Axe III vs Quad Cortex comparison

[Jon Kaneshiro]

As far as the physical device goes, yes. However, I think anybody who's reasonable and has access to a computer does most of their programming on a computer even with the QC because it's just quicker and easier.
And unfortunately the QC editor software is crap. Not only because it's clanky (and for me also quite congested) but because it's constantly crashing and takes ages to load on a restart. Axe-Edit doesn't have issues of this magnitude at all (and very little other issues) and is absolutely PHENOMENAL in every sense as far as software editors go. IMO.

You are 100% right! Fractal editors are end level boss.

 

[Calibix]

I am also an Axe-Edit enjoyer. It's intuitive to a non-professional like my self but also has a ton of depth for those that are.

 

[My name is mud]

No need for reverb in a comparison like this

This is what I was going to say . With reverb off is even simplified

 

[Jarick]

I have both. I personally think they both have really good amp tones, but the effects in the Fractal are definitely better to my ears, especially the reverbs. Sonically I would take the Fractal in pretty much every area. The QC hardware though is really great, very powerful in a compact unit with a massive color touch screen and plenty of switches that double as knobs. Very clever design.

FWIW I'm planning to downsize my QC and Axe FX 3 + FC-12 into a single FM9. I find the Fractal hardware way more rugged, I like the IEC power cable, and I think the Fractal would be great as a virtual pedalboard with a tube amp because it has so many more effects in it.

 

[axes]

Those who own or have played both units (A3 and QC), do you also notice a difference in feel between them? To me the QC feels "bouncier" which is to me more similar to playing my tube amps through a Reactive Load. I found the Axe's feel more flat in comparison.

 

[mtb]

Those who own or have played both units (A3 and QC), do you also notice a difference in feel between them? To me the QC feels "bouncier" which is to me more similar to playing my tube amps through a Reactive Load. I found the Axe's feel more flat in comparison.

Do you still have your LXII and if so, what is your experience with the QC and power amp and cab?

 

[axes]

Do you still have your LXII and if so, what is your experience with the QC and power amp and cab?

Still have the LXII but don't have the QC anymore and never cared to try it with that setup.

 

[francis]

Qc's sounds like this to me :




Do actual amplifiers emphasize specific bands like that? I'm curious.

 

[Niksounds]

QC has a strange behaviour on mid/mid highs imho. At limit of artifacts..
If you begin to ear this.. it's the ruin of fun... because it's overall. And then you ear this always..
Cutting doesn't resolve this behaviour, it's overall

 

[millman]

Personally, QC Amp models are overly compressed and sound like a Compressor block has been added. It doesn't mean it sounds bad but it isn't as responsive to dynamics and it sounds more studio processed instead of raw (putting the processing effects into the hands of the user). I think that is the draw for some but is more of a detractor for me. If I had a collection of Amps to capture I might have an interest in it or the Nano Cortex. I've got a ToneX as well but it mostly sits collecting dust. Most of the captures just don't have the sound I'm looking for and I don't like the idea of using a generic tonestack to try to make them sound like I want versus having an authentic tonestack like the FAS models have.

I'm perfectly content with what I can get out of the box with my FAS gear. I love that the market provides so much choice and there are so many companies doing things in varying ways. BluGuitar is interesting if fully analog is your preferred route. Myself, I haven't found anything I'm missing with my current setup.

 

[Werpinater]

Those who own or have played both units (A3 and QC), do you also notice a difference in feel between them? To me the QC feels "bouncier" which is to me more similar to playing my tube amps through a Reactive Load. I found the Axe's feel more flat in comparison.

I find if my Axe presets don’t feel bouncy enough, I likely have too much gain or the amp master volume too high. If I want that much gain I adjust accordingly with either a different amp model or deeper parameters. Just my personal experience.

Mostly managing the inherent compression from gain staging.

 

[weird guitar person]

Responding to comments much earlier in this thread, the normative statements on which UI or another is preferable gives me a headache. There are many things about the Fractal UI that come down to personal preference and as a UI aware developer since the beginning of time itself (only mostly hyperbolic) some of the absolute statements about the competitors products register as false in my mind. I strongly prefer the Fractal UI and approach.

 

[Bertotti]

From the outside looking in. I haven’t owned a QC but it was high on my list until I understood the difference in their approaches. I find Fractals approach superior and can’t understand people who want a block that does what tonex and QC do. Blows my mind. Tue font size is a bit small for my eyes as well but I would rather have everything that there now over making a font bigger and finding the pages change a bit. I like all the tweak ability but I can see what it would confuse others. I would say if it confuses you don’t use it. A lot of the tweak ability isn’t needed but fun for those who like to deep dive. The kind of people who enjoy modding their own amps and pedals. Those who love to just dig in but that isn’t needed to get great tones out of an Axe fx or fm box. Just ignore the stuff that doesn’t fit in until you’re comfortable with everything you can understand. I see no problems here and probably wouldn’t use an app even if they had one. Just give me that excellent editor and I’m happy. Who am I’m kidding I’m happy without the editor as well.

 

[axedude]

Been an AXE FX 3 user and fan for 4 years. I for sure love my AF3, but being totally honest I wish they had a less complex User Interface. In other words, IMO, the IDEAL modeler would be the tones and effects and overall sound capabilities from the AF3, but combined with the UI closer to something like the quad cortex. Let’s face it between AI and technology it should be much easier to dial in specific tones then ever. Not knocking what a great job Fractal does overall, but I think MANY AXE fans would appreciate a slightly simpler way to get what you want, while still allowing the deeper capabilities for those that prefer or need that.

PS. Forgot to mention I tested the Quad Cortex for a while, so I feel like I’m being fair.

 

[Feflicker]

Been an AXE FX 3 user and fan for 4 years. I for sure love my AF3, but being totally honest I wish they had a less complex User Interface. In other words, IMO, the IDEAL modeler would be the tones and effects and overall sound capabilities from the AF3, but combined with the UI closer to something like the quad cortex. Let’s face it between AI and technology it should be much easier to dial in specific tones then ever. Not knocking what a great job Fractal does overall, but I think MANY AXE fans would appreciate a slightly simpler way to get what you want, while still allowing the deeper capabilities for those that prefer or need that.

PS. Forgot to mention I tested the Quad Cortex for a while, so I feel like I’m being fair.

I think fractal targets different user bases. Techs, studio engineers, touring musicians, and the r&d goes to things that matter to them. Whereas other companies invest in the novice to intermediate user.

I think they will get there, the fm3 is the first product geared toward that crowd, so they arent conceding the market. The next gen will probably involve a new UI, likely for smart phones. That way we can keep goofy touch screens off the units.

 

[Bertotti]

Maybe for fractal it would be easy to have a choice in tue startup of the axe let it ask basic or full tweak ability. If someone picks basic just the most basic easily comprehended controls would be visible for those of us who want most we just keep it like it is. About the only thing I would like is a bigger display. Every little half inch helps.

 

[Dave Merrill]

Maybe for fractal it would be easy to have a choice in tue startup of the axe let it ask basic or full tweak ability. If someone picks basic just the most basic easily comprehended controls would be visible for those of us who want most we just keep it like it is. About the only thing I would like is a bigger display. Every little half inch helps.

You mean like the amp block in AxeEdit?

 

[Greg Ferguson]

The next gen will probably involve a new UI, likely for smart phones.

It's no secret that Fractal is looking for someone with iOS and Android experience. It's an easy guess that they're looking into some sort of "goofy touch screen" hosted by a pad-type device and/or maybe a smart phone and not waiting for a next generation.

Maybe for fractal it would be easy to have a choice in tue startup of the axe let it ask basic or full tweak ability. If someone picks basic just the most basic easily comprehended controls would be visible for those of us who want most we just keep it like it is. About the only thing I would like is a bigger display. Every little half inch helps.

That's what the interface already does, both on the front-panel and in Edit. On the front-panel the first parameter page displayed, "Basic" or "Config", depending on the block, is the "basic" page. Similarly, in Edit, the first page of parameters displayed is "basic". In the case of Amp and effect blocks that page is usually what the original device displays on its front-panel so it can't get much simpler than that or it'd confuse the user. Entirely satisfying presets can be created using only those pages.

If someone wants more detail, or advanced settings, then they can move to the "Ideal" or "Advanced" pages and beyond. It's all at the user's discretion.

The FAQ in the manuals for each of the modelers says something like:

Q: Why all the technical terminology?
A: The language of the Axe-Fx III is for the most part the universal language of professional audio.
This allows the Axe-Fx III to serve very diverse communities from casual to pro players, to
producers, engineers, and beyond. The terminology and concepts you will use and learn are not
unique to the Axe-Fx III either. Understanding them will help you to master the craft of sound
and to communicate with other pros. At the same time, the Axe-Fx III is easier than ever, with
dedicated controls and a clear interface that doesn’t distract or disrupt the creative flow.

Like with so many other technical devices, the more knowledge the user brings of the technology, the easier it is to learn a new device and integrate it into everything else they use.

 

[Bertotti]

You mean like the amp block in AxeEdit?

Yep but just some simple initial setting like the front of an amp and nothing else. People want easy give them easy but not at the expense of the true potential and tweakability many of us like.

 

[Bertotti]

It's no secret that Fractal is looking for someone with iOS and Android experience. It's an easy guess that they're looking into some sort of "goofy touch screen" hosted by a pad-type device and/or maybe a smart phone and not waiting for a next generation.


That's what the interface already does, both on the front-panel and in Edit. On the front-panel the first parameter page displayed, "Basic" or "Config", depending on the block, is the "basic" page. Similarly, in Edit, the first page of parameters displayed is "basic". In the case of Amp and effect blocks that page is usually what the original device displays on its front-panel so it can't get much simpler than that or it'd confuse the user. Entirely satisfying presets can be created using only those pages.

If someone wants more detail, or advanced settings, then they can move to the "Ideal" or "Advanced" pages and beyond. It's all at the user's discretion.

The FAQ in the manuals for each of the modelers says something like:

Like with so many other technical devices, the more knowledge the user brings of the technology, the easier it is to learn a new device and integrate it into everything else they use.

I get it but for some reason many say they want simplified. I don’t get it. Just lock out a bunch of deeper stuff so the simple seekers won’t have choices. No one is making people dig deeper but some just can’t help but twist knobs because they are there then we here why can’t it be simpler.