I checked out with Quad Cortex to my Helix Floor

[Prsgibson]

I took the Quad Cortex and had it sit right next to my Helix Floor. I plugged it into my computer and opened its software editor and also opened the software editor for the Helix. I will admit in comparing the two, the QC sounds more like an amp in front of you. The Helix has a little more processed sound though still sounding good. You get the presets and you need to tweak them with adding a compressor after the reverbs and doing some adjustments which will allow the Helix to get closer to the sounds of the QC. If I was just going to use a digital processor in my studio, I may consider getting the QC over the Helix. But for live use, the Helix for me, is a much better option. Here are my observations immediately before even hearing the QC.

 

1. There is no On/Off switch on the QC.

2. The power supply is a wall wart on the outside of the unit.

3. The power cable is thin and it lacks the ground third prong.

4. There is no ground lift button in the back. I found with the Marshall (1st preset) that I was getting a hum with my Les Paul. If I put my hand on the jack or strings, it would go away.

5. You can't see the Gig scene and the amp settings at the same time. Good luck with making changes to one of your settings without needing to swipe up on the screen, go into another view, make your adjustments, close that screen, and then swipe again to go back to the Gig Scene.

6. The 2nd row of buttons is lined up with the left side of the screen so its not centered properly. So hitting the wrong button could happen though I think you could get use to it.

7. The buttons are close together. Not as much of an issue on pushing the correct one L/R, but the back buttons and front buttons are also close to each other.

8. No expression pedal like the Helix, and the Helix Floor has a digital read out which makes it helpful if you want 85% of the pedal open.

9. Dynamic Control: With the Helix you can create an effect to go on only if you go past a certain volume. So if you put your volume on your guitar on 8 for rthy, by moving it to 10, you could have a overdrive pedal for more sustain for lead to kick in, or any other effect. I don't believe you can do that on the QC.

10. No Scribble strips. This makes my work flow on stage so much better. 

 

I will say the editing software for the Helix looks more dated than the QC editing software. I think Line 6 can make some update to the screen. I like that the noise gate can be turned on before you even get to your first input of an amp or other effect on the QC. Hopefully with Yamaha behind Line 6 now, some of the plug ins and R&D support can help with a nice 4.0 update for the Helix. We don't need more amps and cabs but a better look and some work flow updates.

 

 

I will tell you though the Quad Cortex has some pros over the Helix Floor, there is just no way I would want to switch to a Quad Cortex. The Helix has just too many things that was done right over the QC.

 

 

 

[amsdenj]

I have found that when doing A/B/C comparisons while building Quad Cortex, Helix and FM9 patches, that I often find the device I last edited sounds better to me then the others. And then I start trying to adjust the patches in the others to match the first one. It doesn't seem to matter which one is the starting or reference tone. There seems to be a "last-edit" bias in tone assessments. Often when I come back the next day with fresh ears I don't find the patch was as good as I thought, or that I matched them across devices as well as I thought. The lessons I take from this are:

1. Ear fatigue is real and has a big impact on tone creation, especially when you're doing a lot of reference comparing. Your ears get saturated with the tone and start ignoring the differences.
2. There appears to be a preference or bias for the last edited or loudest tone
3. All of these modelers are great and can create fantastic tones with good usability. Comparing them should be to celebrate their differences.
4. You can't go wrong with any of them, pick one (or more), play and have fun

I use all three modelers for different purposes and in different contexts. I like Quad Cortex for its simplicity, elegant design, and small size. It gets used with my acoustic band, No Worries. I like Helix for anything that needs a Variax, VDI connectivity and patch integration are great. I still have two and use them a lot. I like the FM9 for rock gigs because of the great tones and FC layouts for flexible control. An HX Stomp is my goto device when I need something quick and small. But any of them can do anything I need well. 

 

[gbr13697]

I have a Helix Floor, Quad Cortex, AxeFx3, and TonemasterPro.  I have tested the sounds using a switcher to send them to a Line6 PowerCab.  I turn off cab emulations in the modellers, and set a suitable cab emulation in the PowerCab to level the playing field. I have set up presets in each modeller for most of the common amps where they all have similar emulations (other than high gain amps which I don't personally use and would not be qualified to evaluate). I start with an amp in the modeller with the fewest controls, normally TonemasterPro or QC, and dial in a decent sound. I then replicate the settings to the other modellers, avoiding any parameters that are not present in the basic model (although Helix and AxeFx3 would allow much more extensive customisation of the sound).

I can then get instant comparisons by simply stomping on the switcher.  There are very slight variances, but nothing outside the range that would be expected from two supposedly identical valve amps.  For instance, no two Fender Deluxe Reverbs, from the same year with the same settings, ever sound exactly the same. The amps used by the modeller manufacturers for modelling would never sound exactly alike, so there will inevitably be slight differences in the models they produce.

The sounds produced by each modeller are very similar, and none is better or worse.  All of them will produce good sounds.

The choice of modeller will depend on other factors - size and form factor, hardware, touchscreen and visuals for those that consider it important, workflow, number of amps and effects, flexibility of preset design layout, how much will fit in a preset before DSP runs out, ease of editing on the unit, quality of desktop or tablet editor, controls for live playing etc. It has to be said that Fractal leaves all the others in the dust for most of this, though Helix still stands up very well. Quad Cortex and Tonemaster Pro will suit those that like simplicity, touchscreens, and pretty graphics. Quad Cortex certainly has an advantage for those that value captures above modelling, but I am not one of them. 

Make your choice according to your preferences, but I do not believe that any of these modellers "sound better".  Furthermore, you will almost always find that those who say that one or the other does sound better have never actually done a proper and fair side-by-side comparison.

[amsdenj]

A quick followup: I used to do some amp design and construction back in the day. I still have my Fender Showman from 1968 that has had extensive modifications. So I appreciate the flexibility of the Fractal Audio amp block. There's extensive deep editing, and a lot of it is pretty subtle. But there's a few things that I use on almost any amp: input EQ, boost, bass cut, fat switch, bright switch (with customizable bypass cap), presence and depth on any amp, negative feedback control, output EQ. These allow me to really control what the amp does, providing the flexibility to make little, but significant, tweaks similar to what I did in that Showman amp. Often it's just a bit more gain without having to use a pedal to get it. 

 

This flexibility comes at a cost in complexity though, and the FM9 UX is not great. So I can see why it's not for everyone. Quad Cortex goes pretty far the other way: great UX, but quite limited flexibility. And all the amp models are effectively black box captures so the tweaking isn't an option. Helix fits right in the middle: nice, efficient UX, with some deep editing on some amp blocks.