Hello everyone! I’m a brand new owner of the QC. I was on the waiting list for months and was finally up!
I’m very much enjoying the stuff it’s awesome. I sold a bunch of stuff for it and hoping to also sell my UAFX Dream 65’. I have not been able to replicate the dream on QC and hoping for some experienced folks input to get me there so I can move on the Dream. I’ve tried several different amps including the QC deluxe. The amps in QC are very responsive and feel great, so I’m suspecting it’s just an EQ thing I’m struggling with. Also note my comparison was through the same exact Cabon the QC so the Dream had its cab sim off.
Two points I’m trying to replicate is the low mids and it has such an open airy upper mid range that just feels like falling into it. I was able to replicate the lower mid response by using an EQ after the WC amp and doing a good bell cut at 500hz. Where I’m stuck is the open upper mid range. I’ve tried boosting higher frequencies and shelving up the high end. I can seem to get it brighter, but just can’t get that vast open top on the QC Amps.
Hey Joshua.
I run the dream and Woodrow in the loop of my QC usually in parallel with a plexi or something in the QC sounds glorious
I have been having similar thoughts I think the problem comes in the speaker models on QC VS the UA fx way of presenting there speakers. The QC models sound dark and sometimes dull by comparison.
Turning up the treble helps I sometimes wish there was a presence control on either the capture block or on the speaker blocks. But it is more than that …
The UA FX I think are pretty special and have a real dimensional quality.
modelling companies are going to have to respond . I won’t be selling my dream 65 or my QC any time soon. I hope that when Neural port there plugins they listen to the UA Pedals as this is bench mark to reach and go beyond.
I also hope that neural do more work with the ambience reverb and evolve it. I think the room reverb on the UA is sublime certainly on the Woodrow and ruby… I would find it difficult to remove the UA pedals from the loop of my Quad together they make a serious package. I am designing a hybrid board with pure analog drive and fuzz using the quad as the hub with 5 of the UA pedals In the loop once it’s done I will be letting go of all but one of my tube amps as I mostly practice on headphones theses days between the QC and UA a pure analog front end this is closest and most versatile hybrid set up I have found.
capturing the dream will not quite be the same. I have tried with the ruby. And the results are not 3 dimensions… maybe 2.75 dimensions. This is not a Knock on the QC Capturing ability.
it is just small things like the UA speaker modelling or hOW they deploy it. And also the room reverb is so immersive.
neural if you read this I would rather you work on these areas than modelling every effect and amp known to man . Certainly the presence of the speaker cabs I usually end up being forced to use sm57 mic to get more brightness which is a shame. It is the immersive quality of the experience and once you hear the UA stuff in direct comparison …
. I love my QC to be fully clear . Attention to detail will win the day porting of the plugins Is a real opportunity. The only problem after that is the FRFR USSUE… it seems that technology has stalled and not improved since the power cab
Mesa 50/50 and EV’s I guess or £2000 headphones … doh! Maybe an acoustic and be done .
All the best Joshua I have been down a year long rabbit gone with my QC And UA fx
I am guessing UA have not finished yet as the lack of headphones out and balanced output aligned with the clear hidden features that you can not access but can be found I think in some of the user presets that you cannot create on the pedals themselves. Strange maybe a computer editor to follow or clever Bluetooth master pedal for creating and launching presets across all of there pedals … dunno
For the moment QC AND UA temain bedfellows in my world since neither company seem to have completely finished laying out everything that both lines of products seem to promise. Enjoy your quad
Ya I was definitely not able to capture the magic thing about the dream. It’s so 3D and just makes you fall in. That’s the one thing about my high end tube amps I can’t ever get anywhere else! UA cracked the code I really do believe that. The good news is that now that someone has changed the game and raised the bar everyone else is going to get there too. I love my quad cortex for a lot of reasons, and if they can achieve the level of dimension the UA Pedals just achieved I feel I can finally let go of all my amps, but my one favorite!
Interesting read, thank you! I did not achieve responsive (to volume changes !) Fender cleans with my QC. The Dream 65 seems to do this even if some users report a certain fizziness in the upper register. Thinking of going back to pedals but then again the QC is the master of options in a small box. I only wished the clean amp models would be more to my liking. Still using a Fender Champ II and a Two Rock , no way I see my real amps go.
I appreciate this thread because I was struggling with the same thing. After MANY hours, I was able to get my QC to sound actually better than my Dream 65. I found the York Audio Creamback cab pack running one side with a 57 and the other with a 121 as well as a few 9-band eq bumps and I am thrilled with the tone!