I would like to have the option of turning off the WiFi in the quad cortex
Have a nice day!
Not sure Iâve understood what you say, but if Iâm right you can switch the wifi off in the QC. In fact itâs off until you switch it on.
You can disconnect by simply clicking on the connection name with the check mark under Settings â â Wi-Fi. That is not quite the same as being able to put it into airplane mode which usually shuts down Wi-Fi (and/or Bluetooth if that ever gets activated, the QC Wi-Fi adaptor apparently has Bluetooth capability but is not implemented).
Yeah! Thatâs what I was talking about, being capable to switch to airplane mode to turn the adapter off.
Just curious, what is the benefit of being able to disable the Wifi radio rather than just not connecting to an Wifi AP?
Is it always searching for new connections?
If the radio is on which it is by default, yes it would be searching for an AP to connect to but it doesnât use any resources to do so.
doesnât use any resources to do so
Sounds like magic. Or perpetuum mobile 
Also wifi adapters that arent connected to any AP but are still activated usually clutter the âairspaceâ. Nearly all WiFi client devices emit probe requests and scan the responses for its known networks. If you disable the WiFi adapter on the device, it will not send probe / ping requests. If a device has a functionality to connect to a preferred network automatically it has to send probe requests.
With all the modern wireless stuff going on on some stages i would also be happy to be able to reduce transmission to a required minimum.
I am coming here to VOCIFEROUSLY ask for this feature to be implemented.
I have a NUX-B8 which sadly uses a 2.4Ghz radio too.
EVERY TIME the QC searches for an Access Point, the NUX loses signal because the radios are right next to each other.
Reading through the forums, reddit, and other places, as an IT professional, there are so many people that complain about connectivity and other issues and itâs obvious that they donât put 2 and 2 together and realize that they have a 2.4ghz radio on their pedalboard causing interference issues.
As this is, I literally cannot perform live with this setup! Please implement this ASAP!
2.4 ghz wireless stuff like the NUX, which can only do a few channels are really only meant for home use. Turning off the WiFi of the QC isnât going to change how crowded that network may be. Iâm surprised they even sell those, but also makes sense why theyâre so cheap
That is my feelings as well. This request was submitted in late 2022 and has since only garnished 3 votes so itâs doesnât appear to be a popular request.
This totally. 2.4GHz wireless is a complete no-go for live playing, especially in cities. And a single device sending probe requests doesnât cause dropoff (a few thousands, now thatâs a different story *), every 2.4GHz channel being overcrowded is, and disabling the QC wifi antenna wonât do anything for this (especially since almost every connected device under the sun uses 2.4GHz).
*amusing related side story, but Iâve worked on occasion with the guys who provide sound/light/video/network infrastructure for the Nimes Arenas festival here in France (theyâre the guys who ran the âFrançais pour une nuitâ Metallica show and live album, theyâve been house guys for every major rock and metal acts under the sun at this point) and they told me the story of how, when they first started using WiFi for system/FoH control at the Arenas, they forgot to mask their WiFi SSID. At soundcheck, everything works as expected. Doors open, and suddenly each and every WiFi AP crashes. Panic ensues. The reason ? They were still broadcasting their SSID, and a few thousands cellphones sending connexion probes at one acted as a DDoS, crashing them instantly. Lesson learned.
I hear what you are saying, but as someone currently troubleshooting a high-end board, I want to clarify why this is a technical necessity, not just a preference.
1. Proximity vs. Density (The Inverse-Square Law)
I have successfully used my NUX-B8 (2.4GHz) in high-density RF environments (venues with 50+ active devices) without a single dropout. However, the moment the receiver is physically mounted on a board next to the Quad Cortex, I get consistent dropouts.
This isnât a âcongested roomâ issue; itâs a Near-Field interference issue. When a WiFi-enabled device is inches away from a sensitive wireless receiver, the âspikesâ from the QC polling for networks are significantly more powerful than the signal coming from the guitar transmitter several feet away.
Even 5GHz systems are susceptible to Near-Field EMI when unshielded receivers are mounted within inches of a 2.4GHz transmitter. We shouldnât have to âgear-chaseâ to solve an interference problem caused by a device that doesnât need its radio active during a show. The most professional and stable solution is to silence the source.
Even with a great filter, Desensitization can still happen through Front-End Overload.
Think of it like wearing high-quality earplugs (the filter) while someone stands an inch from your ear and sets off a flashbang. Even if you canât âhearâ the frequency of the bang clearly, the sheer physical pressure (RF energy) is so high that it can âswampâ the electronics before they even get to the filter.
In a high-gain environment like a pedalboard, this can manifest as:
-
Raised Noise Floor: Your wireless guitar signal sounds âhissierâ or thinner.
-
Harmonic Interference: High-power 2.4GHz signals can create âghostâ signals or harmonics that accidentally land in the 5GHz range.
2. Removing Variables in Complex Environments
In any professional IT or Audio engineering workflow, the first rule of troubleshooting is variable isolation. If you have an intermittent audio glitch, you turn off every non-essential component until the glitch stops. Currently, the QC prevents us from isolating the WiFi radio as a variable.
Many âunexplainedâ wireless dropouts reported on various forums could likely be solved by simply silencing the QCâs internal radio. If we arenât downloading presets or updating firmware during a set, that radio is a liability with zero upside.
3. The 5GHz Reality
While moving to 5GHz systems would theoretically solve this, many of the most popular pedalboard-friendly wireless units (NUX, Line 6, Boss, etc.) remain strictly 2.4GHz. We shouldnât have to replace hundreds of dollars in gear or redesign our physical board layouts to accommodate a radio that we donât even need active during a performance.
4. Implementation Simplicity
From a development standpoint, adding a toggle to disable the WiFi interface is standard practice for any Linux-based OS (which CorOS is built upon). Itâs a low-overhead software fix that provides a massive increase in rig reliability for live performers.
Bottom Line:
We need the ability to achieve Radio Silence. If the QC is the âbrainâ of our rig, it shouldnât be the source of the interference that kills our wireless signal.
Since CorOS is essentially a custom Linux distribution, âturning off WiFiâ is usually just a matter of the UI sending a command to the network manager (like nmcli radio wifi off or ifdown). Itâs not like weâre asking them to rewrite the DSP engine; itâs a basic system-level toggle.
Realistically you just need to get gear that isnât the cheapest possible wireless option. Especially for wireless⌠Literally a laptop or wireless printer from a tour manager nearby could mess up those cheap wireless units. Not to mention phones, etc in a venue/bar/arena. Thereâs a reason why even higher end wireless systems have software and hardware to coordinate frequencies so there isnât interference. The QC isnât the reason why your 50 dollar wireless unit doesnât workâŚ
Itâs not a cheap $50 unit. Itâs a $300+ unit. And like I said, I HAVE used this in venues exactly as youâve described and it is ROCK SOLID. Until I mounted it on my pedalboard next to my Quad Cortex.
There is ZERO reason to have a QC wifi on during a show. The only thing itâs used for is updating the OS, downloading presets, backing up to cloud. Who does that during a show?
I work at a national laboratory with very intelligent and experienced engineers and they agree that this is EXACTLY what is happening and that adding a simple wifi radio toggle is insanely easy.
I do not see why there would be pushback on something like that.
Crazy they would sell a super limited 2.4 GHz wireless for 300. But then again, thatâs very cheap in the world of wireless unfortunatley
You are new here so while I understand your point of view, NDSP implements QOL, bug fixes and new features based on their internal road-map that we arenât privy to. We arenât knowledgeable of their release plans other than what is communicated here and NDSPâs other media channels/forums etc. Feature requests such as this one are frequently addressed in the firmware updates if they draw enough attention and or need, regardless of how easy someone may believe something is to implement. If the requests has a lot of votes and is something that fits within the development road-maps, it may be addressed in a future upgrade. As an example, this request has three votes and honestly outside this forum, having the ability to disable WiFi doesnât seem to be brought up anywhere else so it seems unlikely unless it garnishes more attention. Doesnât mean it wonât happen but it doesnât appear to be a priority based on the votes.
For the record, I see the benefit and glad someone posted it as a feature request.
Yes, I am new here and thank you for the great response. I appreciate it! Iâm not trying to create any conflict or anything.
Just some general feedback.
The feature request system seems like it could be better implemented.
If a feature request already exists, then you should not create a new feature request and just respond to the original one.
However, like in this case, the original feature request is not well articulated, then the probability of that being seen and supported is low, thus the feature request would get buried.
I would tend to think that things like this are also not seen often on forums like this, so it would be interesting to actually even see metrics of what constitutes a high number of votes.
I am a software developer myself and system architect, so I understand the processes and am not unduly criticizing or anything. I appreciate that there exists a way to voice these things at all and really appreciate your time. I donât need to push this or anything and will find a solution and hopefully, someone sees it. 
Thanks again!