Did a comparison between my FM3 and a Quad Cortex

[Reaperman]

I think I am in wrong thread but Beta 2 would be the next step from the current Beta 1 on the Axe 3
But I am definitely in the Wrong thread

um... the last FX3 beta IS beta2.. are we to expect a beta3 zip??

 

[RifferMcDuck]

Very interesting because I was considering a QC before my FM3. The easy tone making thing is often said about helix too, but I think it's only relevant if you're talking about editing on the unit itself, but I tend to disregard this argument because I'm sure most of us edit on the Fractals using the edit program, and that is as fast as anything else.

Interesting comparison though!

This part is where it becomes a bit subjective. I actually found it was far easier to get a mix-ready tone using the QC, even with UI aside. I got the impression they aren't trying as much to replicate the "raw" realness of amps as Fractal does, so it was quite easy to get a more polished tone. But I mostly attribute that to Fractal tones being more organic and detailed, thus there feels like more work needs to be done to refine them into a mix-ready state.

 

[MicroMort]

FWIW the very best tone I could get out of the QC was a capture of my FM3 . It did sound perfectly good enough for live. I wouldn’t record with it tho

 

[sambrox]

Commenting as a predominantly studio guitarist, who plays live with established professional acts maybe 2-3 times a month. FM3, QC, Kemper and even HX Stomp can get me where I need to be for recording, but playing live there is always something lacking, with regards to a real amp. I’ve tried all sorts of combinations of monitors, FRFR, real cab and poweramp, etc. etc., but there is always something missing. With time, I feel that you can dial any of these solutions in to get you great recorded tones; it’s all about how fast you can get there. Fractal has the most authentic tones when coming from scratch, but the interface has a steep learning curve, whether programming the unit itself or via computer. QC is the easiest, quickest to program, though the tones may not be as authentic-sounding (though who comes out on top in fun factor is arguable). Kemper to me sounds and feels the most “analogue”, but the tones are limited in scope, and don’t necessarily react as the real-world counterparts do. The Helix stuff is somewhere in between, though I feel the tones fall flatter live. With regards to effects, the Fractal is way way WAY above the others, but the Kemper has some interesting delays and reverbs that the QC and HX can only dream of (and don’t get me started on the Fender TMP…).

All in all, I could probably make them all work for most things, especially when using 3rd party IRs etc., but until you’ve got a bunch of go to presets that cover all bases, it all comes down to time spent programming, and what unit gets you there the fastest.

 

[DoctorJones]

Commenting as a predominantly studio guitarist, who plays live with established professional acts maybe 2-3 times a month. FM3, QC, Kemper and even HX Stomp can get me where I need to be for recording, but playing live there is always something lacking, with regards to a real amp. I’ve tried all sorts of combinations of monitors, FRFR, real cab and poweramp, etc. etc., but there is always something missing. With time, I feel that you can dial any of these solutions in to get you great recorded tones; it’s all about how fast you can get there. Fractal has the most authentic tones when coming from scratch, but the interface has a steep learning curve, whether programming the unit itself or via computer. QC is the easiest, quickest to program, though the tones may not be as authentic-sounding (though who comes out on top in fun factor is arguable). Kemper to me sounds and feels the most “analogue”, but the tones are limited in scope, and don’t necessarily react as the real-world counterparts do. The Helix stuff is somewhere in between, though I feel the tones fall flatter live. With regards to effects, the Fractal is way way WAY above the others, but the Kemper has some interesting delays and reverbs that the QC and HX can only dream of (and don’t get me started on the Fender TMP…).

All in all, I could probably make them all work for most things, especially when using 3rd party IRs etc., but until you’ve got a bunch of go to presets that cover all bases, it all comes down to time spent programming, and what unit gets you there the fastest.

I totally respect your position as it sounds like you have a lot of experience as a professional in the space. I see a lot of metal shows in my area. A good number of bands still bring amps/cabs, but there are also a TON of people coming in visibly only using an Axe FX or another modeler. As a fan on the floor or up in the balcony, I have never noticed someone's tone seeming anything less than authentic. In fact, the only times I've noticed someone's sound being actually bad was when they had too loud of cabs on stage for the venue! It just goes to show you how subjective this stuff is and how deep our heads are in it as guitar nerds. I love how many options we have these days it's unreal!

 

[ElectricPhase]

In fact, the only times I've noticed someone's sound being actually bad was when they had too loud of cabs on stage for the venue!

Amen.

I learned this many years ago at one of those huge multiple band festivals. Every band that used some kind of simulated amp sounded great. Some of the headliners that used amps and had time to soundcheck extensively sounded good too, but any of the "quick change" bands that insisted on amps sounded awful.

 

[pushead2]

Neural DSP over all, both the QC & their plugins, have an ear fatiguing high end around 6800hz going on.

If I reach for one of their plugins while I'm mixing for a band, the first thing I do is notch that frequency out immediately.

 

[IronSean]

I picked up a QC used the other day just to compare to my FM3. I haven't sat down with it yet, but the first thing I noticed just scrolling through the menus is how few amps they have one it. Especially shocking because I think they might have more amps modelled in their plugins than in their modelling unit itself. A few years ago when it released I would have expected that, but I was shocked how few models there were and how infreqnently new ones were added.

That and NDSP seem to be a little "smoke and mirrors salesmen" as a company which always rubs me the wrong way too.

 

[RifferMcDuck]

I picked up a QC used the other day just to compare to my FM3. I haven't sat down with it yet, but the first thing I noticed just scrolling through the menus is how few amps they have one it. Especially shocking because I think they might have more amps modelled in their plugins than in their modelling unit itself. A few years ago when it released I would have expected that, but I was shocked how few models there were and how infreqnently new ones were added.

That and NDSP seem to be a little "smoke and mirrors salesmen" as a company which always rubs me the wrong way too.

Let me know what you think in here when you do a comparison, I'm curious if you'll notice the same things I did!

I didn't mention the other pros and cons in the main post, but the lack of models and lack of support was a huge deal to me. It led to me getting some bad "vibes" over other observations that weren't otherwise objectively bad things. Such as the fact it displayed "neuraldsp.com" on the startup screen, and the fact you have to manage things like IRs and presets through your NeuralDSP account that you login in on on the device, or through their very sleek and modernized website. This all gave me this slight vibe that the Neural DSP brand was more important than the QC itself, and the QC will be abandoned without hesitation if they determine something else like plugins are more profitable in the long-term. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the reason behind the lack of support to begin with, since they seem to release new plugins more often than updating the QC.

Maybe that's a bit cynical of an approach, but hopefully you get what I mean.

 

[BBN]

Neural DSP over all, both the QC & their plugins, have an ear fatiguing high end around 6800hz going on.

If I reach for one of their plugins while I'm mixing for a band, the first thing I do is notch that frequency out immediately.

Yes yes yes.

Their product gave me comfort that my ears still work.

 

[Telecosta]

Let me know what you think in here when you do a comparison, I'm curious if you'll notice the same things I did!

I didn't mention the other pros and cons in the main post, but the lack of models and lack of support was a huge deal to me. It led to me getting some bad "vibes" over other observations that weren't otherwise objectively bad things. Such as the fact it displayed "neuraldsp.com" on the startup screen, and the fact you have to manage things like IRs and presets through your NeuralDSP account that you login in on on the device, or through their very sleek and modernized website. This all gave me this slight vibe that the Neural DSP brand was more important than the QC itself, and the QC will be abandoned without hesitation if they determine something else like plugins are more profitable in the long-term. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the reason behind the lack of support to begin with, since they seem to release new plugins more often than updating the QC.

Maybe that's a bit cynical of an approach, but hopefully you get what I mean.

The sales of the unit are quite good actually( at least here in europe).
On thomman's site it's the number one digital unit in sales in front of the kemper stuff and helix (or even new offerings like the Fender unit).

I doubt they will stop selling the unit.

That said, it's pretty obvious the company is making a lot more money with their plugins, and their entire focus is there. Personally i don't get the hype behind their plugins, i think Sgear is better than anything Neural has ever put out (the tone and feel alone is outstanding).

While there are a lot of cons about the Quad Cortex, i do addmit i would like to own one. I like to play with these stuff (i owned Kemper units, helix etc in the past). There's a lot of stuff i admire in the unit tough.

The form factor is great, small (i really dislike big digital floor units) but with a lot footswitches (that even act as knobs), the easy to use UI and big touchscreen. Profilling abilities, not only for amps but also drive pedals (something that's really cool but people don't talk about a lot) etc.

Also they have a Mesa Boogie Trem o Verb model in the unit. One of the best amps Mesa ever made (im a big Incubus fan!), and it's hard to believe why no other company ever tried to model that amp before (@FractalAudio wink wink).

But the cons are imense, and the lack of suport the unit has is concerning. The unit feels very barebones when compared to stuff like Fractal, Kemper and Helix. Brands that are known for their continuous support and improvment of their units.

Plus everytime i turn my Fm3 up and dial my tones any gas or curiostiy i have about the QC quickly fades away. It's a dificult to justify buying the unit (maybe if i get rich...).

 

[IronSean]

I'm also a lot more worried to take this QC onto a bar stage compared to the FM3. The FM3 is rugged with bars over the screen and controls to help protect it from a drunk stumbling in a mosh pit. The body and openings are at least supervisially guarded against spills.

The QC however has a huge screen in the top center, and the back panel is just a thin sheet of metal that flexes forward. On mine the metal bows out and allows openings inside along all four edges of the bottom. If this were set flat on a stage it would definitely scrape up the back but also allow any spilled liquid to easily get inside.

 

[sambrox]

I totally respect your position as it sounds like you have a lot of experience as a professional in the space. I see a lot of metal shows in my area. A good number of bands still bring amps/cabs, but there are also a TON of people coming in visibly only using an Axe FX or another modeler. As a fan on the floor or up in the balcony, I have never noticed someone's tone seeming anything less than authentic. In fact, the only times I've noticed someone's sound being actually bad was when they had too loud of cabs on stage for the venue! It just goes to show you how subjective this stuff is and how deep our heads are in it as guitar nerds. I love how many options we have these days it's unreal!

Oh without a doubt, modellers are a God send for front of house! I was talking about my experience on stage or in rehearsal as a guitarist. It’s always a compromise, it seems, in terms of feel, cutting through and “weight” in a live setting. I end up missing one of the three with modellers.

 

[eddyrox]

Commenting as a predominantly studio guitarist, who plays live with established professional acts maybe 2-3 times a month. FM3, QC, Kemper and even HX Stomp can get me where I need to be for recording, but playing live there is always something lacking, with regards to a real amp. I’ve tried all sorts of combinations of monitors, FRFR, real cab and poweramp, etc. etc., but there is always something missing. With time, I feel that you can dial any of these solutions in to get you great recorded tones; it’s all about how fast you can get there. Fractal has the most authentic tones when coming from scratch, but the interface has a steep learning curve, whether programming the unit itself or via computer. QC is the easiest, quickest to program, though the tones may not be as authentic-sounding (though who comes out on top in fun factor is arguable). Kemper to me sounds and feels the most “analogue”, but the tones are limited in scope, and don’t necessarily react as the real-world counterparts do. The Helix stuff is somewhere in between, though I feel the tones fall flatter live. With regards to effects, the Fractal is way way WAY above the others, but the Kemper has some interesting delays and reverbs that the QC and HX can only dream of (and don’t get me started on the Fender TMP…).

All in all, I could probably make them all work for most things, especially when using 3rd party IRs etc., but until you’ve got a bunch of go to presets that cover all bases, it all comes down to time spent programming, and what unit gets you there the fastest.

i had a similar experience this morning - HX stomp with my QSC's, and then the Fractals....working/confirming patches for upcoming gigs....
the line6 - while great - has a mid-range that colors (or clogs) the gain patches that my FXIII/FM3 does not - same IR's, same FRFR, gig volume
Fractal wins IMHO because of the fidelity and clarity offered in everything (clean, crunch and HIGH gain) - at least to my ears

 

[hippietim]

I'm not sure how y'all are listening to your QC out of the box. I checked one out at length at a buddies house through a cranked CLR. The QC was thoroughly unimpressive. It sounded like a cartoon exaggeration of a guitar amp. It was like listening to a guitar amp with those hyped Beats headphones. Are you guys running at bedroom volume or something?

And I thought the UX was pretty cumbersome - maybe it's better now but it sure was clunky and unintuitive to me when it came out.

I also don't like the big talking BS that those guys spewed on TGP. They failed to deliver so much and said so much nonsense.

 

[RifferMcDuck]

Are you guys running at bedroom volume or something?

Yes lol

 

[Gonwild]

We know the FM3 has gotten serious improvements since release. Its been some years, but last I checked the Helix amp algorithms were not upgraded since release. Dont know if this is the case with the QC as well? Knowing that FAS is constantly polishing the amps and fx (that already sound great) is a big selling point (in addition to adding features and models). Curious to what degree the competitors do the same? are they just doing bug fixes? new features? adding amps built on the same 10y old algorithms?

 

[wesleyamltd]

The QC power source is not a IEC cable.

Foot switch layout is claustrophobic.

You have to pay to play artist amps from their plug-in catalog, if and when they fully integrate plug-in comparability.

Effects catalog is underwhelming

Overpriced

Over sold and under delivered. Lack of dedicated improvements to the software’s architecture

Amps are polarizing, they all sound similar to each other. Brittle high end, thinned lows and harsh mid range.

However! The touchscreen is very nice!

 

[steveforward]

had all the line6 stuff, sold it all within 2 weeks, despite hearing others get great tone from it. had a helix, sold it, tried the BOSS stuff, sold it. got an FM3 in 2022, within 10minutes I had all the tones I ever needed. use it on all my sessions, streams, nothing touches it. the effects alone are just in a different league, but it's the switching and sheer feel of the amp models that swing it. I found with the other modellers, there was a latency and a fizzy eq type thing that you just couldn't dial out/get rid. plus it would take ages to get useable tones on them. Fractal stuff, find your amp model, cab, away you go. it's definitely voodoo.

 

[chrisRr]

..but the first thing I noticed just scrolling through the menus is how few amps they have one it. Especially shocking because I think they might have more amps modelled in their plugins than in their modelling unit itself. A few years ago when it released I would have expected that, but I was shocked how few models there were and how infreqnently new ones were added...

i think they just wait for the plugin compatibility. then they will add new amps... but as plugins and for money

I bought the QC twice before i changed to the FM3T. Sold the first one for a profit and got a free plugin for 2 dead pixels, that was the best part for me about the QC.