FM3 VS Quad Cortex

Status
Not open for further replies.
ElectricPhase said:
Doug has had plenty of opportunities to unequivocally reassure potential buyers. All he'd have to do is pledge that eventually users will be able to manage all data for the QC from their personal computer without going through an NDSP server. In spite of the ongoing and obviously damaging controversy, he has declined to do that.

You may be right, but I don't see any evidence to support your assertion.
Click to expand...

This.

It’s purposefully avoided at this point, which should ring some alarms for people. One NDSP employee said the desktop editor will make for a completely cloudless experience, while Doug was saying “All files must go through the cloud”. That was a few weeks ago and despite repeated questions about it, there still isn’t a definitive answer. Sure, he got hounded with cloud questions, but there’s no way I’d drop $1600 (or even $60) on a product that I still have questions over and there’s no solid game plan stated by the company.

I’m ALL for preventing piracy, but uploading my IR’s to the cloud just to re-download them again doesn’t sound thrilling to me. Also, how does this prevent piracy for IR makers? If you can share everything on the cloud, what’s stopping people from sharing 3rd party IR’s?
 
Last edited:
RevDrucifer said:
This.

It’s purposefully avoided at this point, which should ring some alarms for people. One NDSP employee said the desktop editor will make for a completely cloudless experience, while Doug was saying “All files must go through the cloud”. That was a few weeks ago and despite repeated questions about it, there still isn’t a definitive answer. Sure, he got hounded with cloud questions, but there’s no way I’d drop $1600 (or even $60) on a product that I still have questions over and there’s no solid game plan stated by the company.

I’m ALL for preventing piracy, but uploading my IR’s to the cloud just to re-download them again doesn’t sound thrilling to me. Also, how does this prevent piracy for IR makers? If you can share everything on the cloud, what’s stopping people from sharing 3rd party IR’s?
Click to expand...
Pretty sure he's stated many times that the QC doesn't depend on the cloud and once the desktop editor is available, no cloud needed for updates. But, I've lost track to be 100% certain.
 
vika12 said:
A concern I'd have about the Quad is that it may turn out to be a jack of all trades, master of one (or two). For example, the "capture" feature might be very good, but the modelling might not be, etc. Time will tell.
Click to expand...
I definitely think it'll give Kemper a run for their money, as Neural captures already appear to be better than Kemper profiles, plus it's cheaper, and it has a lot of extra features. In terms of the amp modelling, I think it's going to ultimately end up somewhere north of L6 and south of FAS.

If I was shopping for a modeller today, the AX3/FM3 would be my top pick, followed by the QC, followed by the others.
 
Mr.Modeler said:
Pretty sure he's stated many times that the QC doesn't depend on the cloud and once the desktop editor is available, no cloud needed for updates. But, I've lost track to be 100% certain.
Click to expand...
I'm under the same impression. People seem to be parsing out his forum posts as if they are press releases. He's just answering narrow questions or addressing accusations, which speaks volumes about Neural's intentions.
 
Anyone else think those QC switches look a little too close??? All the videos I have watched have had the unit on a desk, not mounted to a pedalboard. I had bad experiences with the Kemper remote when wearing sneakers. No issues with the FC12.
 
Nick Barba said:
Rebea is a paid promoter of the product where Ola and Glenn for example were just given the units to demo. It seems like so far the paid promotions are obviously touting the product very highly and the people who were just sent units to demo are more critical but still somewhat positive leaning about the QC
Click to expand...
Yes. But I don't understand how Glenn can plug the QC in the face of gear like the AXFX. He has never recieved an AXFX to review from Fractal, so I do think he has a grudge with Fractal. He has publicly asked/hinted that he wants one to review but has never recieved TMK. This is my opinion.
The QC claim to fame is Definately it's processing power and user interface. Priced between the FM3 and the AXFX in cost terms, it has appeal. But for me, I'm happy with the AXFXIII and FM3 the constant quest for improvement in firmware makes me feel I always have cutting edge tech and sound quality on any given Day.

Just my 2 cents
 
When I first saw QC, it definitely grabbed my attention - but F.A.S. always have the best tone - and are absolute stalwarts of customer care. Continuous updates. Unparalleled community of support. When the Axe II XL came out, I bought one and was having a technical issue. Matt (I believe) called me at 8:30pm and walked me through it. I asked him if he was still at the office. He said that he was calling from home - I was his last call of the day - and that he was going to go tuck his kid into bed. I have never had that kind of service from any company. QC might be the new kid on the block - but Fractal for the win. Everyone else is just fighting for second place.
 
Panthersn said:
Anyone else think those QC switches look a little too close??? All the videos I have watched have had the unit on a desk, not mounted to a pedalboard. I had bad experiences with the Kemper remote when wearing sneakers. No issues with the FC12.
Click to expand...
Hmmm....I like the Kemper Remote spacing, and I have clumsy big feet....but yes the QC spacing looks a little tight to me.
 
sprint said:
I'm still pissed about Jammit, a great backing tracks app in which I had sunk 4-500$ into buying a couple hundred tracks. When the company went down the drain my purchases went with it as the tracks were hostaged within the app which could not operate without signin.
Click to expand...

Are you aware of the Facebook group Tell Jammit to Crammit?

They've got legal access to the old Jammit stuff and it enables you to use your old files
 
AngusV said:
Yes. But I don't understand how Glenn can plug the QC in the face of gear like the AXFX. He has never recieved an AXFX to review from Fractal, so I do think he has a grudge with Fractal. He has publicly asked/hinted that he wants one to review but has never recieved TMK. This is my opinion.
The QC claim to fame is Definately it's processing power and user interface. Priced between the FM3 and the AXFX in cost terms, it has appeal. But for me, I'm happy with the AXFXIII and FM3 the constant quest for improvement in firmware makes me feel I always have cutting edge tech and sound quality on any given Day.

Just my 2 cents
Click to expand...

I had originally thought a similar thing about the UI. If you factor in the entire user experience of using the AXFX3 vs the QC (this is hypothetical since I've never used a QC), the AxeFX3 wins hands down for my workflow with a DAW. A couple reasons:

  • file management: mentioned earlier in thread will make it easier to manage presets just like I manage and save presets with my project files , just like all my other gear, all in DAW folder so that in future I can access any sound from that project. Also will be able to add presets to my production library folder structure and tag and manage in same way as all my other gear so I can mentally manage and access my sounds faster. Can't do any of this with just full device backups.
  • desk space: I've realized over time that I like having a lot of it available and I would really need to be using something all the time at my workstation if it is going to have that real estate. I like having the AXEFX3 in a rack for this reason. If I were just using my FM3 (or a QC) it would probably be getting constantly connected and disconnected and moved to free up my desk space.
  • productivity: I am most productive using a computer to get things done. I have an iPad but real work for me is faster in just about all cases with a mouse and keyboard. Especially if already in the box with DAW much quicker to just stay in box then moving to a different device. Having a desktop editor which Fractal already does is a big plus. Also not only does Fractal have one but the UI/UX is top notch.
  • reamping and recording: for DAW workflow if you already have an interface you are using and do not want to deal with device aggregation, FX3 has AES in and out. For me my interface already acts like a virtual mixer so device aggregation other than it's potential stability issues just adds to the complexity of managing signal flow. QC has no digital in and out. If you do not want to aggregate or use it as your sole interface you will be recording and reamping through way more conversions with analog in and out. You will then be connecting and disconnecting more cables( if you are like me and would be moving the device often) and all of these cables will potentially be on your desk (which I like to be as clear as possible from cables).
  • external foot controllers: I was most surprised about this with Fractal. Everyone talks about the sound of AxeFX but the FC6 and the FC12 mixed with it's integration with their desktop editor to me is a way underrated as a feature. What you would have had to do with programming MIDI controllers vs what Fractal does with the FC series of controllers is just unreal. So definite win here for user experience.

Obviously a lot of the things above are not all deal breakers but for me I came to the determination that the FX3 fits my needs in studio environment perfectly and the FM3 fits my needs just about as close to perfect as could be for being mobile and the form factor. I also agree with your statements about cutting edge tech and sound quality.
 
I've been looking at all the videos on the Quad Cortex and what's so intriguing to me is that users are "profiling their pedals' or their entire signal chain (with pedals)..! :) That's amazing!
To be able to "profile" your entire pedalboard in one small box.. SO, in essence, a player could use their Axe-Fx and the Quad Cortex (with their pedals) as a killer setup.. 👍🎶💯
 
Jumpback said:
Yeah what he said, QC is way more like a toy and the FM3 with the Austin Buddy Gold pack has been the Bomb for my metal tone and everything in-between. QC does sound big but in a fake way to me, and hard to get them to sit naturally in my mixes
Click to expand...
I agree with you.. It has that "modern" sound quality to it..
 
Randalljax said:
so far I have not really seen many of
the models demod it been mostly
HBE and 5153 so far and both
are always into the same IR
also the 5153 models i believe again are the Gold (EL34) so more hot wired Marshall based
Click to expand...
I have to admit, that I have not been impressed by the built-in amp models. They sound 'fake" and sterile. But, maybe, that can be a good thing.
 
"The truth is, no other company has nailed the sound and feel of tube amps like @FractalAudio has".

Book it.. That's Gospel right there!.. I've tried them all as well. What really irks me to no end is not companies like Neural but Line6!
They've had a 20-year start, and still ( Helix) sounds fake! I really don't understand why so many are used and sold!

Yes, the layout and interface are stellar, but the sound coming out of that thing is thin and un-inspiring. Ok, rant off :) 😊😊
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vio
Haha I could never get a tight Metal tone out of Helix no matter what I tried, however the new REV amp does sound Sick and the mud seems to under control, but wouldn't use it for any Modern production, sticking to Fractal, but Helix and QC are going to be here for a while and still like my Helix Native for diversity, and if I had a bunch of cash I'd try the QC too Haha
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom