7. Naming presets - again... touchscreen makes this a piece of piss. Both the Helix and the Kemper are way more annoying to use. Kemper is more annoying than the Helix in this respect. In fact, the Kemper user experience is from stone age compared to both units.
For a change I really like KPA's arcade style of naming present. Reminds me of editing "high score" entries in games I played in late '80. 
I got this rating idea in mind for "at the end of the day " from very least to most...
1. A , do it yourself helix that's better in many ways.
2. A fair and even competitor all around.
3. The fan fare ultimate new bad ass in town, for now.
Or something like that
I was impatient lol. Sorry. But really.... I think the results speak for themselves. I was very impressed with the QC.
So here's my opinion on the unit...
1. Very easy to use. I feel a little dirty admitting it, but the touchscreen is amazing. MUCH MUCH MUCH quicker to get around a patch than the Helix and Kemper. Didn't need to look at the manual once.
2. The footswitches feel great. The way the caps turn feels solid, and I don't think they'd fall apart at all. The caps wobble a little bit, but they're definitely not flimsy. And they're very intuitive to use in terms of changing parameters in a selected block.
3. I was very worried about the delays and reverbs, since they're a core part of my sound. Okay, so the choice is very limited... but they actually sound very good, and are easier to dial in and get the sound I want than the Kemper. Also, the way the mix and feedback parameters work is much nicer to my ear than the Helix. The Helix gets too washy and lacks definition and cut at high mix and feedback levels. The QC does not. I was very pleasantly surprised, because I expected to be bummed out by the QC's options here.
4. Neural Capture - in a word, very impressive. It takes a lot longer to run all it's test signals, but once it's done.. no fucking around with refining, no second guessing yourself .... all of the did I do it right? Why doesn't this sound closer? How can I make it better? type stuff that I always think when I'm profiling with the Kemper.... just not a thing with the QC.
5. Footswitch proximity.... yeah... this one is a real concern for me. I think it would get better over time, once I became more familiar with it... now it isn't really the horizontal spacing between the switches, it's the vertical. A few times I meant to hit a switch on the top row, and ended up hitting a switch on the bottom row as I took my foot away. Something to think about.
6. The power supply... yes.... annoying that it's not an IEC. But I think I can live with it. Once the QC is on a board, make sure that the PSU cable is properly secured, and it shouldn't ever come out accidentally.
7. Naming presets - again... touchscreen makes this a piece of piss. Both the Helix and the Kemper are way more annoying to use. Kemper is more annoying than the Helix in this respect. In fact, the Kemper user experience is from stone age compared to both units.
8. The pitch effects on the QC ... they're serviceable. The whammy has the warbly whammy thing to it.... it's okay... good enough for my needs, but if you're super super super picky about this, you might wanna keep your whammy hanging around! For me, the QC is better simply because the whammy block offers a wet/dry mix control, which is essential for a few atmospheric pitchy things I do.
9. EQ's are great. Not a lot to report here - they do what you'd expect, and don't destroy the sound of your guitar. Nuff said.
10. Drives - I didn't go through these exhaustively. But the tubescreamer sounded like a tubescreamer to me!
11. Stock 'neural captures' - they have tons of stock neural captures.... I paid attention mostly to the Fryette Sig:X ones because I know that amp like the back of my hand. They sound just like the real amp - and this is an amp that the Kemper has a lot of problems capturing for some reason.
12. Built in amp models - the Friedman BE100 was LUSHHHH.... I really loved it. The Hiwatt was better than the Helix one, sounded more 3D and real and in your face; all the usual tripe we all say about amps.
13. The QC in general sounded more "believeable" than the Helix to me; which I grit my teeth to admit, because I really am a huge Helix fangurl.
14. The tuner on QC is better than the tuner on Helix. Without a shadow of a doubt. I actually can't believe the Helix tuner sometimes. I just stopped using it - coz it fucks with my brain. I hate it.
15. Final point - pedalboard friendliness...... yessss m8...... floor real estate and weight are real concerns for me. I know I can do the same thing with the Helix and Kemper.... add in a few pedals.... but for a live show.... it's just a huge pain in the ass. So I always take the hit on the sound quality in favour of simplicity. I wont have to do that with the QC on a board.
Thank you for this Review!
A QC Rack Unit would be something great.
But your normal QC for live usage you could put the QC behind the stage/in your rack and plug in a midi Controller so you have just your Midi Controller in front of you. So you dont have to be afraid that your QC will be damaged on stage and if the Controller is damaged because of beer and whatever than the Midi Controller is the much cheaper one to buy!
So here's my opinion on the unit...
Thanks for your thoughts - I'm way more inclined to to take note from reviews like this vs Youtube paid up stuff.
The ergonomics of the QC for live use is far inferior to the KPA IMO. The idea that the reviewer had QC and KPA tied in this area seemed to be just wrong to me.
The other points were valid for the most part; however, the QC doesn't seem like a great live tool to me.
Compared to the KPA Rack version with a FC the value of live shifts even further into the KPA column IMO. Of course, this is also a more expensive setup compared to the QC so it isn't as fair a comparison.
I still think the QC is going to be a nice tool, just not for my purposes .... although I would have really liked the USB audio interface recently as I just did my very first ever in my life recording for someone (had to do something since I still can't gig!).
I feel like the glossing over of the live features of the KPA (looper, ergonomics, performance mode, more buttons, better button placement, etc) were really not given the proper scrutiny in this review. The unproven mechanical track record should also be a warning flag for ANY new piece of gear for those of us that gig (and especially those that tour). That was also glossed over. I know the reviewer waved a hand over the buttons on the QC because they "felt solid". These buttons are new, and no other product has had them (ie buttons that are also control knobs). Personally, I would like to see a couple of years of use "in anger" out in the field before I would be convinced that this design is NOT going to be an issue. Good Lord knows those of us that have been playing for a few decades know how long it took to get simple mechanical switches to the point were they are today.
I am hearing pretty consistently that the QC capture is better than the KPA even though similar results can be eventually obtained by the KPA. This is impressive considering the relative immaturity of the QC.
One of the major issues I think might come to light over time will be the thermal issues. The QC has massive vents for a reason and if those vents get blocked due to the harsh environments (dust and dirt) they are likely to be in due to live use, it's a nightmare in the making. Especially if it happens during a gig... Also that power supply is another massive weak link that can fail. These are serious concerns if one is planning on live use..
One of the major issues I think might come to light over time will be the thermal issues. The QC has massive vents for a reason and if those vents get blocked due to the harsh environments (dust and dirt) they are likely to be in due to live use, it's a nightmare in the making. Especially if it happens during a gig... Also that power supply is another massive weak link that can fail. These are serious concerns if one is planning on live use..
The vents are for WIFI, not temperature - according to Doug Castro.
Thanks for your thoughts - I'm way more inclined to to take note from reviews like this vs Youtube paid up stuff.
No probs.
I only spent half a day with it. I hope to spend some more time with it soon. I started off with mild skepticism and by the end of the day I was convinced.
But I pre-ordered one anyway. I think the amp capturing tech is better than the Kemper by a wide margin. I think the effects are serviceable and hopefully they'll add more to it over time anyway. Even if they don't, it's a much easier and friendlier prospect adding my Strymon pedals to it than doing the same with the Kemper or Helix.
The vents are for WIFI, not temperature - according to Doug Castro.
It would make you wonder then how they got a 2Ghz SHARC to run fanless if those vents were just for wifi....
has anything been said about the midi control On the QC.
Will it send pc or cc info to controll other units
In the manual you can read this. The QC can do both pc and cc. When im remeber right!
.... all of the did I do it right? Why doesn't this sound closer? How can I make it better? type stuff that I always think when I'm profiling with the Kemper...
Your profile is spot on, beside the differences in the bass response. Such deviations can easily be controlled by refining with that same palm mutes and checking again. Takes 30 seconds.
Your profile is spot on, beside the differences in the bass response. Such deviations can easily be controlled by refining with that same palm mutes and checking again. Takes 30 seconds.
No sorry Christophe, but this is not true. There is a quackiness in the high frequencies that cannot be easily dialed out.
The QC sounds closer to the real amp; with no effort required on my part. I loved the Kemper over the years, but right now for me the QC wins.
No sorry Christophe, but this is not true. There is a quackiness in the high frequencies that cannot be easily dialed out.
The QC sounds closer to the real amp; with no effort required on my part. I loved the Kemper over the years, but right now for me the QC wins.
I think Definition parameter have something to do with this. Sometimes you have to dial it back a bit to get rid of this effect.
Like the vast majority of users I mostly use commercial profiles from people who know how to make it right and I'm pretty sure it will be the same on the QC users side. So, why the easiness to profile seems to be so important all of a sudden? It's certainly not a reason to make me swap my Kemper for the new toy absolutely not. But, you know, people like buying new toys and there is nothing wrong with it! 
In KPA, several parameters are set automatically by the profiling algorithm. There is no clear path to profiling. Except for the last video with Guido. A big plus for that.
There are hardly any parameters in QC. There is no Profile Refining. Gain is sometimes too small from what I've seen. If you add to it no problems with profiling several stages of distortion, then you have an answer why it might be more attractive.
Small amount of variables it is sometimes an advantage.
But again I do not believe that they will be able to add any parameters to change some capture variables like in KPA . This is probably a model to predict the behavior of the output signal based on statistical data. I don't really see the possibility of introducing any specific variables there to control this prediction.
Many people appreciate the possibility of modifying a profile with parameters such as definition, pick or compressor. Each tool will have its opponents and supporters.
Like the vast majority of users I mostly use commercial profiles from people who know how to make it right and I'm pretty sure it will be the same on the QC users side. So, why the easiness to profile seems to be so important all of a sudden? It's certainly not a reason to make me swap my Kemper for the new toy absolutely not. But, you know, people like buying new toys and there is nothing wrong with it!
You need a way to rationalize spending 1700 euro on a new thing you don’t really need.
Not judging though. I’ve done that too many times.
Gas is strong.
I don't want parameters personally.
I want to make 10 profiles of each channel on my amps, and choose the ones I want; just like with impulse responses.
I don't want the variation of the refining process making a difference to all of the profiles across a single channel.
The end goal for me is: I want my valve amps in this digital box that I can use in a myriad of ways. QC gets there quicker and easier and more consistently than the Kemper does. IMHO, and based on experience of using both. I've got much more experience with the Kemper of course.
If I wanted parameters, I would've gotten an Axe FX !! 
I've owned two of those in the past as it happens, and I got great tones. You CAN get great tones out of all of these boxes; I'm just looking for that final 2% accuracy.
Like the vast majority of users I mostly use commercial profiles from people who know how to make it right and I'm pretty sure it will be the same on the QC users side. So, why the easiness to profile seems to be so important all of a sudden? It's certainly not a reason to make me swap my Kemper for the new toy absolutely not. But, you know, people like buying new toys and there is nothing wrong with it!
You'll find threads and comments from me going back to 2011/2012, where I spoke about palm mute response on the Kemper and lack of accuracy. It's not a new thing and it's nothing to do with buying new toys. I have plenty of toys!
It would make you wonder then how they got a 2Ghz SHARC to run fanless if those vents were just for wifi....
The same way Universal Audio do it I suppose??? I don't know. Not gonna pretend to know the ins and outs of the device topology.
The thing is we compare the Kemper which is over 10 years old.....of course with Updates.....to the QC which is Brand New. The difference in tone is not that big on Profiling or Capturing Amps so the Kemper is a hell of a unit for that age! That are my 2 Cents!
