Hi, i ask on the Q&A why bank set on the quad cortex has a limit on 128 bank preset limit, and I couldnt get an answer besides 128 would be plenty, well the fractal FM3 with half the power as the quad cortex is out now and have 512 with about 300-408 stock preset.
I Personally like to have a lot of my preset on my modeler
And fx. If i want to import all My plugin preset in the plini
Or nolly there are like 50 left in the bank preset limit.
Please consider the limit again. I mean if the fractal can have +300 preset in bank, why shouldnt the quad cortex have it too.
3 Likes
We will make the limit expandable. Thereās now hardware or limitation really. If you need double we can do that easily!
5 Likes
Sounds great please double 
3 Likes
Doug- people take āworldās most powerful floor modelerā quite literally. If it has less than the fm3, you KNOW hens will be out there clucking about it.
Beyond that, I think there is serious value to a large preset bank, especially as large tone-packs get released from the usual sources. Auditioning them with my ax8 is a pain in the ass because of the preset bank limitation, as multiple and slow laps thru fractal bot are required. If having that extra capability on tap does not come at a significant performance cost- as a stage-1 preorder customer- I absolutely would want this.
1 Like
For that use case, Iād rather have an āaudition modeā in the editor than the ability to load a zillion presets Iād subsequently delete.
4 Likes
If it could audition files on my hard drive, quickly, while connected via USB- thatād be even better- agreed. Whatever the best way to speed up that type of workflow would be ideal. Same goes for IRās.
Even still, if thereās no, or little performance consequences in having a larger preset bank, i say āwhy notā.
Can we assume no consequences? Not sure if thatās how system resources are allocated but Iād rather have a longer looper than a zillion presets.
6 Likes
Depending on whatās on the table, sure- in this example - iād rather have a more robust looper than a given # of additional presets. However with how tiny the preset files are in axefx (without attached IRās), I doubt thereād be much compromise - except maybe the time it takes to back-up a unit thatās stuffed to the brim with presets.
Letās say the same thing but differently- if having 512+ preset ācapabilityā can be done without noticeable consequence to any other feature, I would prefer to have that capability. If certain i/o functions take longer - proportionate to the # of presets actually used of course- that would be a reasonable consequence.
1 Like
I agree with the longer looper and think that should take president over a larger preset bank.
2 Likes
too many names from TGP here.
I suppose you have āāunlimitedāā availability in the cloud anyway right?
1 Like
Can I ask you to start another topic and briefly describe why you purchased a Quad Cortex since you have experience with the Axe FX. What do you like about the QC and more importantly how does it sound compared? When I got my QC I couldnt find any comparisons. Would be huge thanks if you can do this for me and others looking to purchase one or both. Thanks!
pardon meā¦ but did I hear that right?
1 Like
How do you ask pardon me from text?
With preset sharing, you really need many 100ās of capacity, even if some are just temporary. My Helix floor seems very limited to me along those lines.
All kind of a moot issue since it now appears that weāll have something like 2,500 presets available onboard
1 Like