Both sounded great. I have a QC and I love it. But, what the ToneX does for its price is fantastic and the new ToneX mini pedal must be a game changer with its functionality and price point. That will push all modelling companies to up their game. We all win. Thanks Paul
What I find odd is that the "reference" tones (meaning real amp) sounded different with both units. Check the timestamps and you can clearly hear that the difference. I wonder why would that be? 2:12 - Real amp (quad) 4:35 - Real amp (tonex)
Without hearing the original amp in the overdrive setting as well its a little bit senseless because maybe the real amp sounded a bit darker as well but thanks for taking the time 😂
Ok, so… I have really good headphones and don’t own either of these units. What I got from it was the ToneX sounded extremely close for the clean tone… bright and stringy where, the QC lost something in the highs. The QC sound very close with the gain tone and also took the OD pedal better than the ToneX but, really… in a full mix or live, it would be next to impossible to tell which is which. Personally, I wouldn’t mind owning both. Great post as usual, Mr. Drew. We appreciate your time and talent. Be well.
That was an strange test... At the start, both captures sounded really close to the amp, but when compared between them, they both sounded clearly different!
If you listen closely to the real amp in the capture review stages, you’ll hear that the actual amp sounds much darker in the Tonex review. So there’s likely something in the capture setup (either one or both) that’s affecting the tone of the real amp. There’s no way to know which one is truer to the original without hearing the amp-cab-mic straight into a daw without the capture setup.
The Tonex capture process takes much less time if you use a notebook or PC with a dedicated NVIDIA Graphics Processing Unit, also a relatively cheap one, e.g. a gtx 1650.
@@BkBk-gy6vr that's a pretty L take. You speak as if you have never used any form of modelling, nor do you ever play live. Who cares if they have only 1 amp? Surely they have other people in their circle that have amps of their own that they'd love to capture.
Thank you! But why did you only compare the two captures side by side without the real amp. This would have interested me the most especially as the two captures behave differently with clean and gain. So now I don’t know which is closer to the real thing.
Thanks Paul! I own both pedals. I don’t think you can go wrong with either pedal. They both sound different but great in their way! There may be a little more clarity in the Tonex, but I love both!!
I own neither, so no big bias one way or the other here. I thought both captures sounded good and that both were very useable, but I thought the QC sounded fuller and more like the amp overall. Great video !!!
On the more overdriven tests, I felt the QC sounded closest to the amp. The TONEX sounded a bit darker with not as much clarity. That’s easily fixable with a touch of EQ, though. The clean play through’s at the beginning, though, you couldn’t tell a difference. I have two different boards that I play through consistently on a weekly basis. One with the TONEX as my “amp” and my other board runs with a Quad Cortex. They are both absolutely incredible pieces of gear and I don’t plan on going back to anything else besides using those two as the heart of my main live rig boards. Awesome demo, Paul!!! BTW-your capture packs are killer, brother!!!
The test would be more helpful for me if we could hear the same riff on the amp, the QC, and the ToneX one after another. Leaving the amp out for the dirty stuff doesn't really show how accurate the capture is. I do hear some high end in the QC that I find missing in a lot of digitial devices compared to a real amp. I may have to try a Quad Cortex.
I didn’t know anything about either of them and had no idea of their cost. To me to Tone X sounded better especially with the overdrive pedal added at the end. Surprised to see how much cheaper it was 😮
The ToneX does sound pretty dark on the humbucker. You mentioned, you captured your amp including a mic'd cabinet. Have you accidentally added some Cab/IR to the ToneX preset?
The routing options, form factor, sound and ease of use, no need for a PC etc, make the QC the clear winner in the modelling world for me, at least at the moment. I have been a valve amp guy for over forty years and, of course, know the difference. Mainly play CCM these day so the QC is perfect for the semi silent stages I mostly play on now. Do I miss the days of playing festivals on pretty loud stages and massive PA systems, with my jeans almost feeling the push from my Dual Rectifier Trem-O-Verb, or other amps I was using at the time. Of course, but I love my QC. Seriously thinking about a Tonex One as a great sounding backup though. My Cornford Carrera for home use is getting less and less of an airing these days!!
Did my first Tonex capture - Klon KTR Pedal. Damn, it sounds identical (other than a touch of EQ). Very impressed … just wish the Tonex had FX. Now I have to figure out how to capture the correct gain structure as the real pedal has more gain available (sweep) than the capture (assuming I need to capture the pedal at a bunch of different settings?)
I am a Tonex owner. The QC sounded a bit brighter to me and I prefered that. Both had a great sound and you could dial them in to sound more or less the same.
Hey Paul! Thanks for the test. I noticed that the control at 2:13 (QC) and 4:36 (ToneX) sound pretty different. Did you say there were no changes to the mic or amp settings? I wonder what accounts for the tone difference?
Yes me too, the amp had not been adjusted, I’m guessing the difference is either the tonex software is imparting some sort of tone difference even when you play through the capture part.
@@TheStudioRatsInteresting! Thanks for weighing in. Is it possible there was a sample-rate mismatch? Or maybe an add’l cab IR got baked into the ToneX Capture?
@@TheStudioRatsThe main difference is that there is a different preamp and converter in the audio interface and the qc and this colours the sound. The qc sounds raw the tonex sounds pleasant. The amp sound is richer than the captures.
Yes, the amp sounds different in each instance, and the 2 captures are each very accurate to those 2 amp sounds. Unfortunately without knowing why the amp sounds different in each case, you can't really draw any valid conclusions about the devices!
Nah..I sold my Tonex, and kept my Neural.Tonex is dark and muddy more work to make it nice.Neural plug and ready. 10 out of 10 FOH and recording engineers prefer Neural. You pay for what you pay
@@MarcMarc-c8sI own a tonex and i don't find it muddy at all, every sound engineer so far has loved it, I really don't see an issue. The stock captures that come in the tonex are bad, that's what tonet is for. You are not paying for better quality as you will find some null tests disprove that entirely. You're paying for the universal audio badge, don't get it twisted.
@@spawn302digital sheen, lack of balls, weak sound, spiky, inorganic. Call it whatever you want, even the plugins by UA have the same problem, they need a ton of work to feel right to the player and to fit in the mix. I played the whole summer with my tonex and I didn't feel any of the above mentioned "buzzwords" at all while I was playing, it felt like I was playing an amp. Can't say the same for the neural dsp stuff I have used in my studio over the years. Yes there are tons of people getting good tones from the neural dsp stuff but you should watch a mix breakdown on how they got that tone to begin with and there is a lot of work, like a LOT of work that gets done out of the plugin to achieve that tone. Also not knowing what digital sheen means shows a lack of experience and understanding on your part moreso than his. Lmao
They both are good. If you already have a good amount of pedals you like the ToneX is just an easy choice. Great comparison here. Love that amp you captured.
Paul I noticed that the amp sounded a little darker with the Tonex, even before the capture process. Does Tonex darkens the sound even turned off? It almost sounded like needed a buffer.
The QC sounded a bit better to my ears, but I think you would be hard pressed to tell the difference in a band mix. I’m sure the differences were more pronounced to you live. Thanks Paul for the comparison.
I’m slightly leaning towards the QC being slightly closer, but both sound great, and the ToneX is 1/4th the price. Also, the ToneX capture is optimized for use with Nvidia cards. It’s much slower on computers that do not have an Nvidia card.
Keep in mind the refine process depends on an an NVidia video card and it "cuda" cores. With the proper video card the processing time is dramatically reduced. I am able to do an advanced refine in about 10 minutes.
Hi Paul. I have both and prefer the mid hi clarity in your QC capture, but I have learned how easy it is to EQ something in. I’m sure I could get that shimmer on the Tonex with some knob twisting…lol Cheers!!!! Dave
Hi paul thanks for that, but I think it would be great to hear your honest opinion, only those affiliated with the brand would take offense.. I’d wanna know the feel of both how they compare, sag, natural compression, in comparison to the real amp I’ve notice on my quad cortex capturing my vintage amps that the tonality is there of the amp but there’s a lot missing from the original once I do a fresh ears check up. Thanks paul
I am a ToneX user but must admit the QC had more clarity. Big price difference to get that clarity mind you. I had to put on headphones to really get a taste of the difference but it does appear the QC has the edge. Is this capture available in any of your ToneX capture packs Paul?
I own neither pedal. The Tonex sounded better to me, however, in both cases, the actual amp sounded better. I'm curious if @The Studio Rats can comment on FEEL? Does either pedal feel the same as playing that amazing amp?
It sounds like the amp was set differently for each example? When the real amp is played, it sounds darker when the Tone x was being used, not sure if that was the case but both sounded great
You need to tell us which was closest at the end as both sounded identical at the start and we had no reference at the end. I would’ve gone with the tonex and turned the treble up slightly to get the tone I’m after.
You should have also let us listen to the original amp in the crunch version, even if the quad seems richer and brighter and with a slight increase in volume, we don't have to evaluate which of the 2 sounds we like more, on the contrary we have to evaluate which of the 2 profilers is more faithful to the original.
The quad Cortex sounds quite harsh to me, i don't like it, i prefer the darker and warmer tone of the tonex. So for the price difference, the tonex is an absolute winner to me. Profile game is now accessible to a lot more people. That said, what a great amp you have. I just buy your Matcheless profiles that are absolutely fantastic ! Cheers from France.
I closed my eyes in the beginning and could not tell them apart, they was a big difference in the examples in the video especially the more gain was used. I thought the tonex was a closer capture to the amp. For the clean too edge of breakup they were about even to me, maybe I preferred the tonex but with the higher gain the differences were so vast for me it would depend on context. The tonex was darker and deep in a warm way I guess but to me there was more definition in the quad cortex one. I don’t own either but could only afford the tonex so there might be some unconscious bias there😊
it sounded like the amp was dialed in differently or the mic changed position between the two captures. If you compare the amp sounds in both AB comparisons, it sounds different.
I have a Quad Cortex. I love it. I bought a Tonex last Sunday. The Tonex sounds good, but it's like using a computer from 1990 compared to an iPhone. The Tonex requires far, far, far, too much effort to get the same level of sound quality that I get in a couple mins on the Quad Cortex. I took the Tonex back to the store tonight (3 days later). The Tonex is just too complicated to be useful on a regular basis. Every other modeler company (except maybe Axe FX) got the UI right. If Tonex can fix their UI then it will be golden.
Why didn't you include the OD with the amp? Surely the measure of which is best is which one sounds like the amp? But only including the OD with the modellers you just have 2 modellers that sound different...
There is something strange about this test. The Quad Cortex and the real amp sound the same but brighter than the Tonex and the real amp, which also sound the same but darker than the previous setup. So which one is closer to the original?
I have the Tonex but never got to use it as I have FM3 & Helix too. With its limited 50 presets & just the basic effects, I feel it’s not as handy as the other 2 I mentioned.
for gain preferred the quad cortex, but eq prob would sort that, one thing, in the image of the quad cortex you display on screen, the chain looks quite complicated, certainly not just an amp and cab, be interested to know if that was the chain used, and how the chains in the two devices compared
I think we are missing the original driven amp sound to make a judgement. The purpose of this test should be which is closest to the original, but we can not tell. As a Kemper owner if the Kemper would sound that different you would hear a lot of complaints. Maybe the tester is payed by both companies.
When you added the drive pedal... Was that an actual pedal or a digital capture as well? Would love to know your thoughts on how the dynamics feel when you digitally recreate a boosted 'break up' tone. I'm sure you can get close to the sound of a TS808 into a valve amp, but does it feel the same? The ability to change your tone with pick attack is such a weapon...
You could always stick with speakers. I have two Marshall half stacks, four 2 x 12 cabinets supporting eight amplifiers inside a 4‘ x 4‘ iso enclosure. I just tested the decibel levels and the Marshall does 92 decibels whereas the rest of the amplifiers do 87. To me that’s reasonable my neighbors never complain, but sometimes my wife does. Nobody wants to sit in that room for long but where I am playing I can’t even hear them. This is nice because I can properly set the EQ. I just added a panel to reduce cross talk between the eight microphones. And it’s a midi guitar rig one button patch changes. All of this because I really wanted to capture the cabinet resonance. In order to do that you have to be somewhat loud. But you play very nice. I’m sure your neighbors would love you. I really enjoy everything you play here. The side benefit is you get to record the actual speakers, such as greenback vintage 30 etc. I have four different styles of green back pairs in the Marshall cabs, vintage 30 in a mesa 2x cabinet, Alnico blue pair, Redback, and eminence speakers in a pine cabinet for a real fender sound. All phase aligned because sometimes you take a capture of all the microphones. With your variety of guitars and amplifiers, you should be able to record every tone you could imagine. One day all of this technology will catch up but so far… I’m waiting.
I'm wondering if we are hearing slight differences in impedance between the captures. Capturing requires going through additional hardware, and impedance I/O can introduce slight changes to frequency response. Another point about UA-cam - I don't think it's the ideal medium - ie how does it sound/feel in real life. I say this after some UA-cam review/purchases that didn't quite live up to what UA-cam lead me to expect.
I have a Tonex One on order. Otherwise i have never played either. I preffered the sound of the QC on overdriven tones, it seemed brighter and more defined. On the cleans however, i found both nearly identical.
I don't own either (Line6 Helix user here!). The QC sounded airy to me with the Tonex more focused sounding. Both sounded good although I liked the cleans on the QC but overdriven on the Tonex.
I own a QC and have done for some time now. I often find that most captures with mics or DI box sound like they have less gain than the real amp. Tonex sounds great considering the price difference!
the quad cortex is brighter because for some reason the amp was bright ( listen @2:13 the orginal sound of the amp) ..now listen to the same amp that the tonex try to profile @4:35 : the sound is way darker ...so i think the mic position was not the same during capture, because orginal amp doesn't sound the same .. and that's why at the end QC and tonex doesn't sound the same as tonex (and why they sound close to the amp they each profiled)
I own both, the QC has definite higher end sound but the Tone X has more low end structure. Both are excellent! So now if you have both then you run both off same guitar and all your woes are taken care of!
i thought the qc had a brighter sound but i didnt think the actual amp was as bright. i think the tonex was closer to the actual amp but that doesnt necessarily mean it was better. i like brighter amps myself so for me the qc would be perfect for me. but if accuracy is the benchmark id hand it to tonex
Both sound great. But Tonex has the advantage in my view because you can get the Tonex One pedal for $179 and download captures for it wherher you made them or someone else did. Does Neural DSP have a comparable pedal? I haven’t seen it. So for a newcomer who has only a few hundred to spend I’d suggest the Tonex.
Listened to this a few times. What I’m hearing is that your amp sounds different with each device before you capture it. The Tonex sounds warmer than the QC before the capture. Both are capturing their respective amps very closely. I have the Tonex, spent lots of time learning how to capture accurately, setting levels etc to get the best captures. What I would say is that Tonex isn’t as simple as it appears, there’s quite a big learning curve. Also it is very dependent on your computer to make it a practical option. I needed to upgrade my old PC to make ToneX workable ( was due an upgrade anyway) .
Interesting comparison. Neither of the captures were 100% for me listening over YT. The ToneX seemed closer, although a little mid focused. I've always found the Quad to be a little sterile. Not as bad as the Kemper, but close. Neither of these sound as good as the Two Notes Opus for quality, dynamics and feel. Please do a video on it and compare it with other modelers.
If I were to spend the money, it would be the quad cortex, maybe one day. I like the capabilities and price of the tonex one and I could be quite happy with it and a capture of my badcat amp.
The real amp sounds a lot different when you A/B it between the quad cortex and the tonex.The real amp sounded much darker when you compared it to the tonex. Did you have the same settings on the amp or was it something else that made it sound different, or just the difference in software and interfaces?
I have a quad cortex and sticking with it . I got it at launch and they delivered the desktop 🖥️ control which is great! Now we are getting plugin support and then I am sure we are getting a quad cortex pedal - 1X haha where we can copy captures in so it will be even playing field . Just depends which one you like more and prefer
Always enjoy your videos……what about the differences in level required for each units capture? How do you compensate for that when playing the captures? Cheers Wiz
I preffered the sound of the QC, disappointingly considering the price difference. The Tonex had a mid frequency hump that sounded like it was played through a 1x12 cab. The QC was clearer with a wider freq response. I'm a Headrush Gigboard user.
QC definitely had a little more chime. I’m sure you could eq then Tonex to get into the same territory. The QC mimicked the amp slightly better imo. Post tweaking could pull a great tone from either. I’m satisfied that my Kemper does what I need without the need to change. Either of these platforms plus either a helix or a fractal would get you there too. How good to be a guitar player!!
They are VERY different. But those were NOT the same capture. When you reference the Amp against the QC and the Amp against the Tonex, both amps sound VERY different. Hear this: 02:45 - Amp for the QC profile 04:35 - Amp for the Tonex profile QC was much more open. I don't know if these were difference on the signal chain, or differences on the amp settings. But this was like compating 2 different captures.
@@TheStudioRats Tonex imparts an eq even when referencing the amp? Because do you agree that the differences we hear on both captures are the same differences we hear on the refferences on the two time stamps I've posted?
@@TheStudioRats Mr. Rat? Do you know if that's the case? Tonex imparts an eq even when referencing the amp like at 04:35 ? I'm asking because it'll help me investigate more about these differences. May be an impedance matter, or something else.
@@TheStudioRats It's weird, because both QC and Tonex are capturing almost exactly what they are listening. The thing is that they are listening to different things. It's weird, because they should be transparent. It's not about the quality of the capture. Very weird.
The QC is "fuller" sounding, just sounds bigger and more organic... but is it worth $1200 USD more than the ToneX? Not if amp captures are all you're after because the ToneX is truly almost as good (to my ears). If you want an all in one solution then the QC is best, but for just captures, get the ToneX. (I own both a QC and ToneX if that matters at all). Excellent video as always.
Quad cortex owner here…the tonex seems like it’s more responsive to dynamics. Is that true? I feel like the quad and kemper remove a lot of the dynamics that a real amp doesn’t.
Man, in side by side, or drive mode, you need to put the original sound of the amp, for reference ... We can hear the difference between two modelers .. but we dont know wath is the sound of the original .. 🤔 but, very good video for comparision
The amplifier sound is also different in the two cases. The main difference is that there is a different preamp and converter in the audio interface and the qc and this colours the sound. The qc sounds raw the tonex sounds pleasant. The amp sound is richer than the captures.
Gram jeszcze na Kemper. Planuje przejść na QC ze względu na możliwości grania na dwóch wzmacniaczach jednocześnie. Brzmią oba bardzo dobrze. QC zabrzmiał trochę jaśniej.
I couldn’t say there was a clear winner. On some sounds the Tone X was far better but on others the Quad Cortex was superior. I don’t own either pedal but I will be getting the Tone X One soon.
With how different the overdrive captures sound, why didn't you include the overdrive sounds from the amp as well? That would make it obvious which one models the actual amp better. It seems like maybe you're trying to avoid hurting the sales of your captures, or the sales of companies that sponsor your reviews.
You would never be able the difference between either capture or the real amp in a studio mix let alone live at a gig. I own (will continue to use) a Helix LT but plan on getting a TONEX ONE once they start shipping to have as a backup, or tiny live/direct rig, or for practice, or just to have the option of amps that aren't currently part of the Helix family.
Great Vid. I’m not a fan of any modelers I’ve had them all, that being said, I thought during the process both of them sounded very, very close but back to back the QC and the Tonex, there’s quite a difference. The QC definitely had more sparkle, and the ToneX sounded a little more mid heavy in the back-to-back comparison. To the end user, which one feels more like a tube amp is the big question.
Clean crunch sounds was equal, more distorted and with the pedal the ToneX is more "muffled/dark" and not to my liking... but the little lead riff the Quad sound thin. For bias, I really want to like ToneX and buy the ToneX One, but not so sure anymore... thank you ! (I was nearly convinced I had to have ToneX to supplement my GT-1000 Core, because everyone on the GT forum said so... ;)
What graphics card do you use? It seems counter intuitive, but modern NVidia graphics cards make the Tonex captures FAR faster. Otherwise, yes they are slow.
@@TheStudioRats That might be the problem, as I believe Macs use AMD. Might be worth looking into if you know someone with a PC that has a modern NVidia card just to try it out.
I think the Quad Cortex sounds like a better recreation than the Tone - X. The Tone - X reminds me of the sound of a PODxt. I don't have either or any simulation rigs, only tube amps, but I would now want to buy a Quad Cortex.
Both sounded great. I have a QC and I love it. But, what the ToneX does for its price is fantastic and the new ToneX mini pedal must be a game changer with its functionality and price point. That will push all modelling companies to up their game. We all win.
Thanks Paul
People are saying the TONEX is darker, yes it was, but that's how the amp sounded.... the QC brightened the capture.
Exactly. To my ears the ToneX is more faithful.
our quads do that on every capture tbh
What I find odd is that the "reference" tones (meaning real amp) sounded different with both units.
Check the timestamps and you can clearly hear that the difference. I wonder why would that be?
2:12 - Real amp (quad)
4:35 - Real amp (tonex)
Without hearing the original amp in the overdrive setting as well its a little bit senseless because maybe the real amp sounded a bit darker as well but thanks for taking the time 😂
highly agree. we just have no way to hear which is accurate. QC has MUCH more high end/fidelity, but is that not in the real amp or is it? pointless.
Ok, so… I have really good headphones and don’t own either of these units. What I got from it was the ToneX sounded extremely close for the clean tone… bright and stringy where, the QC lost something in the highs. The QC sound very close with the gain tone and also took the OD pedal better than the ToneX but, really… in a full mix or live, it would be next to impossible to tell which is which. Personally, I wouldn’t mind owning both.
Great post as usual, Mr. Drew. We appreciate your time and talent. Be well.
just curious...what are your "really good" headphones? I'm looking to upgrade myself.
That was an strange test... At the start, both captures sounded really close to the amp, but when compared between them, they both sounded clearly different!
I was thinking the same thing. I missed having the reference amp in the last comparison too. An ABX sort of test would have been nice.
I was about to write the same comment. They sound completely different to me. Like some kind of Presence button was touch by mistake on the ToneX.
Audio memory.
I also thought the same. I am a little bit lost now. Paul should do a version 2 of this comparison.
If you listen closely to the real amp in the capture review stages, you’ll hear that the actual amp sounds much darker in the Tonex review. So there’s likely something in the capture setup (either one or both) that’s affecting the tone of the real amp. There’s no way to know which one is truer to the original without hearing the amp-cab-mic straight into a daw without the capture setup.
The Tonex capture process takes much less time if you use a notebook or PC with a dedicated NVIDIA Graphics Processing Unit, also a relatively cheap one, e.g. a gtx 1650.
Capturing is overrated. The average person has one amp what the hell are you going to capture your one amp and 4 pedals.
@@BkBk-gy6vr that's a pretty L take. You speak as if you have never used any form of modelling, nor do you ever play live.
Who cares if they have only 1 amp? Surely they have other people in their circle that have amps of their own that they'd love to capture.
@@lordbanhmi3389 I prefer NEITHER!
@@BkBk-gy6vr What is your band's name?
Thank you! But why did you only compare the two captures side by side without the real amp. This would have interested me the most especially as the two captures behave differently with clean and gain. So now I don’t know which is closer to the real thing.
Thanks Paul! I own both pedals. I don’t think you can go wrong with either pedal. They both sound different but great in their way! There may be a little more clarity in the Tonex, but I love both!!
Great comparison - thanks for vid! Your results reflect the difference i've been hearing between both consistently very well.
Glad it was helpful!
I own neither, so no big bias one way or the other here. I thought both captures sounded good and that both were very useable, but I thought the QC sounded fuller and more like the amp overall.
Great video !!!
Cheers Ben.
I'd be very happy with either, but I did prefer the Tonex
On the more overdriven tests, I felt the QC sounded closest to the amp. The TONEX sounded a bit darker with not as much clarity. That’s easily fixable with a touch of EQ, though. The clean play through’s at the beginning, though, you couldn’t tell a difference. I have two different boards that I play through consistently on a weekly basis. One with the TONEX as my “amp” and my other board runs with a Quad Cortex. They are both absolutely incredible pieces of gear and I don’t plan on going back to anything else besides using those two as the heart of my main live rig boards. Awesome demo, Paul!!! BTW-your capture packs are killer, brother!!!
CHEERS Andrew.
The test would be more helpful for me if we could hear the same riff on the amp, the QC, and the ToneX one after another. Leaving the amp out for the dirty stuff doesn't really show how accurate the capture is. I do hear some high end in the QC that I find missing in a lot of digitial devices compared to a real amp. I may have to try a Quad Cortex.
I didn’t know anything about either of them and had no idea of their cost. To me to Tone X sounded better especially with the overdrive pedal added at the end. Surprised to see how much cheaper it was 😮
The ToneX does sound pretty dark on the humbucker. You mentioned, you captured your amp including a mic'd cabinet. Have you accidentally added some Cab/IR to the ToneX preset?
The routing options, form factor, sound and ease of use, no need for a PC etc, make the QC the clear winner in the modelling world for me, at least at the moment. I have been a valve amp guy for over forty years and, of course, know the difference. Mainly play CCM these day so the QC is perfect for the semi silent stages I mostly play on now. Do I miss the days of playing festivals on pretty loud stages and massive PA systems, with my jeans almost feeling the push from my Dual Rectifier Trem-O-Verb, or other amps I was using at the time. Of course, but I love my QC. Seriously thinking about a Tonex One as a great sounding backup though. My Cornford Carrera for home use is getting less and less of an airing these days!!
Did my first Tonex capture - Klon KTR Pedal. Damn, it sounds identical (other than a touch of EQ). Very impressed … just wish the Tonex had FX. Now I have to figure out how to capture the correct gain structure as the real pedal has more gain available (sweep) than the capture (assuming I need to capture the pedal at a bunch of different settings?)
Yes, the clone capture in ToneX is very good
I am a Tonex owner. The QC sounded a bit brighter to me and I prefered that. Both had a great sound and you could dial them in to sound more or less the same.
Can EQ...
Hey Paul! Thanks for the test. I noticed that the control at 2:13 (QC) and 4:36 (ToneX) sound pretty different. Did you say there were no changes to the mic or amp settings? I wonder what accounts for the tone difference?
Yes me too, the amp had not been adjusted, I’m guessing the difference is either the tonex software is imparting some sort of tone difference even when you play through the capture part.
@@TheStudioRatsInteresting! Thanks for weighing in. Is it possible there was a sample-rate mismatch? Or maybe an add’l cab IR got baked into the ToneX Capture?
@@TheStudioRatsI heard it too…
@@TheStudioRatsThe main difference is that there is a different preamp and converter in the audio interface and the qc and this colours the sound. The qc sounds raw the tonex sounds pleasant. The amp sound is richer than the captures.
Yes, the amp sounds different in each instance, and the 2 captures are each very accurate to those 2 amp sounds. Unfortunately without knowing why the amp sounds different in each case, you can't really draw any valid conclusions about the devices!
The Tone-X sounds warmer and more organic. The Quad sounds a bit sterile with a digital sheen in the high-end. I don’t own either product.
I agree
Nah..I sold my Tonex, and kept my Neural.Tonex is dark and muddy more work to make it nice.Neural plug and ready. 10 out of 10 FOH and recording engineers prefer Neural.
You pay for what you pay
Talk about buzzwords. "Digital sheen" what does that even mean lmfao
@@MarcMarc-c8sI own a tonex and i don't find it muddy at all, every sound engineer so far has loved it, I really don't see an issue.
The stock captures that come in the tonex are bad, that's what tonet is for.
You are not paying for better quality as you will find some null tests disprove that entirely. You're paying for the universal audio badge, don't get it twisted.
@@spawn302digital sheen, lack of balls, weak sound, spiky, inorganic.
Call it whatever you want, even the plugins by UA have the same problem, they need a ton of work to feel right to the player and to fit in the mix.
I played the whole summer with my tonex and I didn't feel any of the above mentioned "buzzwords" at all while I was playing, it felt like I was playing an amp. Can't say the same for the neural dsp stuff I have used in my studio over the years.
Yes there are tons of people getting good tones from the neural dsp stuff but you should watch a mix breakdown on how they got that tone to begin with and there is a lot of work, like a LOT of work that gets done out of the plugin to achieve that tone.
Also not knowing what digital sheen means shows a lack of experience and understanding on your part moreso than his. Lmao
They both are good. If you already have a good amount of pedals you like the ToneX is just an easy choice. Great comparison here. Love that amp you captured.
Paul I noticed that the amp sounded a little darker with the Tonex, even before the capture process. Does Tonex darkens the sound even turned off?
It almost sounded like needed a buffer.
Yes I agree that is how it sounded.
The QC sounded a bit better to my ears, but I think you would be hard pressed to tell the difference in a band mix. I’m sure the differences were more pronounced to you live. Thanks Paul for the comparison.
I’m slightly leaning towards the QC being slightly closer, but both sound great, and the ToneX is 1/4th the price. Also, the ToneX capture is optimized for use with Nvidia cards. It’s much slower on computers that do not have an Nvidia card.
Keep in mind the refine process depends on an an NVidia video card and it "cuda" cores. With the proper video card the processing time is dramatically reduced. I am able to do an advanced refine in about 10 minutes.
Hi Paul. I have both and prefer the mid hi clarity in your QC capture, but I have learned how easy it is to EQ something in. I’m sure I could get that shimmer on the Tonex with some knob twisting…lol
Cheers!!!!
Dave
Thanks for sharing!
Hi paul thanks for that, but I think it would be great to hear your honest opinion, only those affiliated with the brand would take offense..
I’d wanna know the feel of both how they compare, sag, natural compression, in comparison to the real amp
I’ve notice on my quad cortex capturing my vintage amps that the tonality is there of the amp but there’s a lot missing from the original once I do a fresh ears check up.
Thanks paul
I am a ToneX user but must admit the QC had more clarity. Big price difference to get that clarity mind you. I had to put on headphones to really get a taste of the difference but it does appear the QC has the edge. Is this capture available in any of your ToneX capture packs Paul?
I own neither pedal. The Tonex sounded better to me, however, in both cases, the actual amp sounded better. I'm curious if @The Studio Rats can comment on FEEL? Does either pedal feel the same as playing that amazing amp?
It sounds like the amp was set differently for each example? When the real amp is played, it sounds darker when the Tone x was being used, not sure if that was the case but both sounded great
You need to tell us which was closest at the end as both sounded identical at the start and we had no reference at the end.
I would’ve gone with the tonex and turned the treble up slightly to get the tone I’m after.
You should have also let us listen to the original amp in the crunch version, even if the quad seems richer and brighter and with a slight increase in volume, we don't have to evaluate which of the 2 sounds we like more, on the contrary we have to evaluate which of the 2 profilers is more faithful to the original.
both do very good work but i think QC is closer and better... as always good video Paul.
Cheers Max.
The quad Cortex sounds quite harsh to me, i don't like it, i prefer the darker and warmer tone of the tonex. So for the price difference, the tonex is an absolute winner to me. Profile game is now accessible to a lot more people. That said, what a great amp you have. I just buy your Matcheless profiles that are absolutely fantastic ! Cheers from France.
I closed my eyes in the beginning and could not tell them apart, they was a big difference in the examples in the video especially the more gain was used. I thought the tonex was a closer capture to the amp. For the clean too edge of breakup they were about even to me, maybe I preferred the tonex but with the higher gain the differences were so vast for me it would depend on context. The tonex was darker and deep in a warm way I guess but to me there was more definition in the quad cortex one. I don’t own either but could only afford the tonex so there might be some unconscious bias there😊
it sounded like the amp was dialed in differently or the mic changed position between the two captures. If you compare the amp sounds in both AB comparisons, it sounds different.
Did tonex have its post fx/eq enabled after the capture? The sound changed radically from the tone review to the comparison video
I have a Quad Cortex. I love it. I bought a Tonex last Sunday. The Tonex sounds good, but it's like using a computer from 1990 compared to an iPhone. The Tonex requires far, far, far, too much effort to get the same level of sound quality that I get in a couple mins on the Quad Cortex. I took the Tonex back to the store tonight (3 days later). The Tonex is just too complicated to be useful on a regular basis. Every other modeler company (except maybe Axe FX) got the UI right. If Tonex can fix their UI then it will be golden.
Well i liked the QC for the crunchy tones and the Tonex for the cleaner.....Would a little EQ help get them closer?
That is exactly my preference
Why didn't you include the OD with the amp? Surely the measure of which is best is which one sounds like the amp? But only including the OD with the modellers you just have 2 modellers that sound different...
I will say.. this model is thee best tone ive heard out of a modeler. I downloaded it and cant get enough on the tonex…. I wanna buy the packs soon!
There is something strange about this test. The Quad Cortex and the real amp sound the same but brighter than the Tonex and the real amp, which also sound the same but darker than the previous setup. So which one is closer to the original?
It doesn’t matter which sounded “better”; which sounded closer to the amp?
I'd like to hear the mic'ed amp in the mix for comparison. Maybe one sounds more like it? Maybe neither sounds like it?
They're both really, really good. I like the Tonex more.. just slightly. What feels more like playing through a real amp?
Everybody has the same doubt... is the amp dark as the Tonex or bright as the QC?
I have the Tonex but never got to use it as I have FM3 & Helix too. With its limited 50 presets & just the basic effects, I feel it’s not as handy as the other 2 I mentioned.
for gain preferred the quad cortex, but eq prob would sort that, one thing, in the image of the quad cortex you display on screen, the chain looks quite complicated, certainly not just an amp and cab, be interested to know if that was the chain used, and how the chains in the two devices compared
I think we are missing the original driven amp sound to make a judgement. The purpose of this test should be which is closest to the original, but we can not tell. As a Kemper owner if the Kemper would sound that different you would hear a lot of complaints. Maybe the tester is payed by both companies.
the comparison of the Quad Cortex against the actual source amp takes place after the first 2 minutes of the video...
@@HeirApparent The person you replied to, was refering to the driven amp sound, not the clean tones.
When you added the drive pedal... Was that an actual pedal or a digital capture as well? Would love to know your thoughts on how the dynamics feel when you digitally recreate a boosted 'break up' tone. I'm sure you can get close to the sound of a TS808 into a valve amp, but does it feel the same? The ability to change your tone with pick attack is such a weapon...
It was a real drive pedal, the feel is surprisingly similar in both units.
You could always stick with speakers. I have two Marshall half stacks, four 2 x 12 cabinets supporting eight amplifiers inside a 4‘ x 4‘ iso enclosure. I just tested the decibel levels and the Marshall does 92 decibels whereas the rest of the amplifiers do 87. To me that’s reasonable my neighbors never complain, but sometimes my wife does. Nobody wants to sit in that room for long but where I am playing I can’t even hear them. This is nice because I can properly set the EQ. I just added a panel to reduce cross talk between the eight microphones. And it’s a midi guitar rig one button patch changes. All of this because I really wanted to capture the cabinet resonance. In order to do that you have to be somewhat loud. But you play very nice. I’m sure your neighbors would love you. I really enjoy everything you play here. The side benefit is you get to record the actual speakers, such as greenback vintage 30 etc. I have four different styles of green back pairs in the Marshall cabs, vintage 30 in a mesa 2x cabinet, Alnico blue pair, Redback, and eminence speakers in a pine cabinet for a real fender sound. All phase aligned because sometimes you take a capture of all the microphones. With your variety of guitars and amplifiers, you should be able to record every tone you could imagine. One day all of this technology will catch up but so far… I’m waiting.
I'm wondering if we are hearing slight differences in impedance between the captures. Capturing requires going through additional hardware, and impedance I/O can introduce slight changes to frequency response. Another point about UA-cam - I don't think it's the ideal medium - ie how does it sound/feel in real life. I say this after some UA-cam review/purchases that didn't quite live up to what UA-cam lead me to expect.
Interested to know what pick-ups you have in that guitar Paul.
Will you put the captures up on Cortex cloud? They sound killer!
I have a Tonex One on order. Otherwise i have never played either. I preffered the sound of the QC on overdriven tones, it seemed brighter and more defined. On the cleans however, i found both nearly identical.
Exactly my take too.
I don't own either (Line6 Helix user here!). The QC sounded airy to me with the Tonex more focused sounding. Both sounded good although I liked the cleans on the QC but overdriven on the Tonex.
I own a QC and have done for some time now. I often find that most captures with mics or DI box sound like they have less gain than the real amp. Tonex sounds great considering the price difference!
What about the 'feel' though? Which one feels most faithful to the tube amp itself?
the quad cortex is brighter because for some reason the amp was bright ( listen @2:13 the orginal sound of the amp) ..now listen to the same amp that the tonex try to profile @4:35 : the sound is way darker ...so i think the mic position was not the same during capture, because orginal amp doesn't sound the same .. and that's why at the end QC and tonex doesn't sound the same as tonex (and why they sound close to the amp they each profiled)
I own both, the QC has definite higher end sound but the Tone X has more low end structure. Both are excellent! So now if you have both then you run both off same guitar and all your woes are taken care of!
i thought the qc had a brighter sound but i didnt think the actual amp was as bright. i think the tonex was closer to the actual amp but that doesnt necessarily mean it was better. i like brighter amps myself so for me the qc would be perfect for me. but if accuracy is the benchmark id hand it to tonex
Both sound great. But Tonex has the advantage in my view because you can get the Tonex One pedal for $179 and download captures for it wherher you made them or someone else did. Does Neural DSP have a comparable pedal? I haven’t seen it. So for a newcomer who has only a few hundred to spend I’d suggest the Tonex.
Listened to this a few times.
What I’m hearing is that your amp sounds different with each device before you capture it.
The Tonex sounds warmer than the QC before the capture.
Both are capturing their respective amps very closely.
I have the Tonex, spent lots of time learning how to capture accurately, setting levels etc to get the best captures. What I would say is that Tonex isn’t as simple as it appears, there’s quite a big learning curve. Also it is very dependent on your computer to make it a practical option. I needed to upgrade my old PC to make ToneX workable ( was due an upgrade anyway) .
Timely, exactly the video I needed as I'm about to buy. Thank you!
You should watch his Boss IR2 video before you decide :)
I did, and my pedalboard now includes the Line 6 HX one, Boss IR-2 and a DI box
@@_avia_I’ve got a board like that too!
@@LA.Guitar Sweet! I forgot to mention mine also includes a 2 buttons FW connected to the HX one....expanding its abilities.
Glad I could help!
Interesting comparison. Neither of the captures were 100% for me listening over YT. The ToneX seemed closer, although a little mid focused. I've always found the Quad to be a little sterile. Not as bad as the Kemper, but close. Neither of these sound as good as the Two Notes Opus for quality, dynamics and feel. Please do a video on it and compare it with other modelers.
If I were to spend the money, it would be the quad cortex, maybe one day. I like the capabilities and price of the tonex one and I could be quite happy with it and a capture of my badcat amp.
The real amp sounds a lot different when you A/B it between the quad cortex and the tonex.The real amp sounded much darker when you compared it to the tonex. Did you have the same settings on the amp or was it something else that made it sound different, or just the difference in software and interfaces?
I have a quad cortex and sticking with it . I got it at launch and they delivered the desktop 🖥️ control which is great! Now we are getting plugin support and then I am sure we are getting a quad cortex pedal - 1X haha where we can copy captures in so it will be even playing field . Just depends which one you like more and prefer
Where did you hear about cortex pedal? Did neural write about it somewhere?
@@rosthariton7930 tea 🍵 leaves 🍃 just reading them
Always enjoy your videos……what about the differences in level required for each units capture? How do you compensate for that when playing the captures? Cheers Wiz
I preffered the sound of the QC, disappointingly considering the price difference. The Tonex had a mid frequency hump that sounded like it was played through a 1x12 cab. The QC was clearer with a wider freq response. I'm a Headrush Gigboard user.
What’s the song right at the start? You play it all the time and it gets stuck in my head every time
QC definitely had a little more chime. I’m sure you could eq then Tonex to get into the same territory. The QC mimicked the amp slightly better imo.
Post tweaking could pull a great tone from either.
I’m satisfied that my Kemper does what I need without the need to change.
Either of these platforms plus either a helix or a fractal would get you there too.
How good to be a guitar player!!
But does the tonex have mike placement like the quad cortex so you can make different tabs on the software on your computer
Hello! Thanks for video! What do you think about sound rnr ex preamp? Is it close to rectifier and twin sound?
They are VERY different. But those were NOT the same capture. When you reference the Amp against the QC and the Amp against the Tonex, both amps sound VERY different. Hear this:
02:45 - Amp for the QC profile
04:35 - Amp for the Tonex profile
QC was much more open. I don't know if these were difference on the signal chain, or differences on the amp settings. But this was like compating 2 different captures.
Same amp same settings , Tonex imparts an eq in the software it seems
@@TheStudioRats Tonex imparts an eq even when referencing the amp? Because do you agree that the differences we hear on both captures are the same differences we hear on the refferences on the two time stamps I've posted?
@@TheStudioRats Mr. Rat? Do you know if that's the case? Tonex imparts an eq even when referencing the amp like at 04:35 ?
I'm asking because it'll help me investigate more about these differences. May be an impedance matter, or something else.
@@gffg387 I don’t know for sure but it’s sounds different plugged into the QC
@@TheStudioRats It's weird, because both QC and Tonex are capturing almost exactly what they are listening. The thing is that they are listening to different things.
It's weird, because they should be transparent. It's not about the quality of the capture. Very weird.
Can you say that Mooer Preamp Live is too far away? Just wonder
Something was not the same in the two captures, you can hear the real amp reference also sounds darker on the tonex
For me without any questions the winner is the ToneX !
The QC is "fuller" sounding, just sounds bigger and more organic... but is it worth $1200 USD more than the ToneX? Not if amp captures are all you're after because the ToneX is truly almost as good (to my ears). If you want an all in one solution then the QC is best, but for just captures, get the ToneX. (I own both a QC and ToneX if that matters at all). Excellent video as always.
Quad cortex owner here…the tonex seems like it’s more responsive to dynamics. Is that true?
I feel like the quad and kemper remove a lot of the dynamics that a real amp doesn’t.
Man, in side by side, or drive mode, you need to put the original sound of the amp, for reference ... We can hear the difference between two modelers .. but we dont know wath is the sound of the original .. 🤔 but, very good video for comparision
The amplifier sound is also different in the two cases. The main difference is that there is a different preamp and converter in the audio interface and the qc and this colours the sound. The qc sounds raw the tonex sounds pleasant. The amp sound is richer than the captures.
Really intuitive video Paul 👍🏻 great work. 🎸
Glad you liked it!
Which amplified nation capture pack would you suggest to buy from your site if I’m mainly after clean tones?
Try the WOD pack
@@TheStudioRats thanks! Just got it
Gram jeszcze na Kemper. Planuje przejść na QC ze względu na możliwości grania na dwóch wzmacniaczach jednocześnie. Brzmią oba bardzo dobrze. QC zabrzmiał trochę jaśniej.
I'd love to see a comparison of Quad Cortex vs Tonex vs NeuralAmpModeler
DID YOU UPLOAD THE CAPTURE TO TONENET?
what dbfs level for guitar input on your products by users?
All I can say is, I can afford the ToneX. Thanks for doing this one!
My pleasure!
I couldn’t say there was a clear winner. On some sounds the Tone X was far better but on others the Quad Cortex was superior. I don’t own either pedal but I will be getting the Tone X One soon.
Tonex definitely sounds noticeably darker, even on iPhone speakers.
With how different the overdrive captures sound, why didn't you include the overdrive sounds from the amp as well? That would make it obvious which one models the actual amp better. It seems like maybe you're trying to avoid hurting the sales of your captures, or the sales of companies that sponsor your reviews.
You would never be able the difference between either capture or the real amp in a studio mix let alone live at a gig. I own (will continue to use) a Helix LT but plan on getting a TONEX ONE once they start shipping to have as a backup, or tiny live/direct rig, or for practice, or just to have the option of amps that aren't currently part of the Helix family.
Yup
Great Vid. I’m not a fan of any modelers I’ve had them all, that being said, I thought during the process both of them sounded very, very close but back to back the QC and the Tonex, there’s quite a difference. The QC definitely had more sparkle, and the ToneX sounded a little more mid heavy in the back-to-back comparison. To the end user, which one feels more like a tube amp is the big question.
Does a capture clean up like the amp though with gat vol?
Think the Cortex sounded better.
Thanx for the video Paul.
Clean crunch sounds was equal, more distorted and with the pedal the ToneX is more "muffled/dark" and not to my liking... but the little lead riff the Quad sound thin.
For bias, I really want to like ToneX and buy the ToneX One, but not so sure anymore... thank you ! (I was nearly convinced I had to have ToneX to supplement my GT-1000 Core, because everyone on the GT forum said so... ;)
can you do tone x vs tone x one pedal that would be very interesting me thinks?
What graphics card do you use? It seems counter intuitive, but modern NVidia graphics cards make the Tonex captures FAR faster. Otherwise, yes they are slow.
I just use what ever is in my Mac Pro.
@@TheStudioRats That might be the problem, as I believe Macs use AMD. Might be worth looking into if you know someone with a PC that has a modern NVidia card just to try it out.
I think the Quad Cortex sounds like a better recreation than the Tone - X. The Tone - X reminds me of the sound of a PODxt. I don't have either or any simulation rigs, only tube amps, but I would now want to buy a Quad Cortex.