Posts by drew_fx

  • Neural Quad Cortex

    On Helix I can have 8 snapshots that control up to 64 parameters, meaning I don't need a ton of expression pedals connected. The same is true for the QC.

    But even so, I can assign the expression pedal inputs to any parameters I want.

    Kemper cannot control all of the parameters that I would want to control using it's morph functionality, I don't want one input dedicated to volume when I have a volume control, same with wah, and same with pitch.

    It's just a way of thinking about assignments that I don't jive with.

  • Neural Quad Cortex

    Quote from Calaban

    Interesting. Other users have reported that the QC has the best pitch effects they've ever tried.

    I am not a big transpose/pitchbend guy. At most I would use it to downtune by a half step. If it can handle that without any problems I'll be good to go.

    Thanks for the review btw...great job.

    Honestly???

    Very skeptical of the "best pitch effects I've ever tried" line. They're serviceable, but the new Helix ones sound miles better IMHO - it's not a functional thing, it's a tonal thing. Their whammy sounds squeally and high-pitched warbly to me. The Kemper and Helix have better pitch effects.

    I'm fortunate though that I'm not actually THAT picky. I just need a root ->> 5th above whammy with a 30/70% mix, so I can do some atonal ebow weirdness.... and a low octave effect for some riffs. That's about it.

  • Neural Quad Cortex

    I don't quite understand the live use comments. Barely anyone has tried it in a live situation yet, and these devices nearly always have some sort of learning curve. At the very least it has a bigger screen for reading patch names easier, as well as an easier to read tuner. Those are two huge things right there. I'm concerned about the proximity of the footswitches across the two rows though. That could destroy a live show. The Helix and Kemper footswitch both leave a bit more room, but require more floor real estate because of it.

    Quote from Per

    I think the point they’re making is about how they feel, their own uncertainty, not necessarily the true accuracy, so it’s more about the process/user experience.

    I don't think it's accurate at all to describe my latest JVM profile as being spot on - there are significant differences in not only the low end frequency response, but also the mid-range where the profile has this extra layer of quackiness that the real amp didn't have. It's not just about the process or the experience.

  • Neural Quad Cortex

    Quote from ColdFrixion

    One thing that makes the Kemper more flexible for me is the fact that amps and cabs in studio profiles can be separated, even if it's not a perfect separation. The QC can make direct profiles, but I suspect most captures that are uploaded to the cloud will be full captures. While you capture your own amps, there are a lot of people who'll be relying on the capture community exclusively, namely because they don't have any amps of their own to capture.

    Yep, I can see that. Although what I would say is that for more or less 50% of the Kemper's lifetime so far, no-one was really making amp-only profiles. There are tons and tons of kemper profiles out there that are amp+cab+mic, and it's disappointing when you see a profile you'd like to use but it has the cab baked in.

    People going into QC now in 2021 are well aware of the use-case for both types of profile, so you'd imagine they'd invest in a simple £40 DI box that can sit between their amp and cab, so when they do a capture, they can just do two.

    All this stuff lives and dies on your intended use case.

  • Neural Quad Cortex

    Quote from Pick909

    If you found what you're looking for in the QC I'm happy for you and I mean it! :) What I meant is that I personnaly don't see a so call ''game changer'' in this device that would urge me to make the change from my trusty Kemper that's it!

    No probs! I'll be happy owning all 3 for a while. I've got the Kemper and Helix already, and 5 valve amps, so it's not like I have any brand loyalty or anything like that.

  • Neural Quad Cortex

    Quote from Pick909

    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!

  • Neural Quad Cortex

    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 !! :D

    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.

  • Neural Quad Cortex

    Quote from ckemper

    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.

  • Neural Quad Cortex

    Quote from paddyc

    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.

  • Neural Quad Cortex

    Quote from CelticGibson

    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.

  • Neural Quad Cortex

    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.

  • Neural Quad Cortex

    Quote from Awesome_Elvis

    Looks like I'll be the first one to say (or soon be argued with about saying first lol but for real tho)

    I wonder when the Quad Cortex II (Or a Kemper 2) will come out (if at all) and the firestorm of jokes and curmudgeonly poopy pants fist shouting begins.

    *insert of pictures from Reservoir Dogs*

    Poopy pants fist shouting? Sounds like quite the talent!

  • Neural Quad Cortex

    Quote from SeanChristopher

    So far from what Doug Castro has said and from the information out so far on the QC, the Cab won't be able to be separated from the Amp in a full rig Capture. So if you're using the equivalent of a Studio Profile (an Amp+Cab Capture) then you're limited to that mic'd up cab sound. The ability to change, move, and blend mics and speakers doesn't work with a regular Capture. You can't even just mute or turn off the Captures Cab sound in a full rig Capture. You'd have to be using a Capture of an Amp only (the equivalent of a DI Profile) with no Cab in order to use the QC's Cabs with a Capture.

    The Cabs in the QC are the same as the Neural DSP plugins and the ML Soundlab Mikko plugin. It's a bunch of IR's that are loaded up based on where you visually move the mics on the screen. Each mic placement, distance, and mic variation, is a different IR. So each QC Cab is a bunch of IR's with a cool visual UI to make it simple to pick and blend IR's (I think 2 mics or something in each Cab block)

    The same way you can make a no-cab profile in the Kemper, you could do the same with the QC. Then do it with the cab mic'd up, and then you'd have both options. Potentially on two separate paths as one - one for monitoring through a real cab, and one for going to FOH.

    Or put an IR after the no-cab capture and call it done.