Neural Quad Cortex

  • 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.

    To be fair based on my limited use with unit, watching youtube comparisions, and listening to what people have posted online the differences have ranged from very tiny to very extreme. It seems to be really hit and miss depending on the amp and the person making it. It's not perfect but a good visual reference of one of the "very extreme" examples. All I did was EQ matching between the two

  • Well I've gave mine a bit of a spin and I need to do so in case I do decide to return it as I'll be away for two weeks unfortunately!

    It was a bit of a surprise when I saw it had arrived at the local dealer and thankfully the original price.


    First thing I want to say is I'm old enough to remember 2 channel amps (3 if you were lucky!) and hauling around 4x12's....

    If someone put one of these things in front of me with wifi, amp captures, multi fx etc back in the day my head would have exploded :)


    So while we live in IMO the best current period for music gear (except for the 50's if you are a LP fan :D) its also the worst time for complainers :)


    I really feel for the people building this gear sometimes and the BS they have to put up with online, so two thumbs up for all the awesome manufacturers putting out this brilliant gear!!!


    One of the reasons I didn't want the QC is I've found a certain happy medium/compromise with my gear I already have and to just focus more on playing. Being off social media has also been brilliant as far as even though I'm out of the loop of new gear I'm focusing more on what I own and not killing the wallet either.


    Anyway back to initial impressions!

    1.Some of the higher gain presets do have some nasty high end spikes, some sound a bit muffled (some of the factory profiles on the kemper and fractal I felt were the same) but there are some great ones right off the bat that could be used live. I do believe the fractal to be the best handling any aliasing which gets brought up once in a while.


    2.Ease of use, light years ahead of the Axe-Fx...the Kemper while at first was very intimidating with the CRO look, didn't take long to learn at all

    I would say QC,Kemper and Fractal in that order (I haven't tried the Helix but they did a damn good job with that one too)

    The flip down for inputs and scenes/presets is brilliant.


    Not to mention fact you can put on a (free!) sweetwater video and get to know the unit in 30min vs paying some $120 course from a guy whose tone sounds as smooth as legos in some vids


    3.Cabs I think its one of the most straight forward approaches ever. Pick a cab/mic and adjust .....the 1000 IRs in the AFX is just a nightmare.

    I'm assuming that is the way they are housed in the QC which makes perfect sense.



    4.Effects not as bad as I had read...I think its somewhat a tie with the AFX and the Kemper (some effects better than others ...the AFX pitch shift always seemed not good to me) the QC from my limited use is good enough and its early days.


    5.Capture

    I have not got to this part yet but the last 6-7 mths have had very little free time so maybe I'll even do some QC profiles on the Kemper and share here hahah



    6.Footswitches

    At first I was a bit worried about how close they are but its not too bad, the angle works great because you can just lay your foot flat to hit the upper ones.

    Saying that with the touch screen and the encoders I might go the way of using an RJM mastermind for a controller....idiocracy is very real and I'm not sure its worth the risk at some venues....


    Is the Kemper or Fractal going anywhere? Not yet...as much as the Fractal is a PITA with the interface and FW changes that ruin patches I need it for the guitar synth stuff I do due to the routing/outputs.


    I think I will use the Kemper for a pure guitar rig (if only the parallel path had more features for piezo guitars but I've found a compromise)

    But I may still sell the stage and keep the toaster...there is a high probability I'll share profiles between the units too for consistency!


    With the QC I think I will mainly use it for Bass/Acoustic/recording and possibly a live guitar rig depending on if I sell the stage


    Anyway just more of the same info, nothing new....I need to dig in deeper yet.

  • I have the QC, Kemper, and Axe Fx. I have this urge to just pick one and forget the others....it's essentially option paralysis. How do you focus on playing? I almost feel as if I need to pledge my time to one unit but then I feel guilty about the others just chilling there. I also read too much into guitar forums. Essentially everyone claims the QC to be heads and shoulders above the kemper but idk, I think they are very similar in terms of pure guitar tone and I often lean towards playing the kemper given my familiarity and maturity of the unit. I guess those who have a QC at the moment pre-ordered either within the first months of it being announced or shortly there after so maybe they have a bias given they have waited so long and also are obviously big NDSP fans if they preorded direct without any knowledge of the product. Not saying the QC is a bad product! Just that to me, it isn't the gamechanger they tried to push it to be.

  • I am interested in new gear.

    I don't give a shit about the QC but it's interesting to read.

    Kemper and Kabs are all I need right now.

    Things change when you get up in the morning... not today.

  • Everyone? That's not true.


    Just stop reading what others write and be more confident in what you hear and feel. If something sounds better to you, it sounds better. That's it.


    Enjoy.

    Hence why I put the "essentially" ? definitely exaggeration on my end but still I feel it's the majority? But who knows. However, as you said, it shouldn't matter!

  • I have the QC, Kemper, and Axe Fx. I have this urge to just pick one and forget the others....it's essentially option paralysis. How do you focus on playing? I almost feel as if I need to pledge my time to one unit but then I feel guilty about the others just chilling there. I also read too much into guitar forums. Essentially everyone claims the QC to be heads and shoulders above the kemper but idk, I think they are very similar in terms of pure guitar tone and I often lean towards playing the kemper given my familiarity and maturity of the unit. I guess those who have a QC at the moment pre-ordered either within the first months of it being announced or shortly there after so maybe they have a bias given they have waited so long and also are obviously big NDSP fans if they preorded direct without any knowledge of the product. Not saying the QC is a bad product! Just that to me, it isn't the gamechanger they tried to push it to be.

    Nope, not me. I ordered mine in March this year and had it in May. I said before, I have no brand loyalty, and I'm throwing feature requests at NDSP like no-one's business! I definitely wasn't going to pre-order one. The other guitarist in my band did though. He got his in January iirc, and I tested it out a ton before I decided to purchase. Spending that much money isn't a simple decision for me and I had to know that it was spot on.


    I'm a huge delay and reverb user. The delays and reverbs on QC are not good enough for my needs. Their tape delay doesn't even do oscillation effects, which I basically need for my music. So they're not good enough. Fortunately I can use my Strymon Volante or my Belle Epoch to get those sounds.


    I said before, if you've got the Stryfecta, you're not going to be happy with the QC right now. You can only send one program midi change when switching scenes within a preset - which means you can't easily call up specific presets on each Strymon pedal. You could do it, but your banks would have to be thoroughly organised on your units so that you get the right three presets from the same program change command - what psychopath has time for that!?!

  • it has dawned upon me the biggest overlook here, and I'll need other cortex users to back me up here unless this doesn't apply to you and your application. I'm gonna need to spred this across a few posts to put into perspective of someone like me with cognitive eccentricities


    having the ability, to stack your gain stage in a new way is paramount


    Pedal captures (potentially multiple, individually or all in one), into preamp or preamp and power amp combo captures, into power amp or power amp and cab mic captures, have never, NEVER, been possible

    In a configuration, that allows you to tweak, every step of the way,

    To fine tune or create new, tones, NEVER previously possible, in a very personable way that this has now been available

  • Pedal captures (potentially multiple, individually or all in one), into preamp or preamp and power amp combo captures, into power amp or power amp and cab mic captures, have never, NEVER, been possible

    In a configuration, that allows you to tweak, every step of the way,

    To fine tune or create new, tones, NEVER previously possible, in a very personable way that this has now been available

    If you're talking about having individual captures for each part of the chain, yes you can do this. Then you could piece them together like lego. I don't know if it would sound very good separating the preamp and poweramp sections of the amp, but you could definitely do it.


    Pedals work great. I've messed around with some boost pedal captures, and really liked what I heard. If you had a solid-state poweramp for capturing the cab+microphone as it's own thing, you could do it that way too. But probably better to just use the built in IR loading capabilities.


    On the current firmware - the one without the upcoming improvements to delay+reverb ram resources - I can do this:

    [Blocked Image: https://scontent-lcy1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-0/p526x296/201375498_10158131868900777_6122453008400637195_n.jpg?_nc_cat=101&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=8A9YHp_QS3YAX--7NbE&_nc_ht=scontent-lcy1-1.xx&tp=6&oh=15c45fba18b8db29d4ea186fe7553088&oe=60C9D975]


    In effect, each one of the neural capture blocks could be any element I want. These are all amps right now, so I definitely wouldn't want to listen to this preset! ^^^^^^

  • I am interested in new gear.

    I don't give a shit about the QC but it's interesting to read.

    Kemper and Kabs are all I need right now.

    Things change when you get up in the morning... not today.

    Generally I play imprints only. Today I was again using my FRFR-Cab and was quite disappointed how my rigs sound like. So lots to do for the crowd being supplied by FOH. Kone and Imprints have been my gamechanger and provide top notch sound.

  • you can try it now with the ADA preamp captures and the power amp captures at the end of the factory captures 2 list.

    I loved legos as a kid and so it's no surprise I love stack gain stages together :D


    You might have a point with the IR comment but, it's also possible to capture just the cab portion of the kemper. I keep putting it off and I need to try it.

  • 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.

    I have also heard POD’s , HD500 that sounded great. For that matter I have heard many guitarist tube amps that sounded terrible. Myself, I have recorded a Fender Mustang 15 solid state amp and it sounded wonderful.
    So I don’t take your point to mean much that lesser gear means lesser sound. It’s all in how you use it and really in how you play.
    You can make a QC sound just as bad as those examples you talked about. So meh!

  • I have also heard POD’s , HD500 that sounded great. For that matter I have heard many guitarist tube amps that sounded terrible. Myself, I have recorded a Fender Mustang 15 solid state amp and it sounded wonderful.
    So I don’t take your point to mean much that lesser gear means lesser sound. It’s all in how you use it and really in how you play.
    You can make a QC sound just as bad as those examples you talked about. So meh!

    Superb way to miss my point.


    My point was nothing to do with the gear.


    My point was whether the audience would notice and/or care. And sometimes, they do. The artist just doesn't get to hear about it. So they think that everything went swimmingly, meanwhile you've destroyed the ears of the front row, and the back row didn't hear a single thing you were doing!


    This happens regardless of gear. But the point I was responding to was that the audience doesn't care, so we shouldn't even bother trying to eek out the last bit of accuracy from our modelling gear.


    Which is absolute balderdash.

  • Amp accuracy does not automatically mean good sound.


    99% of audience members have no clue what this kind of Marshall or that kind of Fender sounds like. So like I said. If you can make a cheap solid state combo sound great, the audience will have zero clue if it sounded close to the real deal or not. I’d be willing to bet that most guitar players using a modelling amp don’t even know what a real Dumbell sounds like (myself included) and a recorded version is not like actually plugging into one, so we have no idea how close it is either.


    You can make any piece of gear sound good, or bad for that matter. Ha ha

  • Amp accuracy does not automatically mean good sound.


    99% of audience members have no clue what this kind of Marshall or that kind of Fender sounds like. So like I said. If you can make a cheap solid state combo sound great, the audience will have zero clue if it sounded close to the real deal or not. I’d be willing to bet that most guitar players using a modelling amp don’t even know what a real Dumbell sounds like (myself included) and a recorded version is not like actually plugging into one, so we have no idea how close it is either.


    You can make any piece of gear sound good, or bad for that matter. Ha ha

    My point was nothing to do with the gear.


    My point was whether the audience would notice and/or care. And sometimes, they do. The artist just doesn't get to hear about it. So they think that everything went swimmingly, meanwhile you've destroyed the ears of the front row, and the back row didn't hear a single thing you were doing!


    This happens regardless of gear. But the point I was responding to was that the audience doesn't care, so we shouldn't even bother trying to eek out the last bit of accuracy from our modelling gear.


    Which is absolute balderdash.

  • Haha not sure why everyone is getting on Drew’s case. He hasn’t made claims about what anyone else should feel about anything, at least not that I’ve read.


    All he’s said is that he‘s getting accurate captures of his amps using the QC, more so than in his years of trying with the profiler. CK has expressed curiosity about Drew’s methodology and Nightmare Circus has proffered a bit of a value judgement, in the guise of suggestions for technical fine-tuning. I’m sort of in his camp, but I can feel that way without dismissing Drew’s mission.


    When recording in the studio the motivation for going after the ultimate in pristine fidelity—even for music that may not require a refined sonic context—is in part because every step of the way toward the end consumer is a bit more of a sonic degradation. It’s also cool to go after an ideal, an ideal that was achieved in what, the 50s or 60s? That’s why a handful of outboard components used on benchmark recordings are still ubiquitous in present-day studios.


    Anyway I’m not sure what Drew’s motivations are, beyond wanting to eliminate the sonic discrepancies that he’s hearing. And since the kinds of profiles I use are basically indistinguishable from the reference amps, I don’t share his frustrations.


    But if we were making a record with his amps, I’d still want to use the amps themselves in the studio, not a QC or a Kemper. And if he were to play live with his profiles, I guess I’d tend to question how significant the differences between his captures and his profiles are, in terms of his musical experience, beyond him just knowing and that being a bother.


    Whether or not we all share the same priorities or even the same anecdotal results, it’s definitely positive that there are folks out there putting these devices to the fire in controlled environments and sharing what they’re discovering with the manufacturer and the user community.


    ymmv

  • I believe the contention is that somehow the audience experience would be effected by using a lesser quality amp than the QC and/or Kemper .... or that the QC capture accuracy is better therefore the audience experience would be better than a KPA because of the improved accuracy.


    Both of these are largely untrue in my experience.


    While it is less likely, an old PodXT in the hands of a guitarist that is good and can tweak and eq his tone well (and is a great musician), can sound great live. Now, just to be clear, it is much more likely that a KPA or Axe IIIFx (or QC) would sound great since they are easier to get sounding good and have more "great" sounds in them.


    Still, we are talking about what the audience experience is, and most audience members are much more effected by the stage presence of the band, the lighting, and literally a hundred other things much more than the guitar tone.


    Claim QC capture is more accurate than KPA (Ok, maybe so)

    Claim QC sounds "better" than KPA (Getting a little more shaky here)

    Claim QC over KPA in a band results in the audience noticing the band sounds better (Ahhh. Nope.)

  • No one has claimed that. That's something you've made up in your brain.

  • 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.

    This was in response to :


    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.


    In this case "Either unit" was referring to KPA or QC.... both of which sound infinintely better than the PodXT or HD500 (and arguably better than the Axe FX Ultra as well).


    My point being you certainly appear to be making the case that people in the audience can tell the difference and even comment on it (with your examples) and therefore would also comment on the differences between the KPA and QC.


    Now, I'll be the first one to say that sometimes my reading comprehension doesn't bat a thousand, but man it certainly looks like you were making EXACTLY the point you just said you were not trying to make.

    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.

    I beg to differ. The ONLY place your tone matters is in context to the music you are playing with. I think you would be shocked at how bad some really great guitar riffs and chord lines sound when the guitar track is isolated and played by itself without the band.


    I guess if all you want to do is play into headphones and listen to your tone, then the context IS the guitar by itself. For the rest of us, the way the guitar sounds in the mix is the ONLY thing that really matters.


    So just for my own sanity on where your arguments lie:


    1) Do you believe you could pick out the QC, the original amp, and a KPA playing in the context of a full band?

    2) Do you believe that any differences that exist between the 3 would be noticed by an audience hearing only 1 of them live?