So I’ve been watching Davlav’s videos, comparing the plugin amps to the ones available on the QC that these are modeled after. Here are the videos:
To my mind, they go neck-in-neck; some amps sound better on the QC models while others sound better on the preset. The differences seem very subtle and honestly could easily be made to sound identical with a bit of control tweaking. Also note that the plugin amps generally require more CPU usage than the qc ones.
Which begs the question - was this even worth it? Essentially 1 year of dev time that could have been spent on adding more features to the qc was instead spent on getting something that sounds pretty much the same to what we already have.
As it stands, it seems that the only real benefit of the plugins are the effects, or the more unique stuff that can’t be replicated on the qc easily (like rabea’s synth). But are these worth the one year dev time to enable plugin compatibility + wait time to port each individual plugin and the $100 price tag?
I think it depends on if you have previously used the plugins a lot, then it would be really nice to have those tones available to you.
I have never spent much time with the plugins and I don’t plan to use them much on the QC since in like what’s in there already and I love the captures of my gear I have made.
Also NDSP made a promise and I respect them that they are working to fulfill that. I think they probably thought it wasn’t going to be as challenging to pull off as it turned out to be.
I am glad now the Cor OS 3.0.0 is out. It looks like they will now have more bandwidth to put toward some other QC improvements.
Dev time on PCOM was waaaaaaay longer than a year.
The original selling point of the QC was that existing plug-in users would be able to replicate their tones and presets from the software side to the hardware.
It’s impossible to count the number of times I’ve seen people in forums and Facebook say that they were holding off on purchasing a QC until plug-in compatibility became a reality. I am certain there has been a sharp uptick in sales in the past month since CorOS 3.0.0 got released.
Archetype Gojira is one of my most used plug-ins; I have recorded and mixed with it. Having these tones available in the QC recently has been awesome. Really looking forward to the Mesa Mark IIC+ getting an update for PCOM in the future.
There were people crying about PCOM not happening for years. Plus the usual Youtubers popping up and constantly complaining about broken promises etc.
It was absolutely worth it, if even just to shut those people up.
Otherwise, it really just depends how much you use the plugins and how important it is to you to be able to use the same sounds live. I have a couple but I more often use them to try and replicate my QC tones at home.
Agreed! Also, there are some amps, cabs and effects in the currently compatible plugins and remaining plugins that aren’t available in the QC’s on-board library. I agree with DC that the biggest advantage is for people using these plugins in their DAW who can now have their presets instantly recreated in their QC.
I think it was definitely worth it. I admit, though, that it would have been more impactful when I was playing guitar in my band instead of bass, but I’m still very happy to have all the amps, cabs, and effects ported over, as well as the presets. It’s still easier for me to just play my plugins on my Mac when I’m at home rather than hooking up the QC (since it stays in my gig bag unless I need to make edits), but I definitely returned the QC the first time when it came out because plugins weren’t compatible - once PCOM was announced, I took the plunge again and am quite happy with the unit.
Think it’s going to be (worth it) when the stuff that hasn’t been in the QC start coming; amps like the Nameless, NATAS, Granophyre, the Synth in Rabea’s etc
This topic is really two questions - “Should PCOM ever have been undertaken/promised in the first place?” and “Should they have delivered it?”.
Once they promised it, I think it was critical they got it done. It took a while but Neural kept their word on PCOM. They delivered and did it without pay-walling future blocks and functions. That goes a long way towards establishing more trust and good will between Neural and their customers. Bravo Neural!
To me the overarching issue is will we ever see a DAW plugin, similar to ‘Native’ in the Line 6 world, that allows all of the presets and blocks to be freely exchanged and utilized between a DAW and the QC. I believe it to be a superior and more flexible approach than PCOM. Both PCOM and a comprehensive plugin for the QC would be ideal. I hope eventually they can deliver something like Native that can coexist with PCOM. It could be another source of revenue for them, even if it impacted plugin purchases, and would be welcomed by users.
Btw, I know it is still a pipe-dream with considerable technical, quality control, and even security challenges, but I hope we eventually see a modeler that can incorporate third party plugins. That to me would deliver on the real promise in the modeling world of “PCOM”.
What the clip show if you A/B plugin vs model in QC the plugin is not really upgrade over the model. Certainly not game changer. So the question is it worth the cost of the plugin. And also since the plugin uses so much more CPU compare to the amp model.
I bought the QC to get away from using the plugins on my computer, mainly because of latency. While it’s not terrible, it’s noticeable. I like actually using them in the QC (Plini, mainly)
I think the biggest concern now for customers is the fear that more attention will be paid to porting plugins rather than continuing to add blocks to the QC that anyone can use, even though they assured us these are parallel endeavors. I guess we’ll see, but if they add Nolly and Parallax next update, which is like 15 or 20 blocks, but then only add 4-6 QC blocks, that’ll start to confirm the fears, when Helix added dozens of blocks and feature updates in their 3.0 update that anyone can use, for instance. Time will tell, but as it stands, I’m very happy with what the QC can do - finally got my Plini in the box and now that I mainly use it for bass, I have even fewer needs & wants lol.
Legitimate concerns. We will have to rely on their promise not to paywall new effects and features, which is what you are describing would amount to.
I wish every modeler included a Native equivalent DAW plugin. Most of them don’t though. If I had my druthers, resources currently devoted to PCOM, would solely be supporting general QC development and a comprehensive DAW plugin instead. Not the route Neural chose to pursue though. I guess the hope would be, at least for now, that they can streamline the process for porting “X” plugins to the point where it represents an insignificant diversion of existing resources or a lesser requirement for additional resources.
From practical point of view? Of course it wasn’t. You could replicate the tones from plugins for live applications since the very beginning.
From marketing point? Of course it was. From my general experience with music gear industry, I think less then 10 percent are working pros. Who mostly buv their gear for practical reasons (at least the essential one). But huge amount of the market are hobbyists. They care about emotional part way more. And since they were promised the plugins, they got them.
I would suggest that spending all that time and resources developing new features, like making doubler (which is absolutely huge for practical reasons) year ago. Or making some better delays and reverbs. Or a better midi, again, hugely practical feature that has been requested for years. or better programmable foot switches, again, was requested for huge amount of time. That would be much better for me.
No, let’s make plugins that you already could have with minimal of work. Because.
I am not complaining btw, it’s what it is. And better sales eventually will lead to better product overall. But if you are asking, here is my answer.
That’s a pretty good argument against PCOM! I personally have never used a plugin, and it was never a consideration when I bought my QC. And my own opinion is that there are many more basic ‘quality of life’ fixes that NDSP need to address on the QC, so for me, PCOM was a complete ‘white elephant’…
If you are a user of both the plugins and the QC for live, then being able to have your plugin presets on QC is quite valuable.
For me personally, I do use the NDSP plugins, but am not that concerned about reproducing them on QC. Rather I’d prefer the other way around as with Helix Native: running QC presets on the computer.
But my issue is more that there are features missing in QC that prevent me from being able to use it effectively for live gigs:
A limit of only 8 stomp switches, even with a MIDI controller.
Inability to map stomp switches to parameter min/max values
Inability to assign any switch to any function (hybrid mode is too limiting)
No double tap or tap and hold on the footswitches limiting the ability to control so many blocks with so few footswitches
No footswitch layouts as with Fractal devices (the present/scene/stomp “layouts” are fixed and not flexible enough).
No mix on the Rotary, limiting the block’s usability
No mix on the IR block for acoustic IRs (I use them a lot for acoustic guitar and mandolin)
Inability to assign multiple outputs of my own choosing (i.e., Out 1/2 and USB 3/4) on a lane. This causes me to have to double my patches to use them in the studio and live where out 3/4 is to a powered guitar cabinet and out 1/2 is for FOH. I can’t add USB 3/4 with out 1/2 on a lane. Multi out includes out 1/2, out 3/4 and USB 3/4 which conflicts with the powered guitar cabinet.
I get the marketing appeal of PCOM. But I want to use QC live and can’t (i’m currently using an FM9). I love the hardware design and UX. But the footswitch control is just insufficient for general live use for me.
For me plugin development is a total waste of time, distracting the company from adding new effects, amps and quality of life improvements at a reasonable pace. That’s why I bought the unit. That pace has been extremely slow but improvement was promised a couple of weeks ago!
Back to the plugin question: just like others, davlav for example, I have recreated the plugin effects that interest me with the onboard non-plugin blocks. And that was pretty easy!
Complaining about whether pcom was worth it doesn’t really make much sense. I think most people first heard about the QC alongside their promise for plugin integration. So, would have been worse if they ditched the plan. Pcom was constantly a topic for people online when talking about the QC up until a few weeks ago when it was released.
I think a bunch of the amp models are different in the plugins vs the QC + some of the effects are different.
Fractal, Kemper, and Line 6 have had so much more time to develop effects + models compared to Neural with the QC.
It’s impossible to count the number of times I’ve seen people in forums and Facebook say that they were holding off on purchasing a QC until plug-in compatibility became a reality. I am certain there has been a sharp uptick in sales in the past month since CorOS 3.0.0 got released.
Exactly. It was a marketing strategy, more than anything else (and it worked).
