipe to Drive.
6. Turn knobs.
7. Tap outside the block.
8. Wait for it to zoom out.
9. Tap Reverb block.
10. Wait for it to zoom in.
11. Turn knobs.

Alternatively on TMP:

1. Tap Amp block.
2. Wait for it to zoom in.
3. Turn knobs.
4. Tap outside the block.
5. Wait for it to zoom out to the grid.
6. Tap Drive block.
7. Wait for it to zoom in.
8. Turn knobs.
9. Tap outside the block.
10. Tap Reverb block.
11. Wait for it to zoom in.
12. Turn knobs.

QC:

1. Tap Amp block.
2. Turn knobs.
3. Tap Drive block.
4. Turn knobs.
5. Tap Reverb block.
6. Turn knobs.

Now you might say "eh, who cares about having to wait a bit for those zooms" or "meh, that's just a few more steps to swipe between blocks". But when you do this enough, it adds up, without really having any benefit to being like that.

QC lets you access any block in the preset with one tap, that's why it's pretty damn fast for general editing, which is IMO the one thing where being fast and efficient makes for a more pleasant experience. Plus all the UIs are pretty similar so there's less need to reorient yourself to looking at a very different pedal or amp UI.

The TMP of course has good bits like the scribble strips making it easier to mentally map function and knob. I just think it could use some "power user" oriented tweaks to make it faster to operate. There's plenty of space on the screen so it could just have e.g a row of controls at the bottom while still showing the grid like QC does.

Have you considered having a UI discussion w the fine folks at Fender

Seriously you always have some great ideas

 

[Jarick]

It's the opposite of efficient. Quad Cortex UI is efficient, while still being pretty easy to understand for newcomers despite its more abstract graphics.

QC:

1. Tap Amp block.
2. Turn knobs.
3. Tap Drive block.
4. Turn knobs.
5. Tap Reverb block.
6. Turn knobs.

Now you might say "eh, who cares about having to wait a bit for those zooms" or "meh, that's just a few more steps to swipe between blocks". But when you do this enough, it adds up, without really having any benefit to being like that.

QC lets you access any block in the preset with one tap, that's why it's pretty damn fast for general editing, which is IMO the one thing where being fast and efficient makes for a more pleasant experience. Plus all the UIs are pretty similar so there's less need to reorient yourself to looking at a very different pedal or amp UI.

The TMP of course has good bits like the scribble strips making it easier to mentally map function and knob. I just think it could use some "power user" oriented tweaks to make it faster to operate. There's plenty of space on the screen so it could just have e.g a row of controls at the bottom while still showing the grid like QC does.

Only thing with the QC that's a bit annoying is if you have two rows, you have to tap the free space in the path to exit.

It would also be great to be able to have labels or something on the grid to show what the device is, but that's not common for modelers (maybe only Fender and Headrush have that?) For example, if I stack three overdrives, a Klon, a BB, and a Nobels, they all look the same in the path for QC, Helix, and Fractal. But that's a bit minor.

 

[GTR37]

Im gonna do some “preproduction” recordings…and I want to be able to use what I do for the final product…so I want to record a DI track via USB I can reamp later
Set up is working…but I got a tiny bit of noise…not hiss, not hum…but a high pitched digital tone…I got that with Kemper also when I connected the USB…so not unique for QC..before the “powersupplypolice” kick in

Any known fixes? Usbnoisebusters?

The setup is great btw..record Di track…output that to usb 5, set that as a 2nd input on the QC…and you reamp realtime…through my guitar cabs

Are you talking about in the recording or just idle
QC has a lot of unwanted noise around the 6k mark
I had suggested this to another owner and he said that it helped a good bit
Para Q around 6000khz to 6600 sweep that range and kill the offensive points