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.
7 Likes
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.
11 Likes
Amen, Brother Andy! I’ve thoroughly enjoyed recording and performing with my useless piece of gear. A little tact and diplomacy can go a long way.
4 Likes
You notice that most of the answers here do not understand what it is about! That it was a huge mistake to do without it and that this very potential device gets a very negative exchange. Was my question for a solution to the problem!
It also does not solve the problem if Neural DSP fans hold up the flag unfounded, although there is a problem. The solution is the task and not unsatisfactory proposals. This is the only way innovation can prevail
Not a NDSP fan holding up a flag unfounded. I also think there are some things that could be improved on the QC, software-wise.
my personal list is more flexible foot switches and real set lists.
This can be done by software updates so it makes sense from my point of view to discuss it and maybe NDSP will listen and implement it.
However, on hardware side, the unit is designed and built and it does not have a spdif interface.
So I see only limited potential to change this, even if many people here agree that it would be useful.
4 Likes
My question would be to be able to modify the existing USB interface with a kind of Toslink adaptor or an additional device. Or whether it makes sense to develop an additional device for this? This also applies to the Nano Cortex. It is about developing the potential of the device also for home recording, without changing any drivers and cables. Which is really annoying in Windows. This disturbs the musical worklow.
Ok then you’re right, I did not understand the original question. All clear now.
1 Like
Then maybe that should’ve been what you posted. But it only made up 10% of your original post. The rest was a rant about NDSP making “wrong decisions” and them needing to do their homework, while it was clearly your own fault that you expect something from the QC that was never promised.
It’s not that we’re interpreting your post wrong. It’s that your post isn’t written in a very constructive way and that will make it only less likely that anyone will consider your suggestions.
1 Like
There I am with you. What annoys me personally is that it is cumbersome to achieve a satisfactory workflow in Windows. The Quad Cortex has the potential to do so.
But what also annoyed me was that a Neural employee described the lack of this interface as a compromise solution, since it can no longer be accommodated in the housing. Which is nonsense to me. And with this statement, he has pushed many users in front of the head who have spent 1650€ on such a potential device.
But surely you knew this prior to buying it
1 Like
Your entire issue sounds like a Windoze problem, not a QC problem.
This is an issue with your studio, not the QC.
I do this all the time when I’m too lazy to connect it via USB (seriously, plugging in a USB and setting my DAW to a different input device is a 10 second job!), and have had zero issues, ever.
If an extra DA-AD conversion affects the sound enough for you to tell, then you either have gear that’s more than 20 years old, or are doing something VERY wrong.
People even spend lots of time and money trying to make digital gear “sound more analogue” by sending it through DA-AD and external preamps.
4 Likes
Of course it’s up to Windows! But the Neural employees know that too!!! If they had simply installed the fuel or toslink, everything would have been good. But her comment simply downplaying this for Neural is a too expensive 1650€ compromise. This absolutely stupid compromise should not have been. They also typically ignore the YouTube link by explaining by NEURAL that the analogue connections make more noise. What I can prove with my equipment! Everything is new to me for a year. New computer new interface etc. The old SPL Gainstation were ahead of their time! Have 24 bit at 192 kHz spdif connections! Made in Germany 
Take a look a Jack audio it mite help you achieve a better work flow.
. If your having noise issue though you should try find the source… I don’t have any my studio gear is really quite… But having to route things differently here and there is part of studio life. And switching audio devices sometimes has to be done…
5 Likes
You do understand that we didn’t design the hardware, right? This forum is mostly about helping each other find software and hardware solutions within the realm of the existing QC and NC software and hardware. We make formal feature requests and vote on them. The hope is that NDSP takes these requests into consideration as the software and hardware matures. That sounds like a good place to express your desires for changes to the hardware.
Ultimately, if the hardware doesn’t meet your needs, that’s not going to change without getting different hardware. Is returning the QC, doing more homework, and making another modeler purchase that meets needs not an option for you? Most reputable dealers offer some kind of return policy on new purchases in “as new” condition.
6 Likes
You’re doing something wrong, learn how to work with your tools
2 Likes
could you at least provide a time stamp for this? i really don’t have time to skim through 90mins of basic info
have you ever designed, developed and built an electrical appliance from the ground up? i did so several times. it’s not as simple as just slapping something somewhere. i’m 1000% sure that they had a good reason for doing so, this reason most likely being price. you need additional time (engineering, looking where to buy, testing) and additional space, which needs a bigger housing and so on. i’m not as bold as you just claiming figures and difficulties, but this might have led to price way beyond 1800€. maybe even 2000. this was a very small company when they started making hardware, in comparison. they most likely saw what an instrumentalist needs and what MOST people use it for: sound on stage and using it as an interface for recording. and then there are people like me, enjoying its clean sound through a neve di and a tube preamp. but seeing you not stepping back a single step from your ridiculous accusations, this will as well just have been a waste of time to type
2 Likes
Then leave it! Your answer is just as ridiculous! Ridiculous is to excuse everything in the sense of Neural DSP! Maybe the audio interface should have been left out! Because 80% of users are guaranteed to have a different interface! And yes, I also have tube preamps with a digital carver. And are already 15 years old.
Win 11 , Asus mb and good DDR…Always QC as solid audio interface in years