So… long story short - got a QC and had a few gigs with it. In terms of sound, I liked it although it doesn’t clean up as well as the real amp on volume roll back. What I missed the most was the overall amp experience on the stage… lack of controlled feedback and that interaction between guitar and pickups.
Of course this is true for any modeler.
Also the Noise Gate on QC was (is?) not very good (I sold it before the plugin integration so maybe got better??) as it kills sustain (it lacks a noise supressor like the ISP Decimator!)
I know that I could use a FRFR but that kills the purpose of “light travel”.
I got back to amp + analog gear and, truthfully, I’m enjoying playing it. Now the problem is that its bulky, heavy, takes of lot of space and we don’t have a crew to helps us. Also I feel I gave on the QC too soon (I sold it and kind of sorry I did - it was after a bad monitored gig as my guitar sounded like a trash can)…
Nevertheless, getting back in the game which approach should I go for improving the stage experience?
FM9 is great (definitely better than the QC in every way except the pitch shifting and UI), but that won’t help with your dilemma.
The way I see it, is that I’m there to entertain the audience and sell beer. I’ve long since abandoned the idea of getting my joy from how my tone sounds to me. I know that when I go into my QC direct to FOH (with a single monitor for me with a full band mix) that my band sounds AWESOME to the audience and things are mixed so well we sound like a CD. This wouldn’t be possible if I was stubborn about moving my pantlegs with air from a cab on stage, expecially if my guitarist did the same. So essentially, I’m okay with letting go of my own ego and my own desires for the greater good when it comes to the band. I can play with real amps and stuff at home, but when there’s money to be made, I do what’s going to sound best and keep us getting gigs and that, by far, is using modelers (for us; YMMV).
I read that they improved the pitch shifting considerably on the last update this month. The UI - yes QC by 1000 miles!
I agree to a certain point - if you don’t feel good playing and pass that energy to the audience, from my experience, the show will suffer. I also play large venues/outdoors so not there to “selling beer” but I understand your point
I don’t see it as “ego” but see it as passing the absolute best performance I could deliver, and that will only happen if I feel good playing. If I sound like crap to me, harsh, brittle it’s not the same feel and definitely not the same playing competence.
But yes, you make some valid points and, as always, YMMV. Thanks for the input, it was much appreciated
If I had to do it all over again (or waited 2-3 months), I’d probably get 2 ToneX one’s and a DISO+ box to just run my old pedal board in front of.
Not that I dont love my QC, because I do. I think it sounds great and I have it set up exactly the way I want and it has created a resulting “smaller & lighter” hybrid board for me (I captured all of my drive pedals and they are incorporated into the QC now). I truly believe the tone / sound you can get from either the QC or ToneX are comparable. That’s not a knock on either one, btw. I like that I have presets in the QC that I can switch to, to get me through a song or set just fine should an external pedal or cable fail. But like with all electronics, if the QC hiccups (in my setup anyway), I’m kind of dead in the water, which is troubling. So far (knocks on wood) I’ve yet to run into any issues with my QC and the unit has been flawless for what I do.
But @MayPRS - if you can, I think it’s definitely worth giving the QC another look. It’s a pretty remarkable piece of gear, especially if you’re mic’ing amps and going through FOH anyway.
I have a FM9 and a QC. I’m currently not gigging but just like tinkering with all this stuff and recording at home.
I’ve gone back and forth as to which unit I like best. I think after 2 years I’ve settled on the QC. What ended up pushing me that way is that I bought an amp I love and I fell in love with the captures I took of the amp. It’s a Revv G50 that straddles the analog and digital world since it has two notes built in. It’s great. And what’s better is how easy it is to capture on the QC.
That, and the ease of the UI for making quick changes is better for me. I do also use a midi controlled with the QC so that is an extra piece of gear and expense but still worth it to me.
The adaptive gate got a side chained version in a recent update. It’s basically a decimator II G-String used with the “4-cable method” now and works way better - for me at least.
I like the pitch shifting way better on my FM9 Turbo (and Axe FX III MkII Turbo) versus my QC. I will keep all 3 of them, though! Large, Medium, and Micro rigs!
If the recorded sound you get from the QC is satisfactory, then it’s more a question how to translate that sound to the stage. Essentially two options:
In-Ear monitoring - the most light-weight option, but takes a lot of getting used to if you’re not
FRFR: still different from a “real” amp - you’re getting the sound of “mic’ed amp through the PA”
If you rely on the monitoring on-site, you’re completely at the mercy of the local tech and their equipment. Plus, you typically get all the EQ the tech applies to your guitar sound in their mix (unless you have the luxury of a separate monitoring desk and tech).
Personally, I have gotten used to a “mic’ed amp” kind of sound through either FRFR or In-Ears - actually gives me the feeling of more control, since I hear what the audience is hearing and can shape sound accordingly.
If you really need the interaction between pickups and speaker, IEM won’t get you there, but a decent FRFR may.
If you play large venues, it might be easiest to simply specify a typical FRFR speaker (or just a somewhat clean monitor) in addition to the monitor wedge in the tech rider?
Many thanks for all the input - what I’d come to realize is that, independently of the chosen unit (QC, FM9 …), you can get a nice sound on stage but, as it a matter of physics - pickup interaction, speakers, …, it’s hard to replicate the experience of driving an amp on stage… unless I can get close with a FRFR but that will kinda ruin the “lighter”, non-bulky load.
As I said we play mainly large outdoors, but we are not a professional band so we have to rely on the local tech equipment. Former, with the QC, I had amazing nights but also some terrible nights, whereas with the amp, at least, I get the experience I like no matter the venue (of course the venue itself and stage can have an impact on the amp sound as well but not a drastic one from my experience).
So:
Keep the amp + analog gear and break my back ;
Go for QC / FM9 and get a FRFR
Go for QC / FM9 and specify on the tech rider that I need a monitor in front of me, even if I use IEM’s, just to get that interaction between the guitar and speaker (of course I did play with wedges in the past and was at tech mercy - sometimes it was pretty good but other times just awful!)
I’m very happy with the QC live…im a big valve player so was strange to crossover and tried a few different frfr cabs and I eventually just built my own… And I chose my own speakers to go in the box… So I tested and tested different speakers until I got the best push from one setup. So now I have an frfr that pushes out a very solid sound… Although still slightly different I found it the best way to go about it…i also think the gates are pretty good on the QC they don’t alter my sound atal really and don’t cut my sound early but only need to use them on very distorted sounds and it’s rare I’m using heavy dust… Clean generally… Some OD here and there…
I have had great success running a QSC 8.2 active speaker as my all-around FRFR monitor. It’s relatively small, weighs just 12 kg and has a very grown-up sound, not just for guitar, but also for piano etc.
Definitely less bulky / back-breaking than a true guitar amp…
Yep - I pretty much decided I will give modelers another chance, still debating on the FM9 vs QC… I more used to QC and its probably easier to dial in, but man when I hear the FM9 demos, the effects sound superb as the amps.
I’ve found so much of the sounds depends on the IR/Cab block.
For some reason the same IR on the FM9 and the QC sounds and feels a bit different. Not sure why but must be the overall architecture of the amp modeling.
FM9 feels a bit more raw and harsh but might be what you need to cut thru the mix.
QC is a bit “nicer” to my ears and little more compressed but with high gain tones a more satisfying tightness esp with palm mutes.
They are different. I would see if you could try out borrow each again to compare. It’s really only a difference you will be able to tell.
Many thanks for all the input - what I’d come to realize is that, independently of the chosen unit (QC, FM9 …), you can get a nice sound on stage but, as it a matter of physics - pickup interaction, speakers, …, it’s hard to replicate the experience of driving an amp on stage… unless I can get close with a FRFR but that will kinda ruin the “lighter”, non-bulky load.
Yeah, that’s the main thing: at the end of the day, there’s no replacement for displacement…
I haven’t gigged my QC much yet (current projects are in the rehearsal phase), but coming from an all-analog rig (Marshall Studio Vintage head and EVH cab with a bunch of pedals), the best gigs have been those where I’ve been able to have a cab onstage (usually cases of shared backline, using the QC into an amp’s fx return into a 4x12) just for my monitoring, while using the cab sims/IRs to go to FoH/monitors out of the XLR outputs. In all honesty, if anything my tone at those gigs was actually better in FoH than it previously was with the analog rig (as it wasn’t volume-dependant at all and I could dial it in perfectly and know how it was going to sound in a PA). And it felt just like using a “real amp”, with controlled feedback and all.
Using a monitor wedge on a couple of gigs has been a close second and felt close to the real deal. And again, with great results out front. My usual FoH engineer and several musicians I’ve been playing with for years actually commented on how good the QC rig sounded out front and in the monitors.
Obviously, a silent stage won’t be able to replicate that feel, and the guitar-amp feedback is mostly gone. With that said, one possible fix might be the Digitech FreqOut pedal, as it’s supposedly designed just for that (controlled feedback on demand). Maybe that’s the solution to your (and my) problem ?
Why not have the best of both worlds.
You have 4 outputs. Why not run to front of house with speaker Sim on one set of out puts and the other into the power section of a nice tube amp on stage?
I’m using both FRFR and traditional cabs on stage depending on what and where I’m playing. In both scenario’s I’m using digital amps. The power section of a tube amp will color your sound. However, getting feedback is not an issue in both scenarios.
A few months ago I finally decided to sell all my tube amps. With a bit eq-ing I can get the same sound out of the QC as with the captures of the amps. But I finally pulled the trigger when I did a last comparison with my tube amps over the same speakers as with my QC. There was no difference in feel and feedback. I can only hear differences in the top end frequencies and the noise I’m getting (less with the QC).
The QC is also so much more flexible than a traditional pedal board. So in the end I can get a better tone with the QC. The only exception is fuzz pedals.
;