Have you tried using midi on the QC? As in changing scenes on the QC via the kemper remote, or is that not possible?
Haven't tried any midi yet
And honestly with this setup I would probably do the opposite and just change performance profile slots via midi with the cortex.
Man, thank you for that.
And I totally agree with what you say about Christophe. His composure over some of the stuff said about the Kemper by actual industry competition.... admiral.
At the end of the day.... okay... I was born in 1984 ..... so I would've been 6 years old.... but at the end of the day.... could anyone 30 years ago expect the absolute embarrassment of riches that we as guitarists have at our disposal now??? It's astonishing. Piano players don't even have it this good!!
Just to add, don't stop giving your feedback on your experience. I think we are all genuinely interested in the comparison.
I do twitch when people try to explain the difference through tech when we don;t actually know how the processing really works. I definitely subscribe to "New is not always better" not to protect my investment but I have a natural scepticism to any new "magic".
I only really care about sound and so these are the areas of what you have said are really interesting.
I think its also stimulated the debate between easy of capture/profile vs accuracy. I got the impression from CK comments that some level of auto refine is possible but is it desirable. That depends on results of course - your experience suggests that even the end results are better.
despite some niggles, I think its all healthy in the development of the KPA moving forward...
Maybe multiple options for auto refinement.
I’ve gotta say I’m considering selling the Quad. So far I’m trying to love it but although the captures are good I don’t think they are any better than the Kemper.
Also I find many of the captures that are available and the models are a little stiff and sterile.
Also Kemper is just way ahead on effects and utility. I find the simple routing when I want to go straight to a cab and also mixer so simple and with the Kemper removing the cab even from studio profiles very well. (Don’t know if it sounds 100% correct, pretty sure it doesn’t, but it still sounds good)
I also find the Quad sounds quite thin on the high strings, similar to the helix.
Combine this all with morphing, and the other products like the new powered cab, I don’t really think the QC can really compare.
I’m waiting for some updates before I decide but a little underwhelmed after owning it for about 2 months.
Maybe multiple options for auto refinement.
I wonder if I can record a playing routine to run reamped while refining and get generally good results. Maybe something along those lines. But I think the refining is so amp dependant, that it is the reason it does not exist something like it yet.
Also I find many of the captures that are available and the models are a little stiff and sterile.
Oh yes, and I forgot to say some posts ago, that the models themselves are not great, they are Headrush quality in my opinion. I dont know why I dont feel the same quality as the plini plug-in, that one sounds really full and musical. At least on the same ground of modeling, Helix is ahead, and Fractal waaaaay ahead of the Quad Cortex. They need to start updating as soon as possible.
And that’s why I returned my QC
with the Kemper removing the cab even from studio profiles very well. (Don’t know if it sounds 100% correct, pretty sure it doesn’t, but it still sounds good)
if it is a Merged Profile, than the amp/cab separation is 100% authentic.
if it is a Studio Profile, then an algorithm makes an educated guess where the separation is most likely to be, and I also found it to be quite accurate, musical and work very, very well in a live setup where you have a traditional guitar cab as a monitor on stage.
I dont know why I dont feel the same quality as the plini plug-in, that one sounds really full and musical.
The models aren't made by the same people who made the plugins, it's a completely different team. That's according to Dan over at NDSP. I always wondered why basically every youtuber put all their focus into the capture feature and almost none into the amp models or effects: it's because IMO they aren't really that great but who knows what updates will bring. I never buy a piece of gear based on "future promises" though, my only experience with one has been a few hours messing with it at a buddies studio and messing with peoples "comparisons" they've been posting.
As far as the captures it's less effort for basically the same result to me. Kemper profiles don't come out the gate screaming "look how close I am" you have to do tweaking after the fact to get it there but if you just take the extra few minutes to do that you end up at the same result. It's one of those things where with a good ear you can tell there is a slight difference between a capture and a well made kemper profile of the same thing if it's just a solo guitar in mono but once you double track and throw it in a mix you're just taking wild guesses at that point which is which. The QC is really good for someone who doesn't already own something high end like a Axe-FX or a Kemper but I wouldn't rush off selling either of those units for a QC just yet.
I wonder if I can record a playing routine to run reamped while refining and get generally good results. Maybe something along those lines. But I think the refining is so amp dependant, that it is the reason it does not exist something like it yet.
It depends on the setup and the style of the sound and what you expect from it. If I want a sparkling clean with a bit of breakup than I normally don't need chugga chuggas during refinement, for other sounds you need to do something like this to get the attack feeling right. I have a bunch of refinement guitar DIs which I use for this which gives me the result which I like personally.
As far as the captures it's less effort for basically the same result to me. Kemper profiles don't come out the gate screaming "look how close I am" you have to do tweaking after the fact to get it there but if you just take the extra few minutes to do that you end up at the same result.
On the other hand you don't have that much parameters to go over the top with the sound if accuracy is not the only goal you have. Perhaps it's easier from the overall 1-click-fits-all-process but as I read it takes about 4-5 minutes which is also quite a long time measuring around. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that.
On the other hand you don't have that much parameters to go over the top with the sound if accuracy is not the only goal you have. Perhaps it's easier from the overall 1-click-fits-all-process but as I read it takes about 4-5 minutes which is also quite a long time measuring around. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that.
The capture process does take a bit longer but realistically its faster than a Kemper when you account for refining and polish. The best way I know how to explain: It's basically just automating what you would do to a Kemper profile after capture. Again as I've stated the "accuracy" isn't going to really matter to the vast majority of end-users because they aren't profiling their own stuff anyway. They're buying it or downloading it of the exchange/cloud.
Easier or not, I'd miss definition, power sagging, pick, compressor, clarity, tube shape/bias parameters. I'm not a totally endless tweaker, but this stuff does come in to play, often after the profiling process, even years after, when those controls are used for a particular guitar, mix, etc. I'm surprised that NDSP didn't include a suite of post-capture shaping options. Their easy-peasy plug-ins sound good too, but besides being dsp hogs, you're basically stuck with what you get. I guess it's a sort of curated mindset, versus putting more aspects of sound design in user hands. (But kind of like Garageband vs Logic, iMovie vs Premiere, working around those oversimplified interfaces is often a bigger obstacle than simply learning the deeper tools, even if you only use a fraction of their functionality.)
Exactly. The concept of "baked in" captures that limit your ability to fit them into any scenario after the fact is the real issue here. I can see why Kemper chose to give flexibility in the amp and cab section of the profile. No two venues or sound situations are the same and those captures will need to be tweaked to fit live band mixes and recording situations. I would not like that kind of functionality removed at all.
Easier or not, I'd miss definition, power sagging, pick, compressor, clarity, tube shape/bias parameters. I'm not a totally endless tweaker, but this stuff does come in to play, often after the profiling process, even years after, when those controls are used for a particular guitar, mix, etc. I'm surprised that NDSP didn't include a suite of post-capture shaping options. Their easy-peasy plug-ins sound good too, but besides being dsp hogs, you're basically stuck with what you get. I guess it's a sort of curated mindset, versus putting more aspects of sound design in user hands. (But kind of like Garageband vs Logic, iMovie vs Premiere, working around those oversimplified interfaces is often a bigger obstacle than simply learning the deeper tools, even if you only use a fraction of their functionality.)
But this is the dilemma for Kemper and QC.....tweakability vs ease of use
The perfect mix would be profiling with auto refine ( whatever that would be) but still with the ability to change parameters after.
Just related to an earlier post...am I being a bit stupid.....so Neural is highly regarded in the industry for their plugin's AND their capture process is pretty good but the models aren't great? Strange...although i know many products seem to shift with duff presets..
Easier or not, I'd miss definition, power sagging, pick, compressor, clarity, tube shape/bias parameters. I'm not a totally endless tweaker, but this stuff does come in to play, often after the profiling process, even years after, when those controls are used for a particular guitar, mix, etc. I'm surprised that NDSP didn't include a suite of post-capture shaping options. Their easy-peasy plug-ins sound good too, but besides being dsp hogs, you're basically stuck with what you get. I guess it's a sort of curated mindset, versus putting more aspects of sound design in user hands. (But kind of like Garageband vs Logic, iMovie vs Premiere, working around those oversimplified interfaces is often a bigger obstacle than simply learning the deeper tools, even if you only use a fraction of their functionality.)
It's almost like everyone has different tastes and plays differently so having the ability to shape the profile to match your style is more beneficial than just a "better raw capture" . You'd be hard pressed to find a professional guitarist that hasn't modded or paid someone to mod their go to amp in some way to better fit their playing style or tone.
Either way you can't ultimately go wrong with either unit they both sound good and play well. There is no "better or worse" just what works for you and gives you the sound you want. I can make them sound identical in a mix so bring either!
For thirty years or something, Princetons for clubs, Deluxe Reverbs for bigger clubs and Twin Reverbs for stages, yes all modded with Mids knobs, maybe EV speakers etc etc, seemed to cover just about everybody, no matter who you were. Haha what happened? Meanwhile, regarding easy .. how easy does easy have to be to count as easy? Haha .. ugh .. it's all good.
The models aren't made by the same people who made the plugins, it's a completely different team. That's according to Dan over at NDSP. I always wondered why basically every youtuber put all their focus into the capture feature and almost none into the amp models or effects: it's because IMO they aren't really that great but who knows what updates will bring. I never buy a piece of gear based on "future promises" though, my only experience with one has been a few hours messing with it at a buddies studio and messing with peoples "comparisons" they've been posting.
As far as the captures it's less effort for basically the same result to me. Kemper profiles don't come out the gate screaming "look how close I am" you have to do tweaking after the fact to get it there but if you just take the extra few minutes to do that you end up at the same result. It's one of those things where with a good ear you can tell there is a slight difference between a capture and a well made kemper profile of the same thing if it's just a solo guitar in mono but once you double track and throw it in a mix you're just taking wild guesses at that point which is which. The QC is really good for someone who doesn't already own something high end like a Axe-FX or a Kemper but I wouldn't rush off selling either of those units for a QC just yet.
On TGP doug said that the same engeeners who worked on the plugins worked on the models.
He later said on the SLO model that it was the same technology that was used in the plugins.
Also he said the the cab models were the same as in the plugins.
I read so many different reviews on the quad cortex, I can't wait to try it by myself...
On TGP doug said that the same engeeners who worked on the plugins worked on the models.
He later said on the SLO model that it was the same technology that was used in the plugins.
Also he said the the cab models were the same as in the plugins.
I read so many different reviews on the quad cortex, I can't wait to try it by myself...
I have no doubt it may be the same underlying code/technology but as far as human beings working on it, it's different teams based on my understanding of what was said by Dan and a tool is only as good as the person using it.
Gotta remember, we're talking about nerdy subtle things here that I agree, most people won't hear.
But we've got to be happy with it as well. I've been doing some A/B'ing recently with Kemper and QC on my desk:
I've been taking a feed from my Suhr loadbox, doing the captures without any speaker-sim, and applying the same IR on each unit. They're close. I hear differences. But they're close.
Both units sound different to the source. Not massively, just a bit. Kemper still sounds good. I just slightly prefer the QC because of how the palm-mutes sound.
It's kind of funny to me how guitarists these days will spend 100x more time and energy trying to find subtle differences in a guitar sound that won't even be noticed by most people or disappear in a mix/full band concept.
Rather than just make music. I'm willing to bet your band would sound just fine with either unit.
The single biggest “selling point” to me, for the Quad Cortex”, is the ability to virtually adjust the microphone(s) on the built-in QC modeled cabs so as to position the axial and radial distance.
If Kemper could somehow implement this feature on their next device (i.e KPA 2), that would be huge…particularly if we are talking about user profiles of mic’d cabinets.
