This is the entire signal chain of the NC rebuild using the QC. It shows 16% CPU.
This is a single amp modelling block. As you can see, it’s already at 20% CPU.
1 Like
First I saw this and I was gonna say QC has two very powerful DSPs but then I saw one model hitting 20% then I understood this is a valid comparison.
Now I’m curious. Which amp model that was or more importantly, how much of a difference does the CPU meter change between models?
But the Nano can run V2 captures and that is a different beast
It’s 31% with the Nano signal chain. I’ve put an Fender DLX64 model for comparison.
I personally don’t need amp modeling on the Nano. if there was a button in the plugins with the send to Nano as a capture and it sends a V2 version of the chain without the time based effects, it would be all I could wish for
Amp models use a lot more DSP than most blocks. I’ve only ever been able to get 2 amp blocks at a time on row 1+2 or 3+4. I can easily load a lot of other effects on those with the two amp blocks, but the QC will make all the other amp blocked greyed out. It’s not just a simple percentage to the DSP. Same thing for Helix also
That is a hint for power hungriness.
Then if Neural is listening/reading a Nano sized QC and the name is ready Quad Cortex Nano would be nice. If ins and outs don’t fit due to size, I could do without out 3 and 4.
Just a suggestion 
Unfortunately I don’t see it happening, especially considering the insane rise in price of electronics lately. The sort of setup is what the nano should have been originally
I think it’s very impressive, that the V2s run on the Nano. It would be way better in my opinion, to get some more effects, cortex control support and gapless switching back. The switching gap is the biggest drawback right now for me.
But if they bring models to the Nano, I won’t complain 
How does V2s sound. I mean compared to V1. I did not get a chance to test yet.
I agree and well.. Spring Reverb please. For the amp in a box people.
Cortex Control support would be great.
I do not know why gapless switching had to be given up.
Do you think they needed to do it in order to have more DSP power?
I don’t understand why so many people are so concerned about the switching gap. The Nano has a spillover feature, which essentially reduces the effect of the switching. Compared to the Tonex, for example, where it’s really bad: the gap is longer, there’s no spillover, and the switching is very noticeable. Shorter gap is better indeed. But for me current situation is normal.
The NC was promoted and introduced with gapless preset switching. Which was sacrificed in exchange of more effects. So if you bought the NC when it came out and cared for gapless preset switching, you were out of luck.
It was one of the main reasons for me to switch from Tonex to the NC. Switching between clean, drive and boost was all I wanted it to do for live use. But NDSP really fudged this up.
I think V2 feels better. If you have an Edge of breakup Setting it cleans up better and is more dynamic.
Yeah Spring would be great, but the spring engine on the QC is quite power hungry…
The gap has gotten better with the last firmware and it’s not too big if a deal now, but I love the Qc for not having the gap in scenes mode at all
Hmmm… 60ms. seems like it is not a lot but the main thing is if it is heard or noticable.
I have two setups that I use. One of the with the band and even though trio, I could manage not to play anything at switch time. However, I also have solo performances or Jazz Duo performance with singer where I am the only accompanying musician. I play the bass, walking bass and chords alone.
So, it would be noticed I guess.
I wonder if they can reduce the gap to say around less then 10ms by optimization.
Would that count as gapless?
I do not know if it is possible.
It may not happen then. We’ll see.
However, all those other reverbs we have there are some nice complex sounding ones.
They must be same as ( or maybe even more ) power hungry?
Well, it is not that big of a deal but a plate would be nice if there is no spring.
Even now, I could get a nice short tail reverb.
It’s not a lot, but when I switch between two sounds live, I don’t want any gap. It’s great that the update brought more effects, but to me (and others from reading different comments) it was not worth it at all and made me sell it. Still very disappointed about that move by NDSP. If they had made it optional or reversible, it would have been totally fine.
10ms would still be a gap, so no. If they could, they would have done that. It once again clearly shows the limited DSP the NC is operating with.