Who Here Actually Has a Quad Cortex? Matchless Content

Do you own a Quad Cortex?

  • Yes

    Votes: 13 27.1%
  • No

    Votes: 22 45.8%
  • I want to

    Votes: 1 2.1%
  • Sold it

    Votes: 12 25.0%

  • Total voters
    48
I'd be curious to hear your pros and cons. My only major complaint prior to 2.0 was the insane whack-a-mole capture navigation screen. Now that that's (mostly) resolved, I'm a happy camper. More amp models, wah pedals, etc. would be nice, but I don't have any significant concerns. It sounds great, and it's uniquely easy to use standalone.
This be where I'm at with the pair that I have... sure there's some things that I don't love or want more of, but that was the same with anything. I find the ease of use to usable, consistent tones to be unparalleled meaning where most people are losing their shit over the lack of a computer editor, I'm fine with the fact that I'm not incessantly tweaking minutia all the time like I did with Helix, I get a more analog feel with the rotary encoders (I guess Ron likes knobs lololol).

So I guess that means you can add me to the small list of QC users to boot hahaha.

Cheers,

J.
 
Last edited:
The latency with the latest QC update is excellent - 3-5ms in most cases! That's honestly what has me considering using it again, as opposed to stacking digital units in series, even though there's a lot I love about the FAS design/system. But the captures are significantly less accurate than tonex - but if it's for live, it doesn't really matter that much
 
B is the capture A is the model. I tried to get the model to be more similar to the capture with the tone stack but it just wasn't possible. I had used a parametric EQ they could have been closer.
 
B is the capture A is the model. I tried to get the model to be more similar to the capture with the tone stack but it just wasn't possible. I had used a parametric EQ they could have been closer.
Further highlights how much better the captures are on the QC vs models imo
 
Back
Top