Neural Quad Cortex

  • Come on now....stop talking sense!


    You’re being far too reasonable.

  • the only threads I removed from other gear were copy & paste posts of press releases of some keyboards IIRC

    I couldn't say it was you sir or other mods. I remember quite clearly the specific answer given by that person tho.
    Anyway, it's not an issue since things have gone a different route.
    Speaking in general, IMO you guys are right to let members discuss about everything, even when a comparison is somehow unfavourable or critic for the Profiler: because the same discussion is certainly going on elsewhere in the Net anyway, and because those who don't are just cutting a bad figure for themselves IMO.

  • Yes there are other kinds of Captures but, different kinds of Captures existing doesn't change the fact that the Captures themselves only have B M T and Gain to tweak within them, and it doesn't change the fact that you can't swap Cabs in full rig Captures. You're talking as if somehow, other kinds of Captures existing and other features, somehow makes the drawbacks I mentioned non-existent and that's just ridiculous lol.


    You may think other things about the QC make up for that aspect and you might be right. But I wasn't talking about other aspects in my observation. I tried to be clear about the fact that I was talking specifically about the QC's Capture section and the KPA's Amp block in comparison to each other.


    I'm not making blind faith based assumptions. I'm making assumptions based off of what's realistic and what the current market offers and what the market demands. And simply put, no one's really talking about using Captures of each individual section within an amp and signal chain. Pretty much everyone is talking about full rig and DI Captures so idk how in demand Captures of each section within an amp will be but so far, that seems like something a small percentage of people are interested in doing based of off what people are actively talking about in regards to the unit.


    But it could go either way. I guess neither of us know more than the other would so it's a guess on both ends lol.


    And I'd like to stress again how i'm not saying that it'll make the unit terrible or make the experience bad. I'm just literally making observations about some limitations i've noticed and have commented about how they'd be drawbacks for my uses and other's with similar workflow's or situations.


    Somehow me making observations has triggered a need within you to defend the QC as if it's being attacked lol. As if my observations are an attempt to sabotage your experience with your QC and I assure you that's not the case. If I came off that way, I apologize. I'd like to assure you, I have no malicious intent and I doubt anyone else here does either. I'm merely making observations and comparisons based on the facts we know so far.


    As the new "game changer", it's pretty normal for people to compare it to the competition that it's claiming superiority over. Naturally, people will notice things they like and don't like. And while exchanging observations and analysis of individual aspects of the units workflow or features, you keep feeling the need to discredit and disprove the things people are observing. I'm making observations about only specific aspects in comparison to the KPA and I've explained how those things can be drawbacks. And others are expressing their opinions just like you express yours.


    Like i've said before, you're right from a certain perspective. And I actually see how you would get to what you're thinking. And it's valid from the other side of the tracks, if you disregard the context of what i'm saying. But that's the issue. You ignore the context to attack the validity of anothers' observation.


    There's a difference between respectfully disagreeing and just explaining your opinion-and disagreeing with someones opinion and trying to disprove it or explain why it's wrong lol. And for half the comments i've made, you ignore the context of my observation to explain what other aspects make my opinion less valid. It all isn't necessary because, we're homies man haha. If you haven't noticed, I keep saying you're right too from a certain perspective. You're just ignoring my perspective to make yours right.


    I see many advantages and upsides to the QC as well, so it's not all negative. I'm merely being analytical and making observations here. Some of them just happened to be drawbacks. That's not a slam or an attempt to slander anything lol. That's just normal for the new piece of gear while it's being looked at by people. There's definitely no need to be defensive, my friend:) Like I said before, we can disagree and still be homies ahaha:D^^ I mean no offense and I see where you're coming from. But it'd be cool to feel like that same courtesy was returned. After all, we're buds so what's with all the bickering? hahaha let's just say whatever and agree to disagree :)

  • A bit long but I agree. Some people identify with the things they buy, any critique will be taken personally and they won’t be judge from a clear and detached perspective.

  • If you watch the lastest MBritt video called "MBritt's Kemper profiling secrets" you can clearly hear differences between the Kemper and the real amp (listening with APS Klasik 2020 studio monitors). Don't get me wrong please, it's not night and day!! Maybe Kemper even sounds better. But if you focus on "authenticity" it is not 99 % and only 1 % missing here. Mr. Britt himself is hearing it and calling it mid hump. That is what some people mean, when they talk about recognizing the Kemper because of some TS like sound.

    So it seems that even Mr. Britt has to improve on refining than?

    I saw/heard the same thing and it had me scratching my head. I have played quite a few MBritt profiles, and I like them, so he's definitely got an ear for tone. So, I guess our ears are sensitive to different things, which is fine.


    I profiled a dozen of my boutique amps when I got my first KPA, and I would swear my profiles were much closer to the original amps than some of what I saw on that video. But maybe others might hear differences that escape my ears, just as I did on the MBritt video.

    PRS Singlecuts
    Kemper PowerHead/Remote



    Quote from skoczy

    When you turn the knob on KPA, you wake up the captured souls of tube amps living inside.

  • If you watch the lastest MBritt video called "MBritt's Kemper profiling secrets" you can clearly hear differences between the Kemper and the real amp (listening with APS Klasik 2020 studio monitors). Don't get me wrong please, it's not night and day!! Maybe Kemper even sounds better. But if you focus on "authenticity" it is not 99 % and only 1 % missing here. Mr. Britt himself is hearing it and calling it mid hump. That is what some people mean, when they talk about recognizing the Kemper because of some TS like sound.

    So it seems that even Mr. Britt has to improve on refining than?

    M Britt definitely could have done a wee bit more Refining imo lol :D


    I think a huge part of the level of accuracy reached when profiling has to do with the Refining technique. I'm not sure if you saw the video of Guido B making some Profiles but in that vid, I couldn't hear even the smallest difference between the amp and Profile-much like my experience with other amps being Profiled as well. A big difference in the Profiling technique between Guido and M Britt is their Refining technique. Guido B took the time to Refine each register and aspect of the tone that needed refinement, and Refined as many times as he felt necessary until 100% accuracy. And M Britt only Refined one time and it was quite short.


    So far evidence has shown that if someone takes the time to Refine each aspect of the tone that needs Refining, there really can be a level of authenticity reached that's indistinguishable from the real amp. It's crazy how much of a difference that Refining multiple times can make :)

  • M Britt definitely could have done a wee bit more Refining imo lol :D


    I think a huge part of the level of accuracy reached when profiling has to do with the Refining technique. I'm not sure if you saw the video of Guido B making some Profiles but in that vid, I couldn't hear even the smallest difference between the amp and Profile-much like my experience with other amps being Profiled as well. A big difference in the Profiling technique between Guido and M Britt is their Refining technique. Guido B took the time to Refine each register and aspect of the tone that needed refinement, and Refined as many times as he felt necessary until 100% accuracy. And M Britt only Refined one time and it was quite short.


    So far evidence has shown that if someone takes the time to Refine each aspect of the tone that needs Refining, there really can be a level of authenticity reached that's indistinguishable from the real amp. It's crazy how much of a difference that Refining multiple times can make :)

    I was surprised by that. His profiles are usually quite good and I assumed that he spent adequate time refining. Specially when the differences are that obvious.


    I guess he goes after the sound that he prefers instead of accuracy. I rather have accuracy from the start and then adjust to taste on my own.


    I still believe that if accuracy is the goal then refining should be fully automated because if not, when using somebody else's profiles, the results will always depend on how much effort they put on refining and their ears.

  • I don't follow the argument about the QC capturing each element of the amp and cabinet. Isn't that what the Kemper does, i.e. You can capture the amp as a DI, you can capture the cab together with the amp and you can switch around amps and cabs?


    Or am I missing something? It seems highly unlikely that you can capture a cab without an amp being involved in the equation.

  • You're talking as if somehow, other kinds of Captures existing and other features, somehow makes the drawbacks I mentioned non-existent and that's just ridiculous lol.

    Oh, I did not mean to feel ridiculous...

    This discussion has turned in a sort of competition where one has to show that the other is "wrong"; not my interest. I like to bring thoughts and elements on the table and discuss them.

    Nothing wrong in you having your ideas. I am out :)

  • Oh, I did not mean to feel ridiculous...

    This discussion has turned in a sort of competition where one has to show that the other is "wrong"; not my interest. I like to bring thoughts and elements on the table and discuss them.

    Nothing wrong in you having your ideas. I am out :)

    You know what, I didn't mean to either.

    We can have differing ideas and it can be all good :)

    As I said before, we can still be homies!


    I, much like you, just like sharing ideas and observations :)

    I definitely didn't mean for this to turn into any sort of verbal debate competition and I apologize for adding to the problem.

    We both clearly have ideas that are valid from different perspectives and hey, that's just life ;)

  • This.

    Before long term friendships are harmed , I reckon it's a better option right now to wait for QC to be released into the public domain . That is when there will be hundreds/thousands of opinions posted on the www. , regarding what the QC can or cannot do well , or not so well.

  • I was surprised by that. His profiles are usually quite good and I assumed that he spent adequate time refining. Specially when the differences are that obvious.


    I guess he goes after the sound that he prefers instead of accuracy. I rather have accuracy from the start and then adjust to taste on my own.


    I still believe that if accuracy is the goal then refining should be fully automated because if not, when using somebody else's profiles, the results will always depend on how much effort they put on refining and their ears.

    I think that's where the QC's algorithm has an advantage (and sort of a disadvantage at the same time lol) over the Kempers Profiling algorithm. T


    The QC's Capture algorithm works longer than when Profiling, almost as if the "Refinement" is automatic. This is a great idea and has the potential to get really good results (even when people don't want to Refine a lot like in the M Britt video). But the QC not having a Refine option after the Capture is done, prevents it from being able to improve the accuracy of the Capture beyond the initial Capture process. So in other words, if the Capture's accuracy isn't to your satisfaction at first, then you have to re-do the Capture-rather than being able to just Refine it in the areas that might need it, to get the most authentic results possible.


    I think the QC adding back the a "Refine" type option to the Capture process, would allow better Capture results. Because idk first hand but, in all the QC Capture vids so far, I can hear some really obvious differences between the amp tones and the Captures. And it seems that there's no option to further the accuracy of the Captures aside from re-doing the Captures completely, or hoping the Bass Middle Treble and Gain is enough to get the Capture closer to the amp tone. But if they added the "Refine" option to the Capture process, I think the results would be a lot better ^^ Because Captures have a ton of potential as it is.


    I think if the KPA's Profiling algorithm had an automatic Refine section of the process, yet still had the same Refine option as always, then it would make for some more accurate results right off the bat-which would ideally require no Refining or much less Refining if any is needed at all :)

  • I agree completely with you. My guess is that the Profiler does not do auto-refining because when they created the device, they were not able to have results as accurate as they wanted to. On top of that, Kemper has not had any competition for what it does since its release, so probably auto-refining has not been a priority for them.


    Things are changing now. Kemper has a real competitor that does something that the Profiler doesn't do. Even if not perfect at the current state, the results are extremely good in some cases and in many others better than what a casual user may achieve with the Profiler. Neural DSP also said that they will keep working to improve the results.


    What I always liked about the Profiler vs a modeler, is that I can actually compare the real amp vs my profiles and see how accurate they are. With a modeler, such as the Axe FX, you have no choice but to rely on somebody else's ears. Same thing happens when using somebody else's profiles. This is what Neural DSP is trying to avoid and what I believe Kemper should do as well.

  • It's been a long time since I tried it, back then I used the IR conversion utility to convert the IR into a Kemper cab. Then for reference I ran the same IR in a Torpedo Live and compared the two. Maybe they have improved it since then?

    Comparing IR’s on two different digital boxes seems odd to me ? You should be comparing against the real cabinet? You are after all assuming the Torpedo is more accurate, or just different?

  • Comparing IR’s on two different digital boxes seems odd to me ? You should be comparing against the real cabinet? You are after all assuming the Torpedo is more accurate, or just different?

    IRs sound the same in pretty much all devices/plugins unless they are truncated significantly. The Profiler does not seem to use IRs or at least not the same way. The IR conversion utility converts IRs to whatever it is that the Profiler is using. It just does not sound the same though.

  • I don't follow the argument about the QC capturing each element of the amp and cabinet. Isn't that what the Kemper does, i.e. You can capture the amp as a DI, you can capture the cab together with the amp and you can switch around amps and cabs?


    Or am I missing something? It seems highly unlikely that you can capture a cab without an amp being involved in the equation.

    I'm not sure, but I think they mean a QC 'Capture' is saved as a block. A block can be moved around in the fx chain, but there are no separate components. You can't change the cab to a different cab, because it's saved as a block. You can adjust EQ and gain, but you can't swap in a different amp or different cab. With the Kemper, you can change all those things and more- amps, amp parameters, cabs, cab properties.


    Can someone correct me if I got that wrong?

  • QC - Full rig captures cannot be divided into amp/cab like they can in the Kemper.


    But keep in mind that when you switch cabs in a studio profile on the KPA, the KPA is making its “best guess” as to which part of the profile is the cabinet. It does a surprisingly good job, but it is not perfect.


    I believe that is why Kemper introduced direct profiles. I have used some direct profiles with IR’s on my computer when recording and they tend to sound better than the studio profiles, to my ear. I think it’s because I have greater control over the Cab sound at that point.

    I have never messed with “merged” or whatever....that whole part seemed too confusing and clunky to be of interest to me.

  • Before long term friendships are harmed

    Oh, don't get me wrong :) I just stop discussing things when no matter what you write the other one responds the same things as before: this just means you are not really building anything... this bores me the most :D

    A block can be moved around in the fx chain, but there are no separate components.

    The key element of discussion here seems to me to be the fact that the QC can run several captures in series or parallel: you can assemble a rig with one or two captured pres, one or two captured power sections, several captured pedals and an IR. You can also capture a whole rig (in the fashion of a Studio profile), whose components would of course be non-detachable.


    So it depends on what blocks you use.