Sort of - I use two channels of the VH4. One for clean to dirty, one for chunky to full distortion.
I don’t want to switch amps too much as I want to keep my sound fairly similar throughout. I do change a few settings in certain scenes though.
1 Like
I agree with you about the channel switching. My main amp live is a 5150 II, but I got into modeling to have that same sound wherever I’m touring. Had so many nightmare situations with backline amps when playing internationally.
Would love if the channel switching occurred within the same amp block, esp since ideally it would be the same amp. The captures sound bad to me with the QC + they add a strange latency, so I just stick to the actual models.
It’s easily measured and this is demonstrably false - they add the same latency as amp models: 0.33ms. No human can detect a latency of 0.33ms.
2 Likes
I don’t know if they need to keep up with the competition. I have a Fractal AX8, a Kemper, the Quad Cortex, Headrush Prime, and Neural Amp Modeler (NAM), the Quad Cortex sounds the best, by far.
The most accurate one is supposed to be the NAM, but I think the Quad Cortex sounds better, is easier to capture amps, can do multiple captures per preset, has amp modeling , and has a full suite of FX, not to mention it’s much smaller and more portable than any of the others. I don’t know what they need to keep up with!!!
7 Likes
Agreed! All those alternate solutions take multiple times longer, hours in some cases and I question the differences (YMMV) and I would still take the QC simply being faster and self contained. No PC/MAC needed etc. I love the technology and hope that the QC can be improved and would expect to see more efficiency in future updates.
3 Likes
Thanks! I used the YA York 212 M65 121-4 paired with the M65 57-4 which are the Creamback speakers. Cheers!
1 Like
Hi Scot,
Thank you . I tried your combo of the storks and they sound great. Thank you so much . I really appreciate you help and sharing. Have a fabulous week
1 Like
So glad to be of help! York ir’s are fantastic!
Hi Ken.
My apologies my getting your name wrong.
Have a wonderful week ahead.
Much appreciated
Mark - JHb South Africa
1 Like
I voted yes
Accurate captures is the most important thing to me
I’d prefer to use the QC via a desktop editor than the NAM plugin
So either make the QC more accurate, maybe using longer profiling via the pc
Or even let us run NAM captures as a block (it’s free and open source)
2 Likes
I have followed this discussion with some interest, but TBH, I disagree with the premise that the commercial success of the QC will depend on the accuracy of its capturing.
These days, pretty much every serious device (modeling or profiling) on the market is “good enough for live”, and most are also good enough to be used by professionals in studios on a daily basis.
Actually, the one device that still is the most broadly used by touring professionals is the K… Profiler - and its profiling accuracy is good, but not spectacular (some discussion on its accuracy especially in the lower registers).
Overall, the winner in this market will be who offers their clientele the most overall value, as defined by their day-to-day requirements. Profiling quality is IMHO currently not really a differentiator - investments in more accurate reproduction of the original will not generate significantly more sales of devices - “good enough for Mark Knopfler is good enough for me”…
I guess the battle for dominance in this market will be a mix of overall capabilities (breadth and customizability of amps, cabs, effects) and ease-of-use. This is IMHO where the Editor is more important than other features.
Essentially, it’s about how quickly you get to a guitar sound that works well in your song and that you enjoy playing - this will make or break a digital device, I think…
Cheers,
Torsten
P.S: if you want to sell your QC because of its “inferior” accuracy, make me a good price - I’ll consider buying it as a back-up if the price is right 
8 Likes
I’ve voted for this, but not to ‘keep up with competition’ or anything - IDGAF about the competition. I got the QC for the reasons you stated - mainly ease of use, form factor, excellent signal routing capabilities and multi-amp options, and the Cortex cloud.
My only critique comes from capturing my Colour Box V2, but when I A/B, it’s always a bit off and I can’t seem to correct it with the EQ options on the capture block.
It’s very close, don’t get me wrong. Nothing on the market is perfect, and I’d be able to find inconsistancies in all of them if I was listening as critically as I am here. I just wondered if the current algorithm could be improved at all in future. Would be amazing if the captures were literally perfect, no tweaking required. I bet that would shift a few units!
3 Likes
Scope creep. What we know about the desktop editor so far is that it mimics the screen functions of the QC. Turning the desktop editor itself into a profiler/capture program is something else entirely. It’s a cool idea, but I wouldn’t hold out for it.
2 Likes
Of course. I was just trying to plant a seed 
I was referring to the initial series of posts complaining that the QC’s capturing wasn’t keeping up with the competition…
2 Likes
The SNR depends on the source, not the model in the case of NAM. If your source is noisy (as many tend to be with new folks trying it out or generally inexperienced at reamping and gain staging), the model will be just as noisy. Point being, it will sound like what you capture, no more and no less.
I don’t know how other algos work (tonex, qc) but often times reduced noise also comes at an accuracy cost.
As to the topic - I don’t think there is likely to ever be a nam loader, and as long as the QC captures are good enough for live use (and they more than are) it seems unlikely anyone’s going to put time into making them better for the sake of it. But I’d still like to see that happen, so I’ll vote anyway 
4 Likes
And they wouldn’t want you to do it either. They want it all in the box.
I think it would be feasible to have higher res option available in the editor with connected QC to a pc/Mac. Keep quick on board option as well. Look at amount of code in nam software, wouldn’t be hard to mimic something similar
After owning a QC for about a year now, I agree with a lot of what you say there.
Personally I don’t see why many latch on to the capturing capabilities, as for me, I judge a modeler more on it’s amp/FX modelling capabilities and practical use live (and at home recording) and having enough power for presets including enough effects to replicate a decent sized pedal board/rig.
Can understand if you had a boutique amp which is really special to someone and it’s not modelled in the QC - you’d really want that captured as close as possible, however as others have said here, most modelers get close enough in alive context.
I’d prefer the Nural’s time to be spent making improvements where possible to the amp modelling (would much rather have the best modeling which I can tweak much more than a capture), adding more amp models (more Freidman models please!..) and improving and adding more effects options.
As an example, I don’t feel that the Uni-vibe (legacy or new ver.) in the QC is very good compared to a real one (tremolo feels like it’s missing something too). There’s also stuff like the various Wah models originally listed, but haven’t been included (yet - sure they will come in future updates) - being able to create your own wah like on Fractal units.
I will say about captures though; the Cortex cloud really is great and I hope it remains free. Can be a bit hit and miss, but the other week i was recording and on a whim thought I’d try a capture. Didn’t tweak the capture at all, as it was just what I needed (Friedman Butterslax - thank you to whoever captured that) and i ended up using it on the (mostly) finished track.
5 Likes
I used to go for the captures but I find it a bit of a rabbit hole. It works best for drive pedals because I don’t think the models are as good but for the amps, the ability to tailor the sound to the environment means better models is kind of crucial over captures. I will say the models from the more recent updates are much better than when the unit came out. Kinda wish they’d revisit some of the models from that period like the rectifier. The VH4, JP2C and kraken are all really good. Also they can improve the models because they’ve already done it on some of them.
2 Likes