Tonemaster pro

Quad Cortex
1

So guys . What do you make of the new fender tonemaster pro? Is it a competitor to the QC and is it worth buying?

2

Doesn’t look like it from the reviews I’ve seen.

4 Likes
3

From the videos I’ve seen it doesn’t look like there’s a way to do anything like scenes or snapshots. I don’t think there is any preset lag though. While you can switch between presets more easily, trying to do a sort of hybrid stomp/scene mode would be difficult.

The high gain stuff seemed ok in the videos I saw, but not better than QC. Kinda on par with an old bad Eleven amp model. Just cause it loads an image on the screen that says “fender” or “EVH” doesn’t mean the actual model will sound good. I tried a Headrush a year ago and hated it. The models in the videos (at least high gain) felt fizzy and like 2009 Amplitube/GarageBand models.

The TMP is decently bigger than a QC, and every reviewer has seemed to struggle with the touchscreen. They’re always trying to tap things multiple times and it seems like a bad old android tablet from 10 + years ago.

TLDR: There isn’t anything for bass in the TMP, no capture/profiling, TMP is bigger, high gain models sound like an old whack Eleven Rack, and touchscreen seems pretty clunky. The TMP should be 899 tops.

3 Likes
4

Yeah, but it says Fender on it, so it has to be cool! :laughing:

1 Like
5

I bought a TMP to try it out and compare it with my QC. Here are my thoughts:

TMP Pros-

  1. Interface is easier to see what you are using and know what pedals are being used at any given time.
  2. The clean tones are really good. And the reverbs are also really good. I would say better than the QC.
  3. I like the way the Klon and Tubescreamer work on the TMP. Although I wouldn’t say it sounds better than the QC, maybe just a bit more dynamic.
  4. The bluetooth audio connection is nice.
  5. The TMP build quality is nicer than the QC.
  6. The TMP input/volume management is better than the QC. This is one of the frustrations with the QC is keeping track of levels and keeping them balanced can be difficult at times. The TMP is more automated.

TMP Cons

  1. The interface is not faster to use than the QC. (But it is arguably more fun to use)
  2. The routing options are far less flexible than the QC. For instance, if you want to run multiple amps, you can only use the preset routing options in TMP.
  3. You have less flexible control over preset options with TMP. In the QC, you can alter each amp, pedal, etc. in a scene. Whereas with the TMP, your preset can only toggle on/off of each pedal, amp, etc. You would have to create different presets and switch between. The TMP is more in line with real world setups, but less flexible.
  4. The TMP touch screen isn’t as responsive as the QC.
  5. QC Capturing/profiling adds a lot more selection to buy/download from.
  6. Surprisingly, the TMP seems to run out of CPU resources running less pedals than the QC. I have found if you run two amps on the TMP, you can only have maybe 4 pedals (and often it won’t let you use most of the reverbs if you have two amps and a couple pedals in the chain.)

In summary, although I like some aspects of the TMP, the simplicity of it, and its level management, and its reverbs, I still think I prefer using the QC for its much larger selection of amps, pedals. The higher gain amps on the TMP aren’t bad, they are just different- flubbier in general on the low end and need an overdrive pedal to tighten up.
Also its flexibility and the sounds are equal or better on the QC for most things. I will probably return the TMP.

10 Likes
6

Nice comparison. Thanks for this. I am curious: the TMP has bluetooth connection? Doesn’t it add lag when you play? Bluetooth is not particularly a fast communication channel.

3 Likes
7

Its a bluetooth connection for playing music. So for playing along to a track, its nice. (Lag wouldn’t affect that since you are just playing along with what comes through the system.)

8

Ohhh, right, I thought it was an output, but it is an input :wink:

1 Like
9

Every modeller is a competitor. And I think that as of now no modeller is “The One”, but they all have their strengths and weaknesses.
The Fender TMP certainly looks promising with great hardware. But the software doesn’t impress me so far.
Fender is a big company, so when I saw the TMP I initially thought it would beat the QC in terms of price by a long shot. But it’s more expensive and offers really nothing new.

1 Like
10

How is its Looper?

How about the Feedbacker? Anything like the FreQout pedal at all?

11

I haven’t used the looper much yet on the TMP. It’s nice that it has a dedicated footswitch to access it though. I have used the feedback generator. It’s not bad, I still haven’t dialed it in to work as I want it to though. It has either been kind of nonexistent or a droning feedback that I didn’t like. But it might just be a little sensitive to the sweet spot, and I haven’t spent enough time to say how well I like it yet.
… It does make me hope that the QC gets a feedback generator soon though.

1 Like
12

I think, at least currently, that the looper is only 60 seconds on the TMP, unless they have enhanced it via firmware.

2 Likes
13

I haven’t been that impressed. I saw a video of a guy that had it next to the QC and it’s much larger. Grant that it does have a built in power supply and scribble strips. I wouldn’t be rushing out to sell my other modelers to get one.

1 Like
14

Why did it surprise you that the TMP runs out of CPU faster then the QC? Looking at the specs I did not expect it to be more powerful in regards to DSP available per preset.

1 Like
15

I also bought the Fender Tone Master Pro to compare it with other tools such as the QC, Tonex and Amplitube. Just focussing on tone here:

  • there is a relatively low number of amps available (nevertheless, they may fit the needs for most people)
  • Using the same IRs, the Fender models sound very similar to the QC ones. In terms of dynamic response I had the feel that the QC is a little bit better
  • The non-Fender amps do not really sound very good in comparison to the QC. The Marshalls are very dark sounding and not really representing the real amps. Same with the Vox AC30. When I take the AC15 from the QC for examples it is just a pleasure hitting the strings at different levels and get this natural amp response. On the Tone Master this was not the same experience unfortunately. It was more stiff and more “digital” - whatever this means.
  • The Mesa amps sound nothing like a real Mesa …

Overall, you can dial in some decent tones in some instances but it it just not on par with the QC. I am not biased here as I really wanted to like the new Fender Tone Master due to its great interface. It looks really cool. But tone comes first. Maybe I keep it and see what the next firmware will bring. Principally, it should not be a problem to appy decent modelling tech there. They may need to collaborate with other developers or put the same effort in their approach as they did for the Fender amps.

JUst my 2cents.

BTW the new QC editor is really great- Thanks to the QC team

4 Likes
16

Part of the marketing for the TMP is the 8-core processor and it being able to have complex signal chains

IMG_9767
IMG_97671125Ă—1742 203 KB

1 Like
17

but it seems to hold the extra cores in reserve (it says something like “you won’t even know it’s working”) for seamless preset switching. Sounds like you can’t actually use that extra power for building bigger chains, it’s basically a buffer for switching presets

2 Likes
18

It’s possible it’s like 4 cores for the preset running, and 4 for the seamless switch. Helix does a similar thing for the big units. They don’t really disclose that info for the TMP though which is misleading. Also “load up large multi-amp and effects signal chains with ease” is literally in the marketing for it.

1 Like
19

Where is the screenshot from? On fender’s own product page I can’t find any statement regarding the CPUs or the amount of cores. Also they do not say anything about the specs of the processors in use. In most cases this means that the processers used aren’t that great. The QC has 6 cores, but only 4 are doing DSP stuff, so without any info about what those 8 cores really do / what there specs are the number 8 does mean nothing.

Also I just realized that the TMP does cost about 200€ more than the QC, at least here in Germany. I thought they were about the same :thinking:

20

I also associate Fender with their amps and guitars and clean tones. I dunno why but they just don’t strike me as having the know-how in the high gain realm. They might in the future but both fractal, QC and possibly Kemper were born out of the high gain realm. Clean tones are much easier to get to sound decent but its in higher gain tones where it becomes more complicated. Also for the same price, you can’t even have profiles/captures. Sure not everyone uses them but the fact you have that too on the QC and its the same price just speaks volumes.

2 Likes