Could you capture your favorite tones out of the Anagram to the QC using capture v2 and then use just the QC?
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Neural DSP Quad Cortex Mini VS Darkglass Anagram
- Thread starter archisland
- Start date
From the CorOS 3.0 notes:
"Compared to V1, Neural Capture V2 offers greater dynamic accuracy and realism, especially with complex or highly touch-sensitive devices such as fuzzes, compressors, and responsive amplifiers. This makes it the most accurate solution on the market for capturing the dynamic cleanup behavior of a vintage fuzz, the natural bloom of a sagging power amp, and the fast transient response of a studio compressor. It also models controls like blend knobs with improved precision."
Would be worth giving it a test and seeing what you think.
"Compared to V1, Neural Capture V2 offers greater dynamic accuracy and realism, especially with complex or highly touch-sensitive devices such as fuzzes, compressors, and responsive amplifiers. This makes it the most accurate solution on the market for capturing the dynamic cleanup behavior of a vintage fuzz, the natural bloom of a sagging power amp, and the fast transient response of a studio compressor. It also models controls like blend knobs with improved precision."
Would be worth giving it a test and seeing what you think.
A few thoughts on the QCm from a happy Anagram user:
The footswitches arrangement (two in the front, two in the rear) is less convenient than the Anagram's 3-in-a-line arrangement, but does come with the obvious advantage of having four rather than just three. I generally dislike rear row switches, especially when they're the same height as the front row. My Judahs Kedem 4 MIDI controller that I use with my Anagram has this issue, and I relegate my least used functions to its rear footswitches, thus leave me with five footswitches across the front row that see 99% of the use while the rear two rarely get used. I can see why Neural placed them where they did to maximize screen real estate, but for me this is a major downside on gigs for the QCm as compared to Anagram. I'd rather have fewer well placed footswitches as opposed to more footswitches placed in a suboptimal way.
This is purely me being superstitious, but I've never looked at Neural's combination footswitch-pot controls and felt confident about repeatedly stepping on them. It feels like an obvious weak point or possible mechanical failure. That said, I've never heard one complaint about this from actual users, so clearly it's just me being superstitious, but I can't seem to get past that one.
The QCm has a dedicated synth block, whereas the Anagram does not yet have one, though it is rumored and with the NAMM marketplace announcement I suspect third party development of such a block is inevitable. A while back I was able to demo the Neural synth block and I was utterly disappointed by it. It was reasonably capable of dialing in Moog type sounds akin to what you can get by combining analog octave, fuzz and envelope filter sounds, but for dialing in the cleaner 80s Greg Philinganes type sounds everyone has been chasing since the release of the MXR Bass Synth it was completely lacking. To be more accurate, I could not personally get it to do a reliable version of that type of sound. This is a case where Neural is currently a known quantity, and that quantity happens to be not very good IMO, and Darkglass is an unknown. For me I'd rather gamble on the unknown actually being good as opposed to locking with a known quantity that I know I dislike.
The QCm is ever so slightly larger than the Anagram. I've spoken at length in the Anagram thread about my desire to only carry a Pedaltrain Nano to gigs so that I can use the same board locally, on road gigs, and on fly dates. I'm currently pairing Anagram with a Judahs Kedem 4 MIDI controller, both of which fit just about perfectly on a Nano board. I'd have to check to make sure that type of arrangement is still possible with the QCm's slightly larger dimensions. I suspect if it fits, it would JUST barely fit as there's already very little wiggle room with that setup. This is a very specific me concern, but it is something that makes me hesitate when considering trying QCm. I suppose I just need to hop on the pedalboard planner website to figure it out.
There's much talk about QCm sounding way better than Anagram. For my purposes I use very little in the way of amp and cab sounds on my Anagram, nor did I when I was an HX Stomp user, and I also would not be with a QCm. I'm also a pretty modest overdrive, octave and chorus user, with things like solo octave down, envelope filter, and synth tones bringing up the tail end of what I need on a gig. Both units have good octave sounds, good overdrive sounds, good chorus sounds, decent enough envelope filters (though admittedly I don't love what either offers in this regard), and the synths are as I described above. Based on that, for my needs the QCm is absolutely not drastically better than the Anagram in terms of sound quality. In fact, I would go as far as to say that for my use case the two are basically interchangeable.
Also, just to continue the ongoing narrative; The QC boot time is ridiculous. Anagram boots up in just a few seconds. Yes, there are things to do in the 53'ish second boot time for QC, but in 2026 that's a very odd limitation that would certainly qualify as a nitpick from me.
The footswitches arrangement (two in the front, two in the rear) is less convenient than the Anagram's 3-in-a-line arrangement, but does come with the obvious advantage of having four rather than just three. I generally dislike rear row switches, especially when they're the same height as the front row. My Judahs Kedem 4 MIDI controller that I use with my Anagram has this issue, and I relegate my least used functions to its rear footswitches, thus leave me with five footswitches across the front row that see 99% of the use while the rear two rarely get used. I can see why Neural placed them where they did to maximize screen real estate, but for me this is a major downside on gigs for the QCm as compared to Anagram. I'd rather have fewer well placed footswitches as opposed to more footswitches placed in a suboptimal way.
This is purely me being superstitious, but I've never looked at Neural's combination footswitch-pot controls and felt confident about repeatedly stepping on them. It feels like an obvious weak point or possible mechanical failure. That said, I've never heard one complaint about this from actual users, so clearly it's just me being superstitious, but I can't seem to get past that one.
The QCm has a dedicated synth block, whereas the Anagram does not yet have one, though it is rumored and with the NAMM marketplace announcement I suspect third party development of such a block is inevitable. A while back I was able to demo the Neural synth block and I was utterly disappointed by it. It was reasonably capable of dialing in Moog type sounds akin to what you can get by combining analog octave, fuzz and envelope filter sounds, but for dialing in the cleaner 80s Greg Philinganes type sounds everyone has been chasing since the release of the MXR Bass Synth it was completely lacking. To be more accurate, I could not personally get it to do a reliable version of that type of sound. This is a case where Neural is currently a known quantity, and that quantity happens to be not very good IMO, and Darkglass is an unknown. For me I'd rather gamble on the unknown actually being good as opposed to locking with a known quantity that I know I dislike.
The QCm is ever so slightly larger than the Anagram. I've spoken at length in the Anagram thread about my desire to only carry a Pedaltrain Nano to gigs so that I can use the same board locally, on road gigs, and on fly dates. I'm currently pairing Anagram with a Judahs Kedem 4 MIDI controller, both of which fit just about perfectly on a Nano board. I'd have to check to make sure that type of arrangement is still possible with the QCm's slightly larger dimensions. I suspect if it fits, it would JUST barely fit as there's already very little wiggle room with that setup. This is a very specific me concern, but it is something that makes me hesitate when considering trying QCm. I suppose I just need to hop on the pedalboard planner website to figure it out.
There's much talk about QCm sounding way better than Anagram. For my purposes I use very little in the way of amp and cab sounds on my Anagram, nor did I when I was an HX Stomp user, and I also would not be with a QCm. I'm also a pretty modest overdrive, octave and chorus user, with things like solo octave down, envelope filter, and synth tones bringing up the tail end of what I need on a gig. Both units have good octave sounds, good overdrive sounds, good chorus sounds, decent enough envelope filters (though admittedly I don't love what either offers in this regard), and the synths are as I described above. Based on that, for my needs the QCm is absolutely not drastically better than the Anagram in terms of sound quality. In fact, I would go as far as to say that for my use case the two are basically interchangeable.
Also, just to continue the ongoing narrative; The QC boot time is ridiculous. Anagram boots up in just a few seconds. Yes, there are things to do in the 53'ish second boot time for QC, but in 2026 that's a very odd limitation that would certainly qualify as a nitpick from me.
Last edited:
This is so helpful to me.
As I’ve said before one of the major draws for me is a few friends have QC, so that community, the app, the ability to share that between friends is really compelling.
But I have zero complaints from the anagram and it’s just getting better and better. In about a year I think my efforts will be best spent convincing said friends to move to the Anagram or just getting new friends whichever is more fruitful.
I’m inclined to agree that the two foot switches at the upper left and right corners of the QC are poorly placed. In my opinion they were it too much of a rush to release it. That layout definitely wasn’t completely thought out.
I have an Anagram and when I found out the QC mini was being released I was eager to see it.
Even though most reviews here single it out as being better, the two top switches are a deal breaker for me.
I have an Anagram and when I found out the QC mini was being released I was eager to see it.
Even though most reviews here single it out as being better, the two top switches are a deal breaker for me.
I’m not sure it was poorly thought out so much as not their primary focus and a willing compromise. I still think the QCm is geared mostly for those using it as an interface on their desk or stuffed in a rack. That being said it is a shame there isn’t more clearance.I’m inclined to agree that the two foot switches at the upper left and right corners of the QC are poorly placed. In my opinion they were it too much of a rush to release it. That layout definitely wasn’t completely thought out.
I have an Anagram and when I found out the QC mini was being released I was eager to see it.
Even though most reviews here single it out as being better, the two top switches are a deal breaker for me.
As someone who primarily is interested in captures, drives and amp sims etc the QCm is definitely the more compelling. I also prefer the UI from what I’ve seen of the anagram too. The capture ecosystem both in terms of tooling and availability of captures is (was last time I checked) significantly better on QC which is a huge selling point.
Both very cool units though.
As far as footswitches go, you could also reframe it. example: use just the C & D footswitches ( bottom row) on QCm, utilize paging, and with just those 2 footswitches you have 4 scenes which is 1 more than Anagram.
Although in reality you’d have 8 available.Both points sound like pluses to me for the QCm. Besides that, with 4 rows, built-in I/O and noise suppression, and splits/mixes not taking up blocks, you have FAR more options to grow a single preset into many scenes.
Don’t know how QCm would fit on your nano board but I was pleasantly surprised to find it fit on mine with only 1-2mm overhang.
Last edited:
While this is technically correct, it does not fit into my preferred workflow. I’ve never gelled with scene mode on my Anagram or my previous HX Stomp. In your exampe, if I, for instance, wanted to just add chorus for a quick section but wanted to keep my overdrive on I’d need to remember which scene had that particular combination and page up/down to it, and then do the opposite move to get back. I like stomp mode better where if I want something I add it and then remove it when not needed. This requires me to sometimes do a quick tap dance to enable or disable multiple blocks, but that’s a more acceptable compromise to me.utilize paging, and with just those 2 footswitches you have 4 scenes which is 1 more than Anagram.
I disagree, but that’s okay. Plenty of devices for everyone! Regarding the additional rows, and other additional computing power of the QCm; I already don’t max out my Anagram to achieve my desired tone goals. Adding more power above and beyond would be lost on me personally.
My OCD can’t handle overhang or muffin topping on pedalboards. Also, I checked and it would not fit along with my current MIDI controller without further overhang, thus adding another tick in the Anagram column for my use case.
Everyone’s workflow is different. For me, I would never consider stomp mode. I’m all scenes all the time. Live, it’s all midi.
I’m just glad I’m lucky enough I don’t have to make a choice. I have and love using both Anagram and QCm!
Also no fan of muffin-top boards, but really, 1-2mm is almost unnoticeable. Probably sounds like more for folks in the new world
I have been using the HX Stomp for five years and the Anagram for four months. A friend of mine has a full Quad Cortex and yesterday I spent some time with. I must say that, within 5 minutes I have a very useful and incredible sounding tone. And within another 5 minutes, I had the same tone with typical bass effects. I was really curious about the QC because everyone is saying that the sounds in the Anagram are bass tailored to sound good out of the box (which I agree) but I found out that with the QC is the same. Of course you can go really deep, but within 5 minutes I was ready to go and I could have played a gig with the preset I made in 10 minutes.
Being more guitar oriented might be a "no" for some people, but I think that it could mean a greater lifespan IMO. Let's be honest, we are a minority. I am really thinking about getting the QCm (even though I much prefer the form size of the Anagram)
Being more guitar oriented might be a "no" for some people, but I think that it could mean a greater lifespan IMO. Let's be honest, we are a minority. I am really thinking about getting the QCm (even though I much prefer the form size of the Anagram)
I just want to say a big thank you to all contributors in this thread. It's been very informative and helpful!
I couldn’t choose, so I didn’t choose.
Sold my Anagram. Keeping the QCm. Maybe someday I’ll come back to it but for now I need to fund 2 Dingwalls on order, and Parallax is my happy place.
Can V2 capture something like a Zvex Wooly Mammoth (gated fuzz with some “motion” for want of a better term)? I used to have a QC and was very disappointed with the original capture (so much that I sold it). I was running 2.0 or so for CorOS at the time - it completely sucked at capturing an EBS valve drive - spent days on this with multiple methods and no joy - granted, I am very particular. For specifics, the captures were so flat and sucked the life out of the pedal - I could get closer using an external EQ as part of the capture loop to fix eq differences, but could never fix the feel issue. Would have probably been ok in a live setting, but for recording no way.
Last edited:
You are quoting me so I am responding. I don’t have experience with capturing a wooly mammoth so I can’t speak to that. Sorry.
