I’ve bought the QC 3 months ago being enticed by the fact that this is the “box to rule them all”. And we are not quite there yet.
For me there are 3 key features that are missing for it to be the ultimate gear on and off stage.
The desktop controller.
I still use exclusively my Kemper when I’m in my studio because of this feature that enables to search/create/tweak profiles easily.
Without it the QC will forever be cumbersome to use. I do not want to be forced to bend over my desk or even to the ground to create a profile searching among hundreds of amps for the one I want. And I dont do it.
For me this is a souce of intense frustration.
Lack of vocal plugins.
It was also promised in the FAQ, but right now unless I’m heavily mistaken, the QC is quite unusable as a guitar/vocal “all in one” device. Also there are no resources on internet adressing the issue of the vocal part. I would like at the very least to be able to add some basic effects on the voice for some parts (like a distorsion/decapitator, or a vocoder, or filters etc.) i feel like using the guitar counterparts is not the way to go, the sound seems pretty much unusable. If I’m completely in the wrong here, please correct me and point me to the right resources ^^.
A way to easily map the placeholder names of the amps/IR to their real world part without having a manual nearby.
The context of being in repetition and looking for a new sound for a new song implies searching for new pieces of gear and the fact that you are looking at an endless list of amps with obscure names is very tiresome. Also being able to search for keywords/tags (like “JCM800” or “vemuram” or “dual delay”) would be awesome.
All in all what I am lacking most currently with the QC is not more simulations or more precise ones. It’s ease of use in studio and repetition.
I run a relatively simple setup. My expectations are being met by the QC. My expectations were based on what it ‘does’ and not what was ‘promised’. There are an abundance of threads out there - as well as here - voicing frustrations about the current state of the QC - and the desire for the updates. Many here share your desire for these functions.
That said, when these criticisms come up, I always wonder about the expectation of the buyer. If these criticisms are already documented, why not wait to buy the QC until they have been resolved - rather than buying it - when it doesn’t meet your expectations? A ‘promise’ afterall is a statement about something that has not yet come to be. Why be surprised when you find that it doesn’t exist yet?
Right … I bought the QC 2 months ago because I do not care about the Editor mode (just tired about computers!!!) and I prefer Neural to spend their R&D/ressources on something else than the editor …
This debate has literally been going on for years in the modeling community. Although there is some truth to the trope and caveat “buy it for what it has now”. One might as well ask why someone would release a device that did not already include what was initially promised as well as features that have existed on other devices for years already. The features now reflected by some of the requests that users are currently and predictably clamoring for.
I don’t think it is unreasonable for customers to have an expectation that these “baseline” functions will arrive at some point in a reasonably timely fashion. There has also been an expectation set in this market space, whether or not it always bears out, that the relatively healthy price one is paying is in part to fund additional development. Neural also set certain expectations with marketing material that detailed a description of the device that not only includes certain features that are as of now, still not available, but also an explicit promise of continuing development.
There are also reasonable expectations regarding a baseline of available functionality that has been established by other manufacturers in the high-end modeling market. Hybrid switching, or even more flexible footswitch options, would be an example of one of those. Customers assess the technology used to produce a device and make informed projections as to what it should be capable of, given time to mature. This can ultimately work to a manufacturer’s advantage as many users would probably take a hard pass or return it after purchase, if they thought the device was doomed to remain forever in its initial release state.
The competitive nature of the business applies some degree of pressure to “rush to market”. Understandable that innovators want to get their modeler out there before someone leapfrogs them and scuttles their considerable investment of time and money. However, once the device is out in the wild and purchased, the manufacturer can expect some pushback from its users to get their device competitive with similarly priced options on the market.
Early adopters are hoping that there is an implicit agreement between the manufacturer and the buyer. An understanding that the manufacturer needs to release the device with competitive timing into the marketplace but will require time to develop it to its true potential. Most customers, familiar with the precedent set by other manufacturers, are willing to fund that effort and will work with the initial offering as long as the manufacturer continues to make a good faith development effort.
Factor into this that supply chain woes mean that many customers have already waited quite a long time for delivery and by the time their modeler arrives they have experienced a significant level of prolonged anticipation and are perhaps more invested in the device than they might be if they had picked it up on a whim from their local Guitar Center or Sweetwater. By the time it arrives they have probably watched tons of reviews and instructional videos in lieu of having the device in their hands. That contributes to their feeling of investment in the device and their desire for it to meet expectations.
I love many aspects of the QC in its current state and look forward to its maturation. Having been through the development cycle with some other modelers I see great similarities in the evolution of the QC and even the order in which specific features arrive in subsequent updates. That experience grants me a certain degree of patience, if not unlimited.
On a side note, on the forum, I see the usual number of what I would consider fundamental and reasonable feature requests as well as the ones that I would consider to be highly specialized, or even outlandish, required by a minority of users. Those edge case users are the ones who should probably pay the closest attention to the “buy it for what it has now” caveat.
I understand your points. But …
If the criticism is that the QC was released prematurely, why would the reaction be to rush the release of 2.0? Would they then be criticized for releasing 2.0 too early - just to meet the time-preference of QC owners. We’d be hearing about what a let-down 2.0 is.
Reading through the threads here, it is obvious that most of us are gear-nerds who have been around the block. Along with that comes combing through the gear-threads and watching as many videos as we can on items of interest. The ‘issues’ are well documented.
I’m not trying to get into a fight here. A lot of what people are asking for I’ll likely enjoy too - particularly a desktop editor. But I accept the fact that - as a smaller company - Neural isn’t going to blow out firmware updates as fast as their competitors. Maybe because I’m an old fart, I’m more patient than others in this ‘firmware update per week’ world. Different strokes for different folks.
I still stand by my statement that “a promise is a statement about something that has not yet come to be”. If someone buys a QC before the promise is fulfilled, they shouldn’t be surprised that it wasn’t fulfilled. It will be though - and I’m sure it’s going to be great. Then the new arguments can start about what they’re doing wrong - and we can all beat our chests and throw feces like the apes that we are : )
LOL, I hear you about the feces throwing and much of what you say has the ring of truth. The dinner bell has been rung though, and now folks want their sesame bun and ketchup before their burger gets cold. Heh, never good when you combine feces throwing and dinnertime metaphors
At the end of the day this is the Internet and we’re going to have everything from incessant whining to rabid defending of the product. I think you both have valid points (and neither of you are whining nor rabid, to the best of my knowledge), but yeah, the use case and when you got on board with the QC makes a huge difference.
I bought the thing two months ago after researching on Reddit, TGP, etc. so I knew what the deal was. I also only use it at home, and as a desktop device, so I don’t contend with ground loops or performance workflow. For me, there’s really nothing to complain about. I choose or make a preset, put on a backing track, and proceed to shred obnoxiously. This is my happy place.
I completely and respectfully understand the position of those who are disappointed.
As a side note, if this or similar threads were in the forum of a competing device, by now we’d have had “thread cleaned and locked”. I don’t miss that, and I am grateful for this community and sensible moderation. You can keep your weekly release candidate (beta 97).
“As a side note, if this or similar threads were in the forum of a competing device, by now we’d have had “thread cleaned and locked”. I don’t miss that, and I am grateful for this community and sensible moderation.”
And that is appreciated and why this thread is still open!
From the initial announcement, through actually purchasing a QC I have been “patiently” waiting an “official” commitment to when we, the owners of the QC could download a standalone Editor, and use our plug-ins in the QC.
IMHO, these should be a required topic covered in every monthly update, even if Neural simply says, “Soon.”
