Neural Quad Cortex

Quote from ColdFrixion

If the capture feature is shown to be more accurate than the Kemper, even to a marginal degree, then no, the QC won't need to match the Kemper feature for feature to be successful, partly because it'll have one major advantage; it can run multiple captures simultaneously. Further, it has features that most competitors already have that the Kemper doesn't.

We'll find out soon enough.

No. That is NOT true. Certainly not for me.

As of RIGHT NOW here is how it sits with me:

1. KPA has a MUCH bigger library of sounds
2. KPA has a rack version (my favorite form factor)
3. KPA has a more ergonomic foot controller
4. KPA has over 7 years of my own IP in it from countless gigs and practice sessions
5. KPA has a rock solid proven hardware reliability track record.

I currently don't use a single profile that I created.

There are PLENTY of Kemper users out there that gig. I guarantee that the lions share of them will not simply give up their KPA for QC even if QC wins decisively in the "capture" comparison.

Surely, you can understand that for live gigging, there is SO much more to the gig rig than just matching a specific tube amp exactly?

Quote from ColdFrixion

With the QC's full captures, the bigger issue for me is the inability to separate the amp and cab.

Um... easy, no?? Want just the preamp? Tap into the FX loop. Want just the amp head? Tap the speaker output with a DI, or use a loadbox. Want just the poweramp?? Route into the FX loop return, tap the speaker output with a DI or loadbox... capture that.

Use QC to mix and match up to 4 captures on one preset.

Quote from spikey

Not underestimating anything and love options, I'm just saying some may not need an older standard gearbox any longer with the release of a new automatic transmission, no matter how well both work (or don't) . The ability to capture an amp's tone with an SM-57 draped across the cabinet does not negate the great tones you can get thru a UA OX line out, in other words. And yes, both are adjustable before and after they are on the track.

That's a bit like buying an automatic car which only works at a certain speed ( albeit does a great job of maintaining that speed ) because the "manufacturer" likes it that way.

Quote from CelticGibson

I have MBritt profiles and I still made adjustments to make them fit better.

Yes, I've done the same thing, but "to me" that's not the same as starting from a scratch profile. That's why Mr. Britt (and others) sell many of them and I unfortunately do not.

I own a Kemper.

But man this forum is a bunch of guys that are arguing why their Kemper is better. How about you just go enjoy your Kemper.

Competition is good for everyone.

Carry on whining...

Quote from andreio23

That's a bit like buying an automatic car which only works at a certain speed

What if the "certain" speed was 0-300 mph, then? I know, we would all have lots of speeding tickets lol...

So if options are what rules us then, I must ask the question. Money aside, what's wrong with anyone owning a Kemper, Helix, and a Neural Quad Cortex?

Just caught up on many pages that have accumulated since my last visit, including posts of people talking about the mythical "Cocked Ness Monster."

I remember when I first heard Killer Queen on the radio, and from then on I always wondered if Brian May actually had a cocked wah in his signal chain since that's a part of his signature sound. This was back in the days when the overwhelming choice for guitars was Fender or Gibson. I knew his was custom made but never gave it much thought.

A year or two ago I happened to see a now gray haired Mr. May doing an interview (and as always, such a humble and classy guy for someone who's a legitimate rock star). He was standing in front of a stack of Voxes with just his hand made guitar plugged straight in, no effects, and telling stories of how he and his Dad built the guitar together. He played a few notes and I finally realized that the "cocked wah" tone thing is actually the guitar (perhaps the pickups). I'm sure most of you have known this for ages but I never did.

With that in mind, I was surprised by CK's statement that the guitar is not a factor in profiling. I never would have guessed that. So much for buying Brian a beer and convincing him to make me a profile.

I guess the moral to this story is that a cocked wah sound isn't necessarily a bad thing if it helps you sell millions of records.

Read that some didn't care a lot for the effects in the Quad. After listening to the Tom Quale video I beg to differ. Sounded pretty good to me.

What say you?

Quote from drew_fx

So I spent a chunk of today making a video to try to demonstrate the issue I run into time and time again with the Profiler. Link is here:

External Content youtu.be

Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.

Display all external content

Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

Video will be live shortly.

Rounder palmmutes . I think it may be feature

Quote from CelticGibson

And what happens when you run out of captures and none of them fit? The eq alone doesn't cover it. I am speaking from experience. The choice of guitar and your playback system are vital components of this jigsaw puzzle. The person who made the capture most likely will not have the same as you and therefore you will need to find ways to make those adjustments and an eq won't cut it.

I think the selectable/adjustable mics in the cabinet section of the QC will take the place of controls like Definition and Clarity i the Amp block, and Low/High shift in the Cab block.

The adjustments that Glen Fricker made in his video made a huge difference. Granted, the tone was still not good to my ear, but that’s a taste thing. I have heard plenty of great sounding QC clips at this point to be confident that it’s a very capable device.

The other controls in the Amp section on the Kemper I rarely touched. Pick is handy but too much and it sounds unnatural. It seems like a transient designer to my ear.

The Compression control was used a lot, but I think adding a compressor block will get me there on the QC. I know others disagree.

But the point is, let’s not pretend that QC captures are going to be these rigid, un-manipulated snapshots. They won’t be. Plenty of tools in the Cab block, and don’t forget the basic B, M, T, and Gain controls.

Plus there are models if a capture isn’t getting you all the way there, or you can even add another capture.

Quote from Calaban

I think the selectable/adjustable mics in the cabinet section of the QC will take the place of controls like Definition and Clarity i the Amp block, and Low/High shift in the Cab block.

The adjustments that Glen Fricker made in his video made a huge difference. Granted, the tone was still not good to my ear, but that’s a taste thing. I have heard plenty of great sounding QC clips at this point to be confident that it’s a very capable device.

The other controls in the Amp section on the Kemper I rarely touched. Pick is handy but too much and it sounds unnatural. It seems like a transient designer to my ear.

The Compression control was used a lot, but I think adding a compressor block will get me there on the QC. I know others disagree.

But the point is, let’s not pretend that QC captures are going to be these rigid, un-manipulated snapshots. They won’t be. Plenty of tools in the Cab block, and don’t forget the basic B, M, T, and Gain controls.

Plus there are models if a capture isn’t getting you all the way there, or you can even add another capture.

Display More

A lot of assumptions there, buddy. It's better to have low expectations and be impressed than the other way around ...

Quote from OneEng1

No. That is NOT true. Certainly not for me.

I wasn't referring to you specifically.

Quote from OneEng1

I guarantee that the lions share of them will not simply give up their KPA for QC

Who said they would?

Quote from Chris Duncan

the mythical "Cocked Ness Monster."

?????????

Quote from drew_fx

Um... easy, no?? Want just the preamp? Tap into the FX loop. Want just the amp head? Tap the speaker output with a DI, or use a loadbox. Want just the poweramp?? Route into the FX loop return, tap the speaker output with a DI or loadbox... capture that.

As with the Kemper, there will be a huge number of owners who will be using captures created by other people, and unless a specific capture is available as a DI, there's currently no way to separate the amp from the cab in a full capture. In the case of the Kemper, a lot of what makes studio profiles sound so great comes down to the cab section, in my opinion. I've tried combining amps / DI's with third party IR's and there's generally no comparison. A lot of the KPA's mojo resides in its cabs, in my experience, and I suspect the same will be true for the QC. If there's no way to separate the amp from the cab, then your only option is to combine a DI capture with an IR.

Quote from Calaban

But the point is, let’s not pretend that QC captures are going to be these rigid, un-manipulated snapshots. They won’t be. Plenty of tools in the Cab block, and don’t forget the basic B, M, T, and Gain controls.

Unless you're using amp models and captures together, you wouldn't use a Cab block with a full capture because full captures already include the cab portion and can't be separated from the amp.

Quote from ColdFrixion

As with the Kemper, there will be a huge number of owners who will be using captures created by other people, and unless a specific capture is available as a DI, there's currently no way to separate the amp from the cab in a full capture. In the case of the Kemper, a lot of what makes studio profiles sound so great comes down to the cab section, in my opinion. I've tried combining amps / DI's with third party IR's and there's generally no comparison. A lot of the KPA's mojo resides in its cabs, in my experience, and I suspect the same will be true for the QC. If there's no way to separate the amp from the cab, then your only option is to combine a DI capture with an IR.

Only time will tell I suppose. I can see a world where you make a set of cab-less captures, and cab+mic captures, and run each of them on their own paths. One for on-stage monitoring, and one for FOH.

The thing is; as rule the market is generally more savvy about this now. When Kemper launched, this wasn't something that was generally on our radar. But it's become quite a focal point over the last decade or so.

That's how I would run my Kemper or a QC in a live situation.

Tell you what thought - I've been burned by "professional" profile packs in the past, to the point where I just don't pay attention to them anymore. I make my own. Because they sound better for me.

Quote from Chris Duncan

With that in mind, I was surprised by CK's statement that the guitar is not a factor in profiling. I never would have guessed that. So much for buying Brian a beer and convincing him to make me a profile.

The guitar does play any role during the profiling and also the effect while refining is really not so big. The guitar is important while dialing in your sound. You would perhaps dial in the amp sound a little bit different if you use a Tele than with a humbucker equipped PRS but to me a good sound does also work with different guitars and pickups. During refining the Kemper matches the tone from the reference amp to the profile. It's not a matching for the guitar which is sometimes taken wrong here. I have done several tests for myself which guitar of my "collection" works best for refining and gives me the best overall result for the refining process in the meaning of matching the reference sound to the created profile.

There is so much discussion about the capture of the QC that for me one of the core features is overlooked. The QC combines modelling and capturing in a single device with good results on both. I don't know how far the actual implementation of the QC went forward but they also stated that you can use their plugin models also in a future version. That's a huge step forward in my opinion, for me personal perhaps too much options but if the modelling quality is also top level than this a great combination. I'm not a big fan of the form factor and the in- output design but the planned functionality is great.

Quote from drew_fx

That's how I would run my Kemper or a QC in a live situation.

And for live use, that's perfectly good and acceptable.

Quote from drew_fx

I've been burned by "professional" profile packs in the past

I have, too. However, I found that combining the amp section of studio profiles I didn't like with the cab section of profiles I love often breathes new life into profile packs I felt I wasted money on, and that's been one of the bigger benefits of being able to separate the amp and cab of studio profiles for me. It opens up a whole other layer of flexibility.

I’m actually most excited about the algorithmic models in the QC more than the ability to capture. The list of amps on launch is pretty comprehensive and will surely get bigger with time. Neural already makes amazing software emulations and has a great track record with that. Having all the knobs/switches/behaviours of each amp works way better as an algorithm; profiling is amazing for capturing a snapshot in time but it’s a different thing to me. I’ve actually been loving doing direct captures and using my own IR’s - you have to be careful compensate for the power amp/cab interactions as they’ll vary a lot depending on what gear is being used and is an important part of the sound. This is something that makes it hard to mix and match various components, and I think algorithms would lend themselves better for accounting for these interactions.

The profiles always worked best when I made them myself of the amps I already own, and i’m sure that will continue to be the case with a QC. It would be amazing if the Kemper profile process gets developed further, but it’s already very close and I have no issues with it. I do tend to avoid adjusting any parameters after refining; while things can be improved, it’s SO easy to make them worse or further from the original, and it’s hard to fully understand what each control does (you just have to listen and guess essentially). Most profiles tend to fall apart the more they’re tweaked, I barely ever touch anything once it’s captured accurately.

I think it’s a good thing for guitar tech, Neural are pushing things forward and have an amazing track record so far with their software products. More good gear is better for everyone so I hope it’s a success!

"I think the selectable/adjustable mics in the cabinet section of the QC will take the place of controls like Definition and Clarity i the Amp block, and Low/High shift in the Cab block."

Nope. The cab section of the QC won't emulate the amp settings in the KPA. The cab block won't be able to allow you to change the dynamics of the tube shape, the reaction of the power transformer, the pick attack, etc. Good luck if you can get moving a mic around on a virtual speaker to do the same.

Watch this video for a detailed examination of what those controls really do...