Quad Cortex Mini

[Desertdweller]

As most here noted, it looks like a cool device, but the pricing makes absolutely no sense IMHO. I think a reduced DSP QC for under $1000 would've been a much better value proposition.

Going through some clips, it's also seems chunkier than photos would have you believe - about 60% of the size of a QC, and with the exact same height.

In Ola's video he shows the full size QC is roughly 2.5 of these new devices. so it's more like 40ish% the size of a QC.

 

[nicolasrivera]

I couldn’t resist

 

[Lysander]

In Ola's video he shows the full size QC is roughly 2.5 of these new devices. so it's more like 40ish% the size of a QC.

Um, not according to the specs? QC is 29 x 19.5 x 6.9cm, vs 22.8 x 11.8 x 6.5cm for the QC Mini.

So, QC Mini is ~78% the length and ~60% the width of the original Quad Cortex, with height being almost the same for both devices. The Nano is, comparatively, way smaller:

Now, this is not a major deal as the QC is very compact to begin with, but goes to the value proposition of the QC Mini being iffy. I don't think you're gaining that much in size, specially for the cost

 

[Sascha Franck]

TRS => Voltage divider - device sends reference voltage on Ring typically, the wiper in the pedal forms a variable voltage divider and the resulting voltage is sent back on the tip. The device input impedance will be high, so the effect of cable resistance becomes negligible.

With TS - the device measures the resistance between T and S- so readings are susceptible to changes in cable resistance, wear on the wiper/potentiometer of the pedal and temperature changes.

Thanks, didn't know any of this.

 

[BenIfin]

Just a small design thing.

Its a flat rectangle box - yes the 2 back FSW's seem slightly screwed up a bit "higher" ..... but surely an angled Box ie: higher at the back than the front would have made a lot more user and functionality sense and ease of use for using the FSW's , especially live ?

 

[LP59]

Just a small design thing.

Its a flat rectangle box - yes the 2 back FSW's seem slightly screwed up a bit "higher" ..... but surely an angled Box ie: higher at the back than the front would have made a lot more user and functionality sense and ease of use for using the FSW's , especially live ?

Also for desktop use it should have been angled.

 

[Boudoir Guitar]

If you plan on using these four things as foot switches, you really should just buy a QC.

 

[[Nathan]]

The only thing that stings is the price. If you look at it from the lens of “do I want a smaller quad cortex for $400 less” then it’s a great product.

 

[Boudoir Guitar]

Um, not according to the specs? QC is 29 x 19.5 x 6.9cm, vs 22.8 x 11.8 x 6.5cm for the QC Mini.

So, QC Mini is ~78% the length and ~60% the width of the original Quad Cortex, with height being almost the same for both devices. The Nano is, comparatively, way smaller:

View attachment 58181

Now, this is not a major deal as the QC is very compact to begin with, but goes to the value proposition of the QC Mini being iffy. I don't think you're gaining that much in size, specially for the cost

I think the AM4 is signiiiiiiiiiificantly less processing and not much smaller than an FM3 (and requires an external power supply that the FM3 doesn't), ain't that much cheaper than the FM3 and yet, for whatever reason, we all know the AM4 is the better device and better value. Which is to say, I totally understand everything you said, but I am not a rational being.

 

[BenIfin]

Also for desktop use it should have been angled.

If you plan on using these four things as foot switches, you really should just buy a QC.

Surely it is aimed at both [potential] home and [potential] live users ?

But holy smoking batman f*cking meatballs .... I just saw the price .... it US $1399 pp+tax ... F*CK !!!!!!

 

[Boudoir Guitar]

Surely it is aimed at both [potential] home and [potential] live users ?

But holy smoking batman f*cking meatballs .... I just saw the price .... it US $1399 pp+tax ... F*CK !!!!!!

I mean, a laptop and audio interface can be used as a live guitar rig, too, but nobody in their right mind would consider doing that in this day and age of hardware devices.

 

[JiveTurkey]

Um, not according to the specs? QC is 29 x 19.5 x 6.9cm, vs 22.8 x 11.8 x 6.5cm for the QC Mini.

So, QC Mini is ~78% the length and ~60% the width of the original Quad Cortex, with height being almost the same for both devices. The Nano is, comparatively, way smaller:

View attachment 58181

Now, this is not a major deal as the QC is very compact to begin with, but goes to the value proposition of the QC Mini being iffy. I don't think you're gaining that much in size, specially for the cost

Interesting vid. Whoever this dude is

 

[namathan_zirwir]

lol at too expensive. This thing is €200 cheaper than the FM3 at G66. Give me a mini any day

 

[[Nathan]]

Interesting vid. Whoever this dude is

He’s good people also living on the best kangaroo infested island in the world

 

[Lysander]

lol at too expensive. This thing is €200 cheaper than the FM3 at G66. Give me a mini any day

G66 prices need to be graded on a curve thou The FM3 is +30% cheaper than the QCM in the US.

 

[Boudoir Guitar]

lol at too expensive. This thing is €200 cheaper than the FM3 at G66. Give me a mini any day

Comparing to G66 pricing is never going to persuade anyone of anything other than G66 prices are jacked.

 

[namathan_zirwir]

G66 prices need to be graded on a curve thou The FM3 is +30% cheaper than the QCM in the US.

Yup but for Europeans that is the price difference. It is what it is. And yes G66 prices are obsurd. Even worse in Australia

 

[Lysander]

I think the AM4 is signiiiiiiiiiificantly less processing and not much smaller than an FM3 (and requires an external power supply that the FM3 doesn't), ain't that much cheaper than the FM3 and yet, for whatever reason, we all know the AM4 is the better device and better value.

But that's the point, the AM4 is actually way cheaper than the FM3 ($699 vs $1099, or 35% less) Sure, it's also less capable, but for 99% percent of players out there it is objectively a better value.

Anyway, i'm off track, and i don't want to diss the QCM here - it looks like a fine product. I just find it overpriced compared to NDSP's own gear lineup; i know that GAS would've kicked in if it were sub-$1000.

 

[Boudoir Guitar]

But that's the point, the AM4 is actually way cheaper than the FM3 ($699 vs $1099, or 35% less) Sure, it's also less capable, but for 99% percent of players out there it is objectively a better value.

But I like this thing

 

[LP59]

Comparing to G66 pricing is never going to persuade anyone of anything other than G66 prices are jacked.

I see this comment a lot, but I don't think it's right to blame G66. Fractal prices are higher outside of north america, regardless of what part of the world or what distributor you're talking about. It's the same in australia or japan. The common factor is Fractal, not G66.