Do you like tighter palm mutes? I found the QC to be quite sterile and lacking that thump
I don't know if I would describe it as tighter or not. What I'm looking for is a solidity to the resonance.
Do you like tighter palm mutes? I found the QC to be quite sterile and lacking that thump
I don't know if I would describe it as tighter or not. What I'm looking for is a solidity to the resonance.
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.
Yes I believe it is blending IR's. You'd hear stepped changes when moving the mics around otherwise.
I use both IR's and captured cab's in my Kemper. I don't think it's true to say the Kemper isn't focused on IRs - they've added features over time to expand our tonal palettes. The focus of the Kemper is now guitar tone in it's entirety. Which is cool.
But let's talk about sound. Let me know which clip you think sounds best.
You seem to have forgotten where I mentioned several posts ago that if the argument is a raw QC capture is closer than a raw Kemper capture I already agreed with that assessment. It's true, to my ears its not earth shattering, but it's true. It really just boils down to the Kemper needs a post EQ in the fx block to get it that extra 5% and maybe some tweaking to the Sag where as the QC just comes out the gate as close as it can get it. Both machines are capable of the same thing one just requires less work if you want to argue accuracy to the original source actually use all the tools available on the unit to achieve that goal. I know when you make your drum samples you don't just slap a mic on there and call it day now do you?
As for your examples:
Miss matched volume again but Line 5 definitely has some more girth and rumble in it, especially during the palm mutes. Line 7 has a bit more bite to it and the low end is more controlled but it's also giving me a distortion quality I'm not really too fond of compared to the first. It almost sounds like what a boost pedal would do to an amp to me but the mid range is identical to my ears. As to what sounds better to me personally? The engineer in me says go with the darker tone as high end is easier to add than get rid of but just jamming around at low volume I'd probably go with the brighter one. Same thing applies as last time though with a modest EQ I can make them the same and I'm happy to do it again if you'd like.
Now as for my example I linked: Can you hear a difference and tell me which side/half of the lead was kemper and which was the QC?
I haven't forgotten anything. But it's quite clear that I've been talking about sound all along, not feel. So please don't misrepresent me.
When I make drum samples, if the source drum or drum skin are not pleasing to me, then I don't record them. I change the skin. I clean the bearing edges. I tighten up the lugs and other hardware. I change the hoops. I change the mic. I change the preamp. I reset the skin. I sometimes attack it with a hairdryer to get it to tighten. Whatever it takes to get the source right.
With guitar I do the same thing. Which is why I got the QC.
Attacking the Kemper with a hairdryer hasn't yielded positive results.
Now as for my example I linked: Can you hear a difference and tell me which side/half of the lead was kemper and which was the QC?
Yes I can when I throw them into a DAW and listen each channel in isolation.
Original QC Kemper Refined.wav - The left channel is the QC. The right channel is the Kemper.
Volume Matched 200hz Cut KPA - Same again. Left is QC. Right is Kemper - with a pretty severe scoop in the mids.
When I listen to them as stereo, for both files, they sound unbalanced to me. There is a slight lean towards one side. I wouldn't put that on a record. I'd rather track left and right with just the Kemper than mix and match those two specific tones.
And for what it's worth, my ears today listening to the non-EQ'd clips, are telling me that the QC sounds a little scratchier and the Kemper sounds fuller. So it isn't the case that the QC always sounds fuller and girthier than the Kemper.
And I'll just say it I guess - they don't sound anywhere near the same to me, particularly in your "fixed" clip. In fact they sound further apart to me.
With guitar I do the same thing. Which is why I got the QC.
Yeah I wouldn't recommend taking a hairdryer to the Kemper personally. If it's making you happy then it sounds like it was a solid purchase for you this part doesn't make any sense at all to me. It sounds like with your drum samples you're willing to do whatever it takes to make them sound the way you want but with the kemper: you aren't willing to do anything. You'll do all that for some drums but won't even use a simple post EQ or adjust any of the settings to get the sound closer to the source? Um, ok.
That to me is just odd but what is even more odd though is that won't answer any of the questions that myself or ckemper have asked. Either way, like I said I'm glad it makes you happy. Also would be curious which was which in your previous example and if one wasn't a source then would like to hear the source.
Ah you listened to my fixed versions. I was hoping the names would trip you up: and they did. That's pretty funny to me. Now listen to the demo excerpt I did.
Yeah I wouldn't recommend taking a hairdryer to the Kemper personally. If it's making you happy then it sounds like it was a solid purchase for you this part doesn't make any sense at all to me. It sounds like with your drum samples you're willing to do whatever it takes to make them sound the way you want but with the kemper: you aren't willing to do anything. You'll do all that for some drums but won't even use a simple post EQ or adjust any of the settings to get the sound closer to the source? Um, ok.
That to me is just odd but what is even more odd though is that won't answer any of the questions that myself or ckemper have asked. Either way, like I said I'm glad it makes you happy. Also would be curious which was which in your previous example and if one wasn't a source then would like to hear the source.
I'll post more clips tomorrow. Line 5 == QC, Line 7 == Kemper. No source unfortunately. But you have actually spotted the exact things that I have an issue with, and given them rather similar terminology to what I would have as well. This is interesting.
It's not that I'm not willing to do anything, I just simply don't think post-EQ or pre-EQ are enough to close the gap. I've tried it many times. It doesn't work.
I'll post more clips tomorrow, along with a source track for proper reference. But it was interesting to see what you thought just based on the two.
So far as I can tell, I've answered ALL of your questions, and Christophe's. Please feel free to point out where I haven't, and I will do so. Maybe you're justt missing my posts.
Line 5 == QC, Line 7 == Kemper.
I'll admit that's a pretty surprising result to me. I expected the brighter and more controlled one to be the QC while the darker/boomy one to be the Kemper. Out of curiosity did you profile a boosted amp or add a boost to them?
I'm started to come to a point where I think the cortex sounds cleaner across the board most notably in the higher gain region. Where as the kemper has a more, broader stroke if you will. This I hear in the clean tones of the kemper and when the gain is turned down from a higher gain profile ( not specially high gain just higher than clean). When you turn down the gain on the cortex it thins out. Depending on your desired application, this could matter.
In short, I'm starting to think kemper has a better clean to low/mid gain robustness and the cortex has a cleaner mid gain to high gain dynamic. And this is where i think the overlap is. Or at least, starting to feel that way.
Another way of looking at this is where there has been accounts of the cortex needing to add gain after a capture and some instances where the kemper needed a little less gain after profiling.
Still nobody has tried refining with a synthesizer? Lol
Ah you listened to my fixed versions. I was hoping the names would trip you up: and they did. That's pretty funny to me. Now listen to the demo excerpt I did.
I wasn't paying attention to names. Go on then, what sneaky thing did you do?
I'll admit that's a pretty surprising result to me. I expected the brighter and more controlled one to be the QC while the darker/boomy one to be the Kemper. Out of curiosity did you profile a boosted amp or add a boost to them?
Swear on my mothers soul I'm not lying
It was a Satriani JVM, on OD1 Red mode, with the noise gate completely disabled. QC and Kemper each taking a feed from my Suhr Loadbox, and then I loaded the same IR onto each unit to get the cab. I didn't boost the amp myself with anything. The amp *may* have some sort of pseudo-boost in the circuit, but I'm not too familiar with the schematic to be honest, so I don't know. They're pretty complicated amps, so it wouldn't surprise me if there was some sneaky transistors in the signal path acting as a kind of boost.
Another way of looking at this is where there has been accounts of the cortex needing to add gain after a capture and some instances where the kemper needed a little less gain after profiling.
Yeah, this is more or less how I perceive it when a/bing them too. I feel like I wanna mess with the gains.
I put both your clips into Reaper and polarity inverted one of them. Both of the left sides cancel out 100%. So I was able to identify that the left channel was the same in both clips. There is a big difference in the right channels, resulting in a -20dB peak level when doing this null test. So what did you do with the right channels?
And which was which? Left was Kemper and right was QC after all?? Or was I right in saying the left was QC and right was Kemper?
In both cases, the left channel dominates and leaves the clip sounding unbalanced.
I love nerding out about this stuff!
I wasn't paying attention to names. Go on then, what sneaky thing did you do?
You're right it does lean to the right side a bit even at the same perceived loudness. Low-mids tend to do that which is why I boosted them on one side and cut them from the other after i volume matched them. But which one did I cut and which one did I boost?
Honestly wouldn't mind being send that profile, I can make you like it with a little tweaking.
If the left channel is nulling out then something happened on my end because they are definitely both EQ'd in the second clip. Let me open up the session
It is fun to see and hear this conversation. I love that you guys are posting audio clips.
I actually much preferred the Line 7 tone. I was really hoping that it wasn't the QC. I really don't have the budget right now to purchase another unit in that price range. If you could even find one.
You're right it does lean to the right side a bit even at the same perceived loudness. Low-mids tend to do that which is why I boosted them on one side and cut them from the other after i volume matched them. But which one did I cut and which one did I boost?
Honestly wouldn't mind being send that profile, I can make you like it with a little tweaking.
If the left channel is nulling out then something happened on my end because they are definitely both EQ'd in the second clip. Let me open up the session
Left channel is definitely nulling. So I'm not really sure what the two clips prove now.
Left channel is definitely nulling. So I'm not really sure what the two clips prove now.
Nothing because the kemper track had the fx by-passed and you know what: that's on me. You can hear the tell even in the messed up track which is which though and I'll give you a hint: listen to the end when you stop playing.
Honestly I'm surprised no one said anything about how messed up that is. That's why you play it back before uploading right there
Nothing because the kemper track had the fx by-passed and you know what: that's on me. You can hear the tell even in the messed up track which is which though and I'll give you a hint: listen to the end when you stop playing.
Okay... so after some more null tests..... between my original files and your files.....
your Original QC Kemper Refined double-clip:
- Left channel is definitely my QC with a 100% null.
- Right channel is definitely my Kemper Refined.
Your Volume Matched 200hz Cut KPA:
- Left channel is definitely my QC with a 100% null.
- Right channel doesn't null against anything. So I'm assuming that's the Kemper one with EQ applied???
So... my original guesses were....
QuoteOriginal QC Kemper Refined.wav - The left channel is the QC. The right channel is the Kemper.
Volume Matched 200hz Cut KPA - Same again. Left is QC. Right is Kemper - with a pretty severe scoop in the mids.
So I'm not exactly sure what I got wrong or what "gotcha" I fell for?? I seem to be 100% correct ????
I have only listened to clips of the QC vs Kemper, but from those many clip comparisons, I would say that both are close enough to pass muster in a live band situation ..... with regards to tone that is.
When playing live, work-flow and ergonomics are far more important than when plunking around with a computer. I believe that we all agree that the QC is inferior to the KPA for live deployment due to this fact.
Now, as for what the audience hears ..... there is simply NO WAY an audience would perceive a KPA or QC as "sounding better" in a live situation. There are about 1000 other factors live that are going to make way more difference than any tonal difference we can hear between the QC and KPA and the original tube amp.
As for the artist playing? Well, in any situation where a wedge is being used as a monitor .... no way. The setup of the monitor send, the quality of the monitor speaker, the other stage noise, etc, etc, are all going to have larger variance than the difference between the QC and KPA. Really good IEM's? Maybe, but again, I doubt it. The only situation I can think of that even the artist could hear the difference would be playing by himself/herself .... and even then, I think it would be more a matter of "different" vs "good/bad".
I am still of the opinion that the QC work-flow is its biggest problem for live use, not the quality of the tone it gets.
So I'm not exactly sure what I got wrong or what "gotcha" I fell for?? I seem to be 100% correct ????
You are 100% correct.
Right QC unaltered in both of those clips. Kemper is altered. Now to be fair, the rendering on by-pass was a mistake but I rolled with it.
Nothing because the kemper track had the fx by-passed and you know what: that's on me.
I was hoping you'd call this out as the lie it was but it seems like you didn't need to, you did the null test anyway.
You will go to all these lengths to prove the QC is better but the one thing you won't do.... edit the parameters of your Kemper profile.