Saw the vid, good stuff, and started with the paper, but getting more info now my brain’s gonna burst. 
Thanx @2dor
2 Likes
Fascinating stuff. The vid has a ton of info. I wish I had a device to translate it into English. 
It really shows the complexity of what they are doing. Using machine learning to actually take snapshots at more amp settings instead of using interpolation to estimate seems like it should provide models that are truer to the amp that you’re modeling. The nuts n bolts are WAY beyond me but it seems like it’s a much more efficient and accurate way to build models.
Thanks for sharing, 2dor.
1 Like
I have to get into capturing more i guess. I only own a Marshall SL2555 which i captured and i actually dont hear any difference to the real deal (compared through Focal Alpha 65 and the same IR’s).
Saw all the Videos where the QC is compared to it’s competitors. And yes they’re sounding different. But as long as i don’t A/B stuff, it’s kinda pointless (for me / imo). I know everyone is different. Just wanted to be one of those “the unit is doing a pretty decent job right now!” guys.
I have a friend which owns nearly 40 Amps, i have to reach out to him if i could experiment a bit with his stuff. This would be fun i guess.
1 Like
Most of the time it’s alright to have a capture turn out “close enough” but it’s …I don’t know the right word tbh for this… if you have some gear that you absolutely love dialed in a certain way & captures can’t come close.
Do you refer more to it’s sound or how it “feels” / dynamics and stuff?
I will do some captures later and get more into it with more “unique” settings on my jubilee.
Both transient response (“feel”) and tone / sound.
For nerds, and neural netw field interested
1 Like
Given that QC connects to the internet, there is an opportunity to implement an option that sends the recorded signal to a server to perform more computationally expensive training. NDSP could run their own servers if they want to keep the code proprietary and implement a paid tier for people who train lots of models to offset the server costs. I remember hearing somewhere (probably one of the interviews) that they are training their in-house models on servers anyway.
2 Likes
I think if they are able to build a platform or within the current platform for capture and preset creators to sell their goods would benefit the creators more than being able to sell 3rd party because it limits users from buying a pack then giving it away to anyone they like for free.
Creators sell more presets and bundles and users get top notch captures, irs, drives, etc without the pain of downloading someone’s line 6 spider capture they label as a vh4, matchless or tone king. Haha
It’s how plugins for the most part work now.
The desktop editor is what I’m really looking forward to along with more midi integration.
I’ve thought of this myself. That is, will Neural improve the capture function? And is this even possible, given how fast this tech environment changes. It’s a moving target, which makes improvements in the long term all the more challenging.
But this leads to another question: If Neural didn’t improve that feature, would it matter to me? Conversely, if they did (improve it), how much more would it matter to me? And the answer is not a whole hell of a lot. That’s because it’s pretty kickass, as it is. But given the choice, I think we’d all agree that we’d want to have those improvements made if possible. So I’m with you there. But that’s about as far is it goes.
Your comparison isn’t really a fair one is it? Compared to QC, Tonex is cheap. Why? Because it’s a one trick pony, that’s why. It’s a profiler with reverb. It can’t begin to do all the things that QC can do. Does it sound incredible? Sure. But it’s one of the latest iterations of profiling tech on the planet. And you’re comparing that to a machine that’s been out for 3 years?
What about NAM? It’s free. Okay. Great. I like free stuff too. But it’s a plugin that again, does one thing. The one thing that it does is spectacular, but it doesn’t do any of the other things I need it to do. And I sure as hell can’t take it with me, as in it’s not portable…unless I wanna drag my laptop to the gig. It’s not really plug and play tech. Both Quad Cortex and Tonex are.
I get how frustrating it can be to spend a small fortune on gear and then be less than satisfied with it. Buyers remorse sucks big time. But if you’re not happy and think Tonex and/or NAM can scratch that itch, you should probably just sell your QC and move on with life. After all, there are no guarantees that Neural is going to make improvements to the capture feature. And if they do, I would imagine that those improvements will be somewhat limited. In the meantime, you’re probably getting more dissatisfied and setting yourself up for possibly a big disappointment.
Good luck!
P.S. Upvoted btw 
3 Likes
Thanks for participating & voting.
I have sold my QC right after the security vulnerability was disclosed.
I’ve moved on - still using some of their plugins occasionally though.
voted, but you better come out with the editor first (next and soon)
So, Andyjcp, you reckon only positive views on the QC are worthwhile?
Given the proportion of negative ones seems greater, I’d suggest YOU quit this forum and start a new “the QC is perfect and I can’t bear to hear bad - even if true - things about it” forum.
@Digitalchris I largely quit this forum already, since I rather play music than spend time with people like you.
Have fun sharing your complaints!
Nevertheless, I will try once more to explain:
This is a user forum, where users try to help each other.
If you want to complain, don’t complain to the users, but to Neural.
2 Likes
You’re missing the point.
This forum has a heck of a lot of " I’ve bought a QC and it doesn’t sound as good as I expected" or “is it true that the desktop editor is STILL not available” or " I can’t get decent edge-of-breakup sounds", or a whole load of other stuff.
These people turn to this forum for guidance, to check out their findings, or sometimes for solace. Of course we respond honestly.
And as a side point - dunno if you’ve tried to offer comments and suggestions to Neural: I have and they don’t take kindly to anything even vaguely critical even if phrased in a constructive manner.
4 Likes
I had actually reached out to support before starting this thread & they recommended I take to the forums to see how many people would be interested in the topic.
When I did, some of the input I got was, well, what I considered at that time as defensive etc. which sort of disappointed me. Still, after some of the comments came in though, realized that we all wanted the unit to get better. Some of us are more willing to compromise on certain features (or don’t really care for accuracy if form-factor is great, which on the QC is absolutely a thing etc.) than others.
In my case, the stuff I was interested in wasn’t really “there”, waited it out a bit, tried approaching Neural but I eventually decided it was in my best interest to sell the unit to someone who would enjoy it more than me.
At the end of the day, there’s so much stuff out there that it makes no sense to keep asking for improvements or features that were promised vs not delivered upon. Moving on and/or getting something that does what we need it to do “today” is the healthiest choice - at least it was for me.
5 Likes
I agree with your statement, it’s pointless harping on on deaf ears and I agree with the other poster that they don’t take criticism well. The discord channel is even worse. Although I don’t agree that “selling it and moving on” is that easy or valuable. You’ll lose at least 300 quid and then have to get something else so it’s not as simple as you make out. I like the sounds of the QC but how long it takes them to do anything just baffles me. This forum is also full of ppl that are apparently developers and “know how it all works” but I’m sure it shouldn’t take 3 years (or even a year since NAM) to release this thing. Looks like a copy/paste from the unit. Just my 2 cents. I’m done hoping for things from them and they can design an entire new interface, features and all with the release of at least 3 plugins in quicker time than one desktop editor. It’s because it doesn’t make money from this point on, simple fact.
2 Likes
“I’m sure it shouldn’t take 3 years (or even a year since NAM) to release this thing. Looks like a copy/paste from the unit” → This is not how programming works, unfortunatly.
But, yeah, they are slow as f*ck to deliver updates (remember the ‘aggressive update plans’ announced at launch ?) , my patience is wearing thin…
The worse part is that some owners are blaming other owners for their (mostly) constructive criticisms ! If the unit is perfect for anyone now, that’s fine, but when you see the potential , the QC could be the king of the hill…
I also agree on the fact that Hybrid mode is a joke compared to other product, and if the hyped ‘new filesystem’ of 2.0 is a step in the right direction it is again half-baked (no subfolder, search not implemented everywhere, etc…)
The whole ‘data leak’ episode and the way NDPS handled it is not reassuring…
Don’t get me wrong : the QC is a very cool piece of gear, it sounds great today, but it has many shortcomings (weak Wifi, blue corner on many screens, some effects lacking or ‘meh’, latency, too basic midi capabilities, volume knob moving itself, power supply, and so on….)
I’m in a Love-Hate relationship with my QC 
6 Likes
I thought I was the only one who thought that way.
Unfortunately, constructive criticism from NDSP is blocked and critical threads in the forum are closed very quickly with the reference to the support (and the excuse that this is done to keep the forum clear).
I am also about to sell the device (I have too many problems with noise, whether only headphones or a mixer is connected via XLR). Unfortunately, I have not only put a lot of money into the QC itself, but also into a complete pedalboard around the device and there is nothing with which I could replace the device from the form factor 1:1.
All the empty promises regarding features are of course an indictment, but there is nothing there that I personally need (I don’t use plugins and I don’t need the editor either). The design flaws in the WLAN and especially in the grounding of the device make any confidence in the part disappear.
The hope that NDSP admits mistakes and fixes, I have now unfortunately pretty lost (especially since they are probably hardware design errors).
As soon as Line6 launches a profiling/capturing feature, there are no more arguments for the QC, except for the form factor. And a company like Line6/Yamaha can easily manage such a form factor.
3 Likes
I made a major decision yesterday. I had put my QC on a pedalboard where I could use it with my favorite pedals. I liked it and that is what I used the past couple of months. Previously I had a UA Dream 65 Amp Pedal that I really liked. I had sent it back and bought the QC instead. It was an easy jump for me yesterday to buy the Dream 65 again. I took the QC off my pedalboard and am putting the Dream in its place. I set the QC on my desk. For the foreseeable future I will be using my pedalboard at church and my QC for my playing at home. It is costly, but I now have a setup that I like. I am not sure I would sell mine.
I think putting it on my desk is going to free me up to play around with it a lot more than I have already because I won’t be tied to trying to get a specific sound for my playing at church. I can just play anything I want… and then the pedalboard will be the specific sound I take with me on Sundays… We will see.