Neural Quad Cortex

    Quote from Nightmare Circus

    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.

    I've been at shows where people were using PodXT's and HD500's and Axe FX Ultra's into little FRFR combos on stage and then micing them up, and the audience notices the poor tone, and even talks about it over beers in between sets. The bands are never told straight up that their tone sucked - they go off thinking it was another successful show.

    The audience does notice. I've never really been on board with this "the audience doesn't care, so neither should you" attitude. It makes zero sense to me. If it were true, we should all be using Peavey Bandit's and Boss DD3's.

    IMO.

    Quote from Tritium

    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.

    I actually don't think that part of it sounds all that good. I think - but don't know for sure - that the blending between the different IR's introduces something that I don't like.... some sort of phase shift that feels wrong under the fingers. I always work with static Ownhammer IR's because of that.

    The Kemper captures cabs better IMO.

    Quote from drew_fx

    I've been at shows where people were using PodXT's and HD500's and Axe FX Ultra's into little FRFR combos on stage and then micing them up, and the audience notices the poor tone, and even talks about it over beers in between sets. The bands are never told straight up that their tone sucked - they go off thinking it was another successful show.

    The audience does notice. I've never really been on board with this "the audience doesn't care, so neither should you" attitude. It makes zero sense to me. If it were true, we should all be using Peavey Bandit's and Boss DD3's.

    IMO.

    Why would you mic up a FRFR speaker rather than just send a direct feed to the board? That's pretty much a direct failure of the FOH engineer. I imagine that did sound pretty bad, bonus points if you can tell me why. The audience will of course notice if its "bad" to the point it's over bearing but find me an audience member or even a musician who can tell the difference between a QC capture and a Kemper profile of the same thing in a full band setting with 100% accuracy.

    I doubt you can. I'm pretty skeptical of the Axe Ultra in this scenario but the old Pod stuff I definitely understand especially if it was a high gain setting. Can you not make a Peavey Bandit sound good? It's honestly a pretty decent amp. I've even seen artists hide one of these or one of the little line 6 spider amps behind backline (i assume to not be embarrassed) and no one was the wiser. You're free to use what you want but considering with minimal effort (just balancing the volume and removing a db or two of 200hz) I could make your QC capture sound pretty much identical to your Kemper one I don't really think the QC is that mind blowing. It's just less effort for the same result.

    Quote from Nightmare Circus

    You're free to use what you want but considering with minimal effort (just balancing the volume and removing a db or two of 200hz) I could make your QC capture sound pretty much identical to your Kemper one I don't really think the QC is that mind blowing. It's just less effort for the same result.

    The devil is in the "pretty much"

    Quote from drew_fx

    The devil is in the "pretty much"

    Well I can't argue with that, you've made up your mind and if all you care about is accuracy go with what you think gives you the most accuracy. They're so close though that with a single EQ and 30 seconds of work I can make them indistinguishable in a mix so I'd be happy if someone brought either to the studio. Outside of the capture feature the QC was pretty lack-luster to me but we'll see where it goes with updates.

    "Perfect is the enemy of good" - François-Marie Arouet

    Quote from DonPetersen

    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.

    this was my point with studio profiles. And I tote agree with your findings when used with a traditional cab, which is how I prefer to monitor.

    Quote from Nightmare Circus

    The audience will of course notice if its "bad" to the point it's over bearing but find me an audience member or even a musician who can tell the difference between a QC capture and a Kemper profile of the same thing in a full band setting with 100% accuracy.

    I find it amusing you don't care about 100% accuracy when it comes to profiling the amp, but you do when it comes to audiences being able to tell the difference. :D

    The overall point is, and I've been saying it the entire thread, it's all about subjective perceptions. I like both units. I really do. I've been using them side-by-side for nearly 2 months now, on a daily basis.

    But I slightly prefer the QC even though the Kemper trounces it for features and current workflow capabilities, simply because I find the capturing to be more accurate to the real amp, particularly when it comes to palm mutes. As a high-gain guitarist, this is crucially important to me. It may not be for you, and I'm not judging you for that. But for me, I will give up all of the bells and whistles of the Kemper to have more accurate amp captures, because I know I can make up for bells and whistles with other pedal options on the board alongside the QC.

    But if Kemper all of a sudden released a Profiling 2.0 update that fixed the issue, I'd then most likely flip back to primarily using the Kemper as my profiling/capturing platform.

    And I've said multiple times now, I'm not after perfection. I'm just after the most accurate. Because I can't crank my real valve amps all of the time - much as I'd like to.

    Quote from drew_fx

    I find it amusing you don't care about 100% accuracy when it comes to profiling the amp, but you do when it comes to audiences being able to tell the difference. :D

    The overall point is, and I've been saying it the entire thread, it's all about subjective perceptions. I like both units. I really do. I've been using them side-by-side for nearly 2 months now, on a daily basis.

    But I slightly prefer the QC even though the Kemper trounces it for features and current workflow capabilities, simply because I find the capturing to be more accurate to the real amp, particularly when it comes to palm mutes. As a high-gain guitarist, this is crucially important to me. It may not be for you, and I'm not judging you for that. But for me, I will give up all of the bells and whistles of the Kemper to have more accurate amp captures, because I know I can make up for bells and whistles with other pedal options on the board alongside the QC.

    But if Kemper all of a sudden released a Profiling 2.0 update that fixed the issue, I'd then most likely flip back to primarily using the Kemper as my profiling/capturing platform.

    And I've said multiple times now, I'm not after perfection. I'm just after the most accurate. Because I can't crank my real valve amps all of the time - much as I'd like to.

    Do you like tighter palm mutes? I found the QC to be quite sterile and lacking that thump

    Quote from drew_fx

    I actually don't think that part of it sounds all that good. I think - but don't know for sure - that the blending between the different IR's introduces something that I don't like.... some sort of phase shift that feels wrong under the fingers. I always work with static Ownhammer IR's because of that.

    The Kemper captures cabs better IMO.

    Is it actually blending IRs, or just changing to the next IR as you move. I agree it is a major benefit, but Kemper is not really focussed on IRs. I think the idea came from ML Soundlab and the MIKKO player.

    Karl

    Kemper Rack OS 10.2.2 - Mac Sonoma 14.5

    Quote from drew_fx

    I find it amusing you don't care about 100% accuracy when it comes to profiling the amp, but you do when it comes to audiences being able to tell the difference. :D

    The overall point is, and I've been saying it the entire thread, it's all about subjective perceptions. I like both units. I really do. I've been using them side-by-side for nearly 2 months now, on a daily basis.

    But I slightly prefer the QC even though the Kemper trounces it for features and current workflow capabilities, simply because I find the capturing to be more accurate to the real amp, particularly when it comes to palm mutes. As a high-gain guitarist, this is crucially important to me. It may not be for you, and I'm not judging you for that. But for me, I will give up all of the bells and whistles of the Kemper to have more accurate amp captures, because I know I can make up for bells and whistles with other pedal options on the board alongside the QC.

    But if Kemper all of a sudden released a Profiling 2.0 update that fixed the issue, I'd then most likely flip back to primarily using the Kemper as my profiling/capturing platform.

    And I've said multiple times now, I'm not after perfection. I'm just after the most accurate. Because I can't crank my real valve amps all of the time - much as I'd like to.

    It's more that the listener is never going know if it's accurate or not they just care if it sounds good. I think the real issue here is you're arguing for feel and I'm arguing for sound. I've heard that argument go both ways though, some people love the QC feel and others think it's sterile and unrealistic. Me? I'm an engineer and if it's metal I'm going to put a multiband compressor on it and get rid of the junk so the guitars and bass aren't in an eternal death match

    Quote from Tritium

    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.

    This is implemented for the use of an imprint in combination with the Kabinett within the Output-section. Here the "directivity"-function helps to tailure the stage Sound by radial distance-simulation.

    For the FoH-Sound the Features of the cab-section can do the Job.

    Quote from Nightmare Circus

    It's more that the listener is never going know if it's accurate or not they just care if it sounds good. I think the real issue here is you're arguing for feel and I'm arguing for sound. I've heard that argument go both ways though, some people love the QC feel and others think it's sterile and unrealistic. Me? I'm an engineer and if it's metal I'm going to put a multiband compressor on it and get rid of the junk so the guitars and bass aren't in an eternal death match

    That low end is just good when you play on your own. One of the first, or was it the first, album made with a kemper was Accepts Blood of the Nation. No one knew and no one could tell it was made with a kemper and not a real 5150.

    Think for yourself, or others will think for you wihout thinking of you

    Henry David Thoreau

    Quote from Nightmare Circus

    It's more that the listener is never going know if it's accurate or not they just care if it sounds good. I think the real issue here is you're arguing for feel and I'm arguing for sound. I've heard that argument go both ways though, some people love the QC feel and others think it's sterile and unrealistic. Me? I'm an engineer and if it's metal I'm going to put a multiband compressor on it and get rid of the junk so the guitars and bass aren't in an eternal death match

    Agreed.

    There are 3 people you have to please with your sound

    1) Audience

    2) You

    3) sound engineer

    I think we are all arguing the same point. Some people take very analytical approach to their sound, others more relaxed - both are equally valid,

    Personally I'm useless at sound analysis....I could never work out how to use Mid on a regular amp, let alone, IR's, power sag, definition etc. My point is, I can hear the difference but actually my views changes on what I like by the minute. I don't have the perfect sound in my head nor do I instantly like or dislike unless its really bad. I also have to spend time with a sound to adjust to it. I don;t think I'm alone in this.

    The point here is I do think I should care more and perhaps some people should care just a little less.

    The audience will of course know a really bad sound - would they be able to tell the difference between the QC and Kemper when set up in a similar way? Nope.

    Does it matter? if it does to you then it does.

    But note there will be a much bigger difference in the fingers, technique, whether the singer is in tune :). To debate over 5% difference is only important to "you".

    Like I've said I don't care which one you use it's ultimately down to preference but I always approach "guitar tone" from a full band context and never from a solo mono tone. That's really the only thing I'm arguing for: if you take a QC capture and a well made Kemper profile of the same thing and throw some drums/bass behind it they really sound the same to me. The characteristics that vary from the "real deal" in both units are masked in a mix because guitar is a mid ranged instrument and as such that's primarily what you hear from the guitar in a mix. The "sparkly highs" or "slighty off low end" doesn't really matter in that scenario.

    I honestly wouldn't complain if you showed up with either one as long as you didn't dial in a "bedroom tone" and fall prey to our good friend the fletcher munson curve

    People are testing isolated mono tones, this is how I test: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LKXxuV…iew?usp=sharing

    Quote from Nightmare Circus

    Like I've said I don't care which one you use it's ultimately down to preference but I always approach "guitar tone" from a full band context and never from a solo mono tone. That's really the only thing I'm arguing for: if you take a QC capture and a well made Kemper profile of the same thing and throw some drums/bass behind it they really sound the same to me. The characteristics that vary from the "real deal" in both units are masked in a mix because guitar is a mid ranged instrument and as such that's primarily what you hear from the guitar in a mix. The "sparkly highs" or "slighty off low end" doesn't really matter in that scenario.

    I honestly wouldn't complain if you showed up with either one as long as you didn't dial in a "bedroom tone" and fall prey to our good friend the fletcher munson curve

    People are testing isolated mono tones, this is how I test: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LKXxuV…iew?usp=sharing

    The problem with 'good enough' is that at some point...it isn't. Like one amp to the next.....a lot of the 'sound' is what someone prefers.

    The audience may not hear it - but the player will know. Consciously or not. Some will care, some won't and both are valid. But that this difference can/will/does have an affect on the player and by extension the music. At least in my view, I get the sound *I'm* looking for. If the audience likes it...great. But does anyone look at the audience and say "tell me what my guitar should sound like?"

    I've never slaved over a sound to try and be exactly like a Dumble or EVH's original Marshall or whatever. It's never 100%, nor should it be. I have built sounds that were pretty close....played....and hated it. So...I'd tweak for my ear. Not as deep and discerning as some (just play the damn thing)....but I'm far from a 'pick a profile and leave it alone....'

    What I do know for a fact is that if I have an issue with my sound - that can and sometimes does translate into the performance. IMHO, 'perfect' is impossible to get on-demand. You can do it all right and still think it sucks. Then someone says "YOU SOUND AWESOME!" and you can only say 'thanks'. Anything else and you sound like a prick.

    But to say "Meh...no one in the audience will know...." (for me) only seems to happen when I've gotten as close as I can to the sound I want. Either due to exasperation or time constraints.

    What I do know is that I don't play in front of people enough right now.

    Quote from Nightmare Circus

    It's more that the listener is never going know if it's accurate or not they just care if it sounds good. I think the real issue here is you're arguing for feel and I'm arguing for sound. I've heard that argument go both ways though, some people love the QC feel and others think it's sterile and unrealistic. Me? I'm an engineer and if it's metal I'm going to put a multiband compressor on it and get rid of the junk so the guitars and bass aren't in an eternal death match

    Without getting all ego about it, I'm an engineer too. With 20 years experience. I record drums for a living, and I am the product owner for BFD Drums.

    I'm not arguing for feel. I am arguing for sound. I am arguing for accuracy of profiling/capturing when compared to the original sound source. Because accuracy is the entire point of the technology.

    But let's talk about sound. Let me know which clip you think sounds best.

    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/h1rt8ohr887…HUWu6xjYva?dl=0

    I do not test sound sources in a mix when I am trying to analyse the qualities of the sound source. That makes no sense to me. I am perfectly capable of telling if a bass guitar has too much mud without having a kick drum blasting away over the top. If I am trying to detect harshness in a guitar recording, why would I blindfold myself by slapping loads of cymbals over it? Again - that makes no sense given the actual discussion at hand.

    No-one is arguing that either unit cannot be made to sound good in a mix. I've released music with good guitar tones using Amplitube 2 almost a decade ago, and no-one ever said to me that the guitars sounded bad. That isn't what this discussion is about.