I’ve come across this video (YOUTUBE VID). Basically, the presenter talks about why it’s stupid and unnecessary for the TONEX pedal to have a FX loop. He makes a good point, however, I had an idea.
Sorry, I cannot do this since I do not have an amp at the moment, but if someone has the capability to make an amp capture, it would be something to try to capture the preamp section of an amp, and then capture the power section separately. This would create a virtual FX loop within the QC. Hopefully that makes sense. Would be interesting to see what the results are.
He understands the argument for the fx loop completely wrong. No one cares whether you can put effects between the pre- and poweramps. It’s about inserting them in the internal signal chain of the processor. In the case of the Tonex, it’s to be able to use external effects after the amp sim through headphones.
Anyway, if you want to try fx between pre- and poweramp, you could use a preamp capture and poweramp capture in the QC and insert fx between them. There are suitable factory captures.
Yeah, I see your point regarding the Tonex not having an FX loop. It would of been nice to be able to put effects post amp/cab or, at least, amp, and still have them come through the output of the unit. That would make the Tonex be the “brain” of a pedalboard, but I think they probably just envisioned it to be in the effects loop of another processor, which makes sense for it not to have an fx loop from that point of view.
Regarding the QC, I was not aware that there were pre and power amp section models. I’ll see if I can find some and listen to hear what kind of differences there are if an effect is placed between the pre and power amp sections of an amp, and then between the amp and cab.
For me, it is precisely about inserting FX between preamp and poweramp sections. That and only that period. I want the poweramp sag and compression, but only after my modulations, never before. The solution presented most often on the webs is to place everything after the ToneX, which would be exactly the opposite of what I personally need. It’s also been suggested to just disable the cab IR feature and run it all into some other IR pedal, which would certainly negate the need for a ToneX, in my opinion.
There are several reasons for an FX loop, along with inserting into the headphone signal, and I feel they’ve just simply missed the mark. I would be hard pressed to believe that any followup versions of the ToneX would not have one after all the hubbub around this topic online. IK know they fumbled this one.