So the 3.3 update has landed well and the Black Friday sale is in full swing *(when IS the next Black Friday sale and I REALLY feel they are abandoning the product)*
With that out of the way let’s get down to business - are the plug-ins noticeably better than the stock amps and cabs on QC?
Im asking for two reasons:
1. I’m thinking about getting the Petrucci plugin. I have fiddled a lot with the JP2C on QC (yes, im a tone-chaser ew) but it just sounds a little artificial and dull. Some captures are very good, but non really great. So seeing than Petrucci is PCOM-future ground, is the plugin that much better?
2. I guess you could ask the same thing about all the plugins, which leads to the question: is the PCOM-demand fury overstated? In case there is not much of a difference between stock and plugins, would you rather that they focused on other features than integrating plugins?
The modeled channels for the JP2C are awesome. I prefer CH2/CH3 over the Petrucci amps. Then again I’m not using the same playback system on the QC and plugins. I use the plugin at work during lunch with some older studio monitors. Have newer and more accurate Kali monitors at home.
Ch2 and Ch3 (same thing TBH) on the JP2C model in the QC, that’s the CA John’s amp.
For the plugin, I use the 3rd amp. Other than the acoustic sim amp, they are based on Mesa amps and probably on the JP2C. Their choice of not having all 5 band post pre-amp EQ was weird and I could never get the last 2 amps sounding exactly how I wanted. Still sound fine but I prefer the full JP2C model on the QC.
PCOM devices are a different flavor, I’d say- not necessarily a different quality. I REALLY like some of the PCOM devices better than their QC factory counterparts, but others don’t excite me as much. It’s very much a personal taste issue.
Soldano SLO-100 X plug-in in the QC is noticeably better than the stock SLO amp model. It’s much more touch sensitive–it “breathes” in a way that I think the stock model doesn’t. I chalk it up to 3-4 years’ difference in the development cycle, not that they did a bad job of modeling the SLO for the initial QC release.
The other PCOM models on the QC have followed suit–Plini, Gojira, Cory Wong, etc. They all sound fantastic. Following the logic, I believe the Petrucci plug-in will sound incredible when it’s released.
Pretty sure the SLO in the QC is based on an original version, and the plugin is based on the modern production models. The SLO is probably my favorite sounding plugin of theirs
Thanks! This describes exactly what I would want from the plugin. Im not expecting a day and night difference, just a slightly more dynamic and refined sound!
I think the QC models and the plugins are produced with the same basic technological approach. But the models and plugins could be of different physical amps, or use the more modern V2 capture for training, which might include more amp controls in the training set, and produce models with less errors. In short, similar by different. Ultimately PCOM is about providing more flexibility through plugins in a computer, easier re-amping, broader market, and a means of generating a recurring revenue stream for QC.
