I’ve been trying to use a delay with the mix set so the original note and delayed note (feedback very low so only 1 repeat) are the same volume.
It makes sense to me that this would happen at either 60% mix (ie the original note, and the repeated note are balanced at 50/50 ) or 100% (ie the volume of the repeated note is 100% of the volume of the original note, or in other words, the same volume)
In concept - and based on my experience with other multi fx units - both of these have the same result in spite of referring to it in different ways. However, on the QC, neither of these work to do what I want!
In fact the closest I’ve come with the QC is to set the mix at around 80%. Can anyone explain to me why this seems to be the correct setting? It certainly doesn’t make sense to me!
Yeah, that always struck me as odd. I don’t know what exactly is going on with that, but I feel like there are still a lot of blind spots when it comes to little things like that, which usually gets ignored in every update for whatever reason. It kind of makes me lose faith in the both the unit and future updates because they never seem to acknowledge the little problems. Like…this shouldn’t have been an issue to begin with, but here we are. We are almost 2 years out and they still haven’t gotten their shit together on the software end. It’s really disheartening, but I feel we’re at a moment where the complaints are valid. They still haven’t made categories for the neural captures and it makes it hard to know exactly what I’m using. It’s frustrating all around.
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding, but does it actually matter what the absolute number is? - if it is working at 80%, then use 80%? Possibly the delayed notes are quieter overall, therefore needing more mix?
Yes, it matters, because achieving parity in delay volume is the only constant you get with a delay volume, so you can achieve it instantly - and avoid wasting a lot of time - if you know the number you should dial in from the outset.
So especially if I am trying to recreate patches from my previous modeller, having moved to a Cortex say from a Helix, then I think I deserve to understand why Neural have decided - against the general grain - why they think equal volume would be achieved at something like 80% rather than 50 or 10, as is used by multiple other brands.
(When I say ‘parity in delay volume is the only constant’, any other percentage mix using delay is really a ‘dial to taste’ affair, so there is no way to achieve it without a lot of tweaking and listening)
I take your point that it’s the sound that counts, but my point is that with equal volume it should be possible to dial that in instantly, so I don’t want to have to do it a long-winded way. Also I want to understand the logic behind the QC interface too, hence why I asked the question in the first place.
Is it possible that something else is going on with your routing? I don’t find that I need to turn the mix up anywhere near that much to get repeats that are about as loud as my source signal. Is this happening for you on every delay model?
Right, but most commonly it’s 50%, then you can go above that to make the repeats louder and it all makes since. Hard to wrap you’re head around 80% somehow being equal.
Haven’t methodically checked it out yet but generally by the time I get up to 50% the delayed signal is too loud for my taste and threatening to overwhelm the source signal. As mentioned, I am usually running the mix much lower. I am using a mono output to an FRFR btw for practice.
I didn’t make a ticket for this particular problem, but I did for a wifi issue that has yet to be resolved. Basically, I can’t connect directly to my home wifi, but I have to do a workaround by making my desktop computer (with the same wifi used) a wifi hotspot and connecting through that instead.
interesting re: wifi issues. I had no problems connecting directly to it, but I’m also connecting it to the 2.4GHz channel as a number of my “smart” devices don’t quite like the 5GHz channel (fingers crossed this will continue to be okay). I wonder if by any chance this is the issue?
In making a dotted 8th delay i noticed something odd with all the delays;
an even mix of dry and wet is 82.5% and the dry and wet are slightly lower in volume than dry alone when mixed evenly.
this is bizzare - normally 50% would be both at unity gain.
instead, the dry stays at unity until ~80% and the delay stays below unity. then as you approach 82.5% the dry drops to the same level as delay and then at higher settings the wet becomes unity and dry goes down. this seems crazy to me coming from scenarios on other modellers where effect and wet both at 100% would both be at unity, or if its a blend knob then 50% should be unity for both. and the spanner in the works is the QC cant even do both at unity…
After seeing more posts regarding this issue I realized my initial response was in regards to how I typically use a delay in my signal chain rather than the OP’s thoughts as to how the ‘Mix’ parameter should work. I often run my delays in serial, somewhere after the amp/cab.
IMHO the following represents the best, and by best, I mean most predictable and most intuitive manner for the ‘Mix’ control to work: The levels of the source and the delayed signals should be equal at 50%.
As you move past 50% the delayed signal should become louder and the source signal softer. At 100% you should be hearing nothing but the delayed signal (100% wet). This is so that you can run the delay at 100% wet in a parallel path if you wish, using a mixer block to determine how much wet delay you want in your tone.
One additional point and this is one that several modelers could improve on IMO. Let’s say the equal volume point for the source and delayed signal is 50%. I would like a nice taper running up to 50% providing an audio taper that does not jump too quickly from no audible delay, to too much. Often however I find with my relatively straightforward signal path, that the delay can go from barely audible to extremely audible very early in the taper of the ‘Mix’ control with a miniscule turn of the dial.
For me it is a similar experience to using a linear rather than logarithmic curve on an expression pedal. The jump from inaudible or barely audible delay to too much is more abrupt than it could be and happens too early in the low percentages on the ‘Mix’ control.
In summary I would say that from the perspective of a systematic approach to how the ‘Mix’ parameter functions, I would like to see 50% be equal volume source/delay, and 100% be delay only. I also want the taper to be such that it seems both logical in the numbering of the source/delay ratio (e.g. 12% should not be overly wet), and it is easy to dial in the amount of reverb without small adjustments of the percentage resulting in large jumps in the perceived reverb level .
I agree. On my other modellers I have to dial in my delays somewhere between 6% to 8% to get them where i want. A logarithmic curve would make this much easier to dial in by making the sweet spot a broader sweep.
So I finally got to gig with the QC (FX ->amp) and I could barely hear the delay at 50% and had to crank it to 75%. It was a mono delay with no filter applied. I hope this gets some attention because the percentages are not very accurate.
Wondering about this too. Weirdly, I feel like it worked perfectly at 50% as predicted, but lately it’s been almost impossible to hear and I’ve had to crank it to 80 or 90%. Not sure what changed but it’s definitely a weird way for it to behave.