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.
You keep saying that. It simply isn't true. I've spent years trying to dial out what you yourself have acknowledged as a displeasing distortion character.
No amount of pre or post EQ gives me as pleasing a palm-mute response on the Kemper as the QC, or the original amp. This has been true for cabless signals as much as cabbed signals.
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.
That's really the only real negative I've heard about the unit but then again I doubt very many people have even attempted to use on live yet. It will certainty be interesting to see how that turns out though, I only messed with one for a fairly short amount of time but my experience with it in a studio environment was pretty solid. It sounds like it should sound to me
The only real advantage the Kemper has over the QC to me is 1) Proven touring record and 2) 10 years of people Profiling rigs with the thing. I find the whole "well this one profiles closer to the source!" argument to be such a tiny and ultimately meaningless thing to get caught up on.
It's still fun to pick on people for it though
I find the whole "well this one profiles closer to the source!" argument to be such a tiny and ultimately meaningless thing to get caught up on.
That's a pretty strange thing for an audio engineer to say.
I've spent years trying to dial out what you yourself have acknowledged as a displeasing distortion character.
You found a way to dial it out in the first examples, I only had a real problem with it in the second examples you posted (the line ones). To me even those were closer than your first ones and even opposite of them in some ways. For example the QC in the first examples was the bright/tight sound while the Kemper was the darker one. Either way I'm still confident you could get both of them close to the source if you wanted to but you made up your mind long before you ever started posting examples. It's the gear for you, enjoy it. Who cares what I or anyone else thinks. Like OneEng said far more eloquently than I did: No one is going to know if its a tube amp, qc, or a kemper because 1) they don't know the source sound and 2) the differences in the captures are not that obvious enough to pick up in a venue or a mixed record.
I'll be the first to say I've played some through some really bad kemper profiles (we've all played around on the rig exchange) and I've played through some really amazing ones as well. I'm sure there will be really bad QC captures on the cloud. I'm really excited to see where the tech goes but if I honestly really cared about 100% accuracy I'd mic up the real thing.
That's a pretty strange thing for an audio engineer to say.
An audio engineer would know that nothing on a record sounds like the source anymore. None of the guitar tones or drum sounds you idolize sounded like that at the board input. It's important to have a good source yes however as an audio engineer you should know by the very nature of putting a microphone in front of something: it no longer sounds like the source. The tiny differences between a valve amp and how the QC and Kemper capture them differently becomes irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. If i spent 5 hours screwing with a microphone on an amp to get it 1% better while the client was paying union rate for session players: I would have been fired decades ago.
An engineer knows when it's good enough. How you've gone 20 years without learning that is beyond me.
You found a way to dial it out in the first examples
I didn't. I didn't do anything to either device other than follow the process - QC... capture the amp. Kemper.... profile it, and refine it.
That's an example of the Kemper's inaccuracy and unpredictability. The QC too. It doesn't even always get the amp spot on.
Neither device is infallible. The point is, for my tastes, I tend to prefer the QC. Although not always, as I said before.
I think I'll leave it there. You're being needlessly snarky, and you've already tried a "gotcha" that completely failed, and so any clips or comments you make going forward can only be viewed with suspicion. Which is kind of crap, but it is what it is. That's the situation you put us in. I don't think we really have much else to say to each other that isn't just going to descend into more snark and eventually insults.
The bottom line for me - both units are good. No question. Absolutely no question. But if accurate to your real amps is important to you and if you like tighter more "focused" palm-mute response, QC seems to be better than the Kemper. If you like all the features of the Kemper and don't care too much about accuracy, then go for it. More power to you!
I'm keeping both units for now. I'd like to see profiling tech improvements for the Kemper within the next year or so. I don't care about WIFI or new fuzzes or new drives. I care about being able to replace a valve amp fully.
As an industry, we're still not quite there yet. But getting better as the years go by.
That's it. Thanks for putting up with me everyone! 
That's it. Thanks for putting up with me everyone!
Honestly I would stick around plenty of people tend to be enjoying your examples and learning from them. Don't let an old man picking on you scare you away.
I care about being able to replace a valve amp fully.
I'm curious if you would humor me and I won't give you a rebuttal or be snarky don't worry: Do you think drum samples/drum programs replace drums fully? If not: will they ever?
I'm curious if you would humor me and I won't give you a rebuttal or be snarky don't worry: Do you think drum samples/drum programs replace drums fully? If not: will they ever?
Not yet. They're very good in a mix, but for live performance I don't think they're quite there yet. But they're close. I do think eventually the gap will narrow to QC vs Kemper levels.
Right now we're at PodXT versus valve amp stages, when it comes to drum samples replacing an entire acoustic kit.
Doesn't mean they're bad. PodXT was on stacks of records in it's day.
Hmm after reading this thread i would say
play guitar
its not the tools
its your art in paying what is important
or am i wrong ????
You guys are on the same side, whether you know it or not.
Meanwhile, I wonder if CK& Co are resistant to altering the special sauce in the profiling algorithm because it would result in an alteration of a decade worth of beloved profiles, because it’s not so much the test tones themselves as the fundamental tones that make up the core internal baselines that get altered per reference amp with each profile made.
Meanwhile, I wonder if CK& Co are resistant to altering the special sauce in the profiling algorithm because it would result in an alteration of a decade worth of beloved profiles, because it’s not so much the test tones themselves as the fundamental tones that make up the core internal baselines that get altered per reference amp with each profile made.
It's not about sides really. Always remember the thermionic valve was invented in the early 1900s (1905?) while the transistor was invented in the late 1940s and yet everyone still swears by tube amps even though tonally... solid states are more consistent. So "better technology" isn't always "better" subjectively. It's going to vary person by person.
Things like the QC and the Kemper are kind of bridging both worlds by giving you a tonally consistent tube amp sound. It certainty isn't exact but it's good enough for most people. My argument from the beginning has been too many people are honing in on being 1% "better" rather than just focusing on what's actually important. It's just a tool. I don't think they want to alter the Kemper because they don't really need to. Would you alter a 59 Bassman to make it sound like a reissue even if you thought the reissue sounded better? Probably not. There will always be a "next best thing" but love it or hate it the Kemper does add it's own unique flavor to the sound (as does the QC) so why mess with it when it's been just fine for all these years.
I don't think they want to alter the Kemper because they don't really need to. Would you alter a 59 Bassman to make it sound like a reissue even if you thought the reissue sounded better? Probably not. There will always be a "next best thing" but love it or hate it the Kemper does add it's own unique flavor to the sound (as does the QC) so why mess with it when it's been just fine for all these years.
Agreed.
PS I bonded with the Kemper pretty early on, like in late 2013. So for me, firing it up on a recording is natural. Personally I’m not pleased by the prospect of it changing in any fundamental sonic way. Although I would love a half-size Stage.
Meanwhile, I wonder if CK& Co are resistant to altering the special sauce in the profiling algorithm because it would result in an alteration of a decade worth of beloved profiles,
I think you could alert how recorder (profiler) part works (alerting resulted profile) without touching player part. Or eventually they can intorduce something like KPA profile version information in profile so you could always use proper algo for the right profile. So I think there are ways to change the profile algo without alerting the old profiles. Just my 2 cents.
Somewhere on the internet is a live stream at British Audio before Summer NAMM in Nashville, I had got a chance to chat with CK about a few things and I think I remember asking him if sometime in the future it would be possible to make a multi staged profile of sorts where you could,
Prolfie a pedal, then pause and change the cables,
Profile just the pre amp, pause again
Come into the effects return to a load box and direct profile the power amp section, pause again, then profile just the cab and mic or power cab and mic. Then sum all the parts together and make one profile or have the ability to swap the different stages in and out.
Or somethin like that
Anyway, that's the kind of future I see in the cortex and eventually in the kemper or a Kemper 2, multi stage profiling.
I guess if you had 2 Kempers you could do this by profiling the pedal and preamp say, in a Stage, then have a profile of a power amp and cab and mic on a toaster and switch away!
Shoot, I might buy a Stage just to try this! Mwhahahahaha! The tones will be all mine!!!!! Ahahahahahahaaaaaa...
Guess I could just do this with just the cortex and powered toaster now...
I've tried using two KPA's at once, to profile a 57 and a 421 to separate units. Making sure to hit the 'start profile' switches at the same time on each unit, unfortunately it didn't work very well. But it wouldn't be a bad shout to offer a way to sync profile sessions across units.
I've tried using two KPA's at once, to profile a 57 and a 421 to separate units. Making sure to hit the 'start profile' switches at the same time on each unit, unfortunately it didn't work very well. But it wouldn't be a bad shout to offer a way to sync profile sessions across units.
Hehe what? So two profilers sending noise through the same amp? Or one profiler only listening to the noise of the other one?
Hehe what? So two profilers sending noise through the same amp? Or one profiler only listening to the noise of the other one?
Yeah so that's what I thought might work.... one profiler sending the tones to the amp.... return signal from each mic to each profiler... hit the 'start profiling' switch on both units at the same time.... it got through the process and it did complete, just didn't sound very good!
I'm assuming the micro-second delay between each unit button press is what caused it.
Probably - what were you hoping to achieve by profiling both mics at the same time? Why not just one after the other?
Probably - what were you hoping to achieve by profiling both mics at the same time? Why not just one after the other?
In theory it would be twice as quick to make profiles.
The only real advantage the Kemper has over the QC to me is 1) Proven touring record and 2) 10 years of people Profiling rigs with the thing. I find the whole "well this one profiles closer to the source!" argument to be such a tiny and ultimately meaningless thing to get caught up on.
I also add:
I agree with your other 2 points as well.
I am just kind of mystified at the amount of attention minute differences in tone gets in this discussion. It is like the never-ending discussion between Axe III Fx and KPA IMO.
Now if some are saying that the comparison between QC and KPA is more like the comparison of a PodXT vs KPA, then I would agree. There is a significant tonal difference.
