FM3 VS Quad Cortex

Status
Not open for further replies.
I dislike the user interface.

Its the kind of thing that probably seems clever to the developers, but real world users will always be asking "how did I do that"? Touching the wrong thing, bringing up the wrong menu, then closing it.

For instance, to bring up stomp mode, there is a tiny hieroglyph in the upper right corner that you have to touch, next to a couple other hieroglyphs. What if you touch the wrong one? Better question, why is mode not footswitchable? You should be able to select if you want stomp mode with your feet. No one is going to bend over and touch a tiny hieroglyph to switch modes at a gig.

Another example of bad design... There are four rows, but you have to explicitly chain them together if you want a longer effect run. Its too fidgety. Apparently there are alot of routing "presets". What happens if you have a preset with one routing config, but want to change it to another. Do you have to start over?

And there are hidden swipe menus. I dont see any cues on screen that tell you how to swipe uncover menus. That will get old.

And the UI is largely modal. If you want to do one thing, the effect chain is off limits. Want to change an effect, you can no longer interact with the chain or other blocks. Look at the Boss GT and Helix.. they have separate sections for the chain and parameter adjustment.

Alot of the complexity, the different modes, is because there is a lack of decoders. The fact that the footswitch decoders are not aligned with the on screen values is bad design. Its clever yeah and saved them putting five rotary encoders under the screen, but this is a flagship, why would they skimp on that?

Add to that the cloud interface, and thats another layer of complexity. The people who designed this are patting themselves on the back yet don't realize how clunky it is. This design gets a D. If the touch interface is not responsive, then it would get an F.
The definitive test is during a gig: in a hurry and half drunk, trying to hit these little virtual buttons.
 
I dislike the user interface.

Its the kind of thing that probably seems clever to the developers, but real world users will always be asking "how did I do that"? Touching the wrong thing, bringing up the wrong menu, then closing it.

For instance, to bring up stomp mode, there is a tiny hieroglyph in the upper right corner that you have to touch, next to a couple other hieroglyphs. What if you touch the wrong one? Better question, why is mode not footswitchable? You should be able to select if you want stomp mode with your feet. No one is going to bend over and touch a tiny hieroglyph to switch modes at a gig.

Another example of bad design... There are four rows, but you have to explicitly chain them together if you want a longer effect run. Its too fidgety. Apparently there are alot of routing "presets". What happens if you have a preset with one routing config, but want to change it to another. Do you have to start over?

And there are hidden swipe menus. I dont see any cues on screen that tell you how to swipe uncover menus. That will get old.

And the UI is largely modal. If you want to do one thing, the effect chain is off limits. Want to change an effect, you can no longer interact with the chain or other blocks. Look at the Boss GT and Helix.. they have separate sections for the chain and parameter adjustment.

Alot of the complexity, the different modes, is because there is a lack of decoders. The fact that the footswitch decoders are not aligned with the on screen values is bad design. Its clever yeah and saved them putting five rotary encoders under the screen, but this is a flagship, why would they skimp on that?

Add to that the cloud interface, and thats another layer of complexity. The people who designed this are patting themselves on the back yet don't realize how clunky it is. This design gets a D. If the touch interface is not responsive, then it would get an F.
Clearly it’s not for you and that’s okay. I’ll try it compared to the FM3 and decide on one or the other or both.
 
I dislike the user interface.

Its the kind of thing that probably seems clever to the developers, but real world users will always be asking "how did I do that"? Touching the wrong thing, bringing up the wrong menu, then closing it.

For instance, to bring up stomp mode, there is a tiny hieroglyph in the upper right corner that you have to touch, next to a couple other hieroglyphs. What if you touch the wrong one? Better question, why is mode not footswitchable? You should be able to select if you want stomp mode with your feet. No one is going to bend over and touch a tiny hieroglyph to switch modes at a gig.

Another example of bad design... There are four rows, but you have to explicitly chain them together if you want a longer effect run. Its too fidgety. Apparently there are alot of routing "presets". What happens if you have a preset with one routing config, but want to change it to another. Do you have to start over?

And there are hidden swipe menus. I dont see any cues on screen that tell you how to swipe uncover menus. That will get old.

And the UI is largely modal. If you want to do one thing, the effect chain is off limits. Want to change an effect, you can no longer interact with the chain or other blocks. Look at the Boss GT and Helix.. they have separate sections for the chain and parameter adjustment.

Alot of the complexity, the different modes, is because there is a lack of decoders. The fact that the footswitch decoders are not aligned with the on screen values is bad design. Its clever yeah and saved them putting five rotary encoders under the screen, but this is a flagship, why would they skimp on that?

Add to that the cloud interface, and thats another layer of complexity. The people who designed this are patting themselves on the back yet don't realize how clunky it is. This design gets a D. If the touch interface is not responsive, then it would get an F.
Pretty harsh for something that’s so new it’s not even on the market yet. All your complaints are tweakable and things will evolve over time. It might not be for you right out of gate, or ever. That’s ok, we have three or four amazing modeler choices right now.
 
Pretty harsh for something that’s so new it’s not even on the market yet. All your complaints are tweakable and things will evolve over time. It might not be for you right out of gate, or ever. That’s ok, we have three or four amazing modeler choices right now.
Considering there are 2 or 3 wrong statements in there I am fairly certain they did not read the manual
the swipe thing is pretty easy
down from top outputs
up from bottom gig view honestly easier than remembering a phone #
or postal code
 
Pretty harsh for something that’s so new it’s not even on the market yet. All your complaints are tweakable and things will evolve over time. It might not be for you right out of gate, or ever. That’s ok, we have three or four amazing modeler choices right now.
I can see with my own eyes.

Its not a great UI design. It is largely modal, has hidden features with no visual cues, and requires use of the touchscreen for things that should be done with feet.
 
I can see with my own eyes.

Its not a great UI design. It is largely modal, has hidden features with no visual cues, and requires use of the touchscreen for things that should be done with feet.
My sense has been that the QC seems more suited to desktop use, rather than live / gig use (following up on your comment re the feet)
 
For me, the main selling point of FM3 was the amp modeling of FXIII in a portable format. The FM3 format has been my favorite so far, be it using it on my desktop or on the floor. The quad cortex also has a form factor I'll probably like a lot. It also far surpasses the fm3 for processing power. But I doubt it's going to be as in-depth for amp modeling as fm3. I value that considerably.

Also, I did use kemper for many years and profiled a gakillion amplifiers. I eventually didn't feel I was gaining much over using fractal amp sims. The big upside of the fractal amp sims was tweakability for different guitars, and so forth and so forth, never mind not having to profile amps. This offered bucketloads of convenience. I just mention this in regards to the capture function.

But some people do prefer using profiles other people have made -- or even their own -- over amp sims, no matter how good these amp sims are. If you could fall into this group, cortex may gain ground, considering its capture function. And you can also potentially run multiple captures as well at the same time. FM3 can't do that for amp sims (and there's no "capture"-style equivalent). Neither does kemper for profiles.

For me it comes down to amp sims. I like tube amps. And I like good emulations of these tube amps. I can't speak as to the quality of the cortex amp sims yet, but from what we've seen, at least for tweaking, it doesn't reach fractal's levels. Then again: of course it's still possible that cortex amp sims are rather accurate for the controls on offer.

You could also, of course, capture some of your favorite Axe Fx amp tones with cortex by using the capture function.
 
Last edited:
My sense has been that the QC seems more suited to desktop use, rather than live / gig use (following up on your comment re the feet)
If it comes out and everyone universally praises its playability/tone and it interface, then I will eat crow.

What I see is something that is clunky to use. Tonally sounds fine, although I have not heard much diversity from it and have no way to judge its playability.

My biggest complaint is how it seems it will be tied to their profile store. If they are in the business of making money from profile sales, that disincentivizes them to develop a broad pallete of amp and effect models. Reminds me of Amplitube. Even if they are the best models in the world, not going to buy into that kind of system.

I am a software engineer (like probably a third of the people here), and the other thing that concerns me is their pace of development. There do not appear to be many amp models, even less diversity in effects. There is no desktop editor. Their cloud service is not complete. Its use as a USB interface not tested.

There are so many red flags, it appears to me that they have slipped schedule enough times that they are being forced to run with what they have now. IME, it will be two years before their desktop editor, usb interface, and cloud service is all operational. That will leave little time for them to develop new effects and amp models.

I think the overall experience will be that it has a clunky interface with "alot of potential for improvement", there won't be many models or diversity of tones, and it will be a long term waiting game for basic features to be added and debugged. Their attempt to control profile sharing through their cloud service will kill the grassroots efforts of users to make it more than it is.
 
I’ve read enough quotes from Doug to say that you’re predicting doom and gloom that he’s already put to rest. The UI is something that is personal so if you don’t like that, I get it. Saying that it will take two years for an editor and that thier cloud model is designed for profits is completely wrong. Unless you are calling the CEO disingenuous. He might take you to task over this if he sees your post. I’m not a fanboi as I love my FM3 but these types of posts from non-insiders nearly killed the QC thread over on TGP. Let’s just wait and see what happens.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom