I bought the Quad Cortex last week. But it’s useless in the studio with a Windows environment. Why? Because the digital interface is missing. I’ve watched a lot of videos on YouTube. It’s noticeable that everything is explained in a Mac environment, which gives you the option of working with 2 audio interfaces at the same time.
It’s simply not possible in a Windows environment. Forget the Asio4all option. It just doesn’t run stably.
Even if a Neural DSP developer writes that developing a device always involves compromises, you’ve simply made the wrong decision.
Most people have a high-quality audio interface at home before buying a Quad Cortex. This situation probably just makes many Quad Cortex owners angry.
Of course you could just connect the Quad Cortex to your own interface with an analog cable. Unfortunately you get poor sound quality with noise and more interference.
I don’t want to keep changing cables or changing the audio driver in Cubase. We just want to make music and not always configure the PC.
I would like you to consider whether the USB interface can be expanded to a Toslink or SPDIF interface with an additional device developed by you.
The same problem is now present again with the Nano Cortex.
To the developers of Neural DSP: do your homework properly and with common sense. In Windows Studio, the Quad Cortex is expensive junk with no reasonable use.
Obviously, a good hardware upgrade would be to add digital outputs such as Toslink, SPDIF or Adat. (even Fractal FM3 has it.) This is almost essential for integrating the unit into a professional studio. Also, the possibility of working at different sampling frequencies is required.
There’s a reason that recording gear is made for Mac. I paid a high price for my Mini, but ALL of my hardware and I/O problems went away. Totally worth it to switch over.
As often, I might be totally wrong, but I always viewed the QC as an Amp Modeler which can also be used as an audio interface, if you don’t have a better one.
In a studio environment featuring a high quality audio interface, I never thought of using the QC in parallel. I always connect it through an analog output like an ordinary amp/mic.
Sure, I have nothing against a QC Version 2 with a digital interface, more sample rate options etc.
But then again I would think there are other parts that would have a higher priority.
I record from the QC to my interface via the analog outputs with no noise and excellent audio quality. I connect to our live board the same way with grear results. If you’re having noise issues, perhaps you have (a) bad cable(s) or electrical issues in your recording space. Is there a guitar processor that has a SPDIF out? Definitely check the specs before you buy your next one.
This may be true for you personally, but it is very much not true in a wider sense. Mac is in no way an industry standard, and there is only a very small percentage of hardware that is Apple only.
I’m using my Quad on Windows 11 in Pro Tools and everything seems to work fine. I downloaded the driver for the Quad from Neural and generally just use the Quad as my interface. Maybe I’m in the minority here but it seems to work just fine.
The point is that at this selling price, you don’t have to talk about an SPDIF input and output. That should go without saying! I find your answer bold and without any background knowledge!
Check out Steven’s YouTube video (Neural DSP). It is expressly explained that there is less noise with the USB connection than with the cable connection.
I work with Cubase myself and use the Steinber AXR 4 as an audio interface.
Two SPL gain stations are connected to the audio interface via Toslink.
I plan to record a direct signal (digital) with the help of a splitter, once to the Quad Cortex and once to the SPL Gainstation. Which I could then send either to the plugin or Quas Cortex via its USB audio interface. Which I didn’t like that much.
But I’ll take a look at the JACK to see if it’s the solution.
dude, my studio goes far beyond just a usb interface with a digital input. you don’t realize how you come across, apparently, calling the qc useless and the devs stupid. like others told you - if you can’t get a clean signal with this setup, you’re doing something wrong. talking about background knowledge…
This is your interpretation!!! I say it was a huge mistake to give up the digital interface for alleged reasons of compromise! Do you ignore the other users who also have a big problem with it? Dan, your see would be pretty one-sided!
I think the “huge mistake” is ordering a device that obviously doesn’t have a feature you deem critical. Simply looking at the pictures on the product page probably would have informed you. Complaining about it in such a condescending way won’t help. Perhaps returning the QC and buying something with the features you want would save you some stress and save us the rant.
No offense, but I’m always a bit puzzled which reaction you (and others) expect in this USER forum when they post something like “the QC is unusable”.
Should we all join and rant together how stupid it is to not have a digital link? Would that improve the QC?
If we say we do not see the need and for us it’s perfectly usable it seems to be the wrong reaction.
Whatever, if you and others feel it’s not usable I think it would make more sense to discuss this with NDSP than other users.
Nothing personal, it’s a general problem I seem to have with this forum. And maybe it’s my problem, not yours.
