Neural Quad Cortex

  • I think it is quite interesting to realize that we today still talk about gaps between changing presets on high priced guitar modelers..this is funny at least..

    Well, they work differently than kemper, with different demands on the hardware; and many people don't use presets, but scenes, other categories, pla pla. I certainly prefer the kemper preset way.


    I wonder if switching between presets based on captures, considering they are much more "lightweight" could be quite fast on cortex too though. Don't know if they've addressed this.

  • Hey there!


    Just tuning in for some random & minor comments from my side :)


    When it comes to gaps when switching presets: I actually never went into this issue with my Helix. Having 8 snapshots at hand all the time, you can create several amp signalpaths in one preset and work with 8 iterations PLUS the stomps separately within one live song without any gaps. I can´t imagine a scenario where this is not way enough. When it comes to the QC, there will be even more possibilities due to more DSP power.

    I'd probably buy it if it had SPDIF.

    Coming from the HELIX, I´m always wondering why people are after a S/PDIF port at all. My biggest deal breaker for buying a KEMPER for a looong time was that it´s not an audio interface on its own. I was used to work via USB (where you get stereo, wet, dry etc all by just using...well...that one USB cable).

    If the Quad Cortey had an S/PDIF port - I won´t use it at all. For me, USB is WAY superior.

    The Quad, in terms of organization is pretty much the Helix, which I owned, played for 60 hours, and returned, less because of it's inferior sound (the not bad at all) but because the headache of staying organized for which I couldn't find a suitable work-around. My comparison between the Helix and Kemper was also before Kemper added the Editor, but even then I found it easier to stay organized. I would use this analogy. (....) Now with the KPA editor, it's like having both brooms available for sweeping that small room, if you actually want both.

    Again - coming from a HELIX, it´s very much the other way round in my view. The KEMPER Rig Manager & Editor (as much as I love my Kemper for its sound) to me (!) is just an old fashioned, unflexible, completely outdated and - by all means - not at all easy to organize piece of software. If KEMPER´s sound wouldn´t have that tiny something (which makes it a competitor to playing actual amps), I´d IMMEDIATELY go back to the Helix especially for the editor, the data structure, the interface and the way how you can organize stuff.

  • To each his own. I was initially attracted to the Helix's open canvas and flexibility. But I personally found that flexibility constraining and more time consuming. To me, the kemper's inflexible signal path is as constricting as water is to a fish. By giving you a simpler fixed signal path per rig, they can give you the DSP to switch rigs without a big audio gap or losing trails. Thus you have five instantly accessible Rigs or signal paths. Each one has up to four effect toggles with the ability to toggle multiple things each, AND the morphing of numerous parameters either instantly with the same rig selection switch or gradually with an expression pedal. They can make the looper always available. You can lock effect blocks because there is something fixed that all of the rigs share. It makes automatic volume compensation a reality so you can move across five rigs in a performance tweak the gains of each on the fly and hit save once, knowing your volumes still match. Versus, going to five presets, and heaven forbid individual snapshots, adjusting the gain, then the volume to compensate, hitting save, going to another preset comparing the volumes by ear..... A very long and cumbersome process.


    But isn't it great that guitarist have such diverse options available for the way they prefer to stay organized?

  • I hope Kemper gets some more serious competition in the future. So far nothing comes close. A more active competition is a good thing and can theoretically push Kemper to even higher levels of quality. Just don't get fooled by marketing bullshit. Try everything first hand and decide yourself.

  • I hope Kemper gets some more serious competition in the future. So far nothing comes close. A more active competition is a good thing and can theoretically push Kemper to even higher levels of quality. Just don't get fooled by marketing bullshit. Try everything first hand and decide yourself.

    Second that 100%. And I think that Kemper still has room for improvement even on their old platform. In the end, it´s all about the sound. And Kemper is still ahead to its competitors (for whatever reasons, I still don´t get why :D).

    When it comes to me personally, one major step for them has to be aquiring a more "modern" oriented & skilled software developer team & ux specialists. Enrich the sound with a competitive software for the B2C market - and there´s really not that much to complain about.
    Besides the USB thing :saint::evil:.

  • Coming from the HELIX, I´m always wondering why people are after a S/PDIF port at all. My biggest deal breaker for buying a KEMPER for a looong time was that it´s not an audio interface on its own. I was used to work via USB (where you get stereo, wet, dry etc all by just using...well...that one USB cable).

    If the Quad Cortey had an S/PDIF port - I won´t use it at all. For me, USB is WAY superior.

    I have a nice interface in my studio, and I don't want to switch everything around just to record the guitars. With the Kemper it's effortless. With the Quad Cortex, I'll have to use the analog outs. No biggie, but why go through extra conversion if you don't need to.

  • I have a nice interface in my studio, and I don't want to switch everything around just to record the guitars. With the Kemper it's effortless. With the Quad Cortex, I'll have to use the analog outs. No biggie, but why go through extra conversion if you don't need to.

    Jupp, totally makes sense. Despite I wouldn´t use it, I´m still wondering why they didn´t add it :?:. I know that they tried hard to reduce buttons, ports (or let´s say: holes in the chassis) as much as they could (that´s even the reason why there´s a capacitive touch on/off switch instead of a "haptic" button), but I/Os are no joke...

  • Jupp, totally makes sense. Despite I wouldn´t use it, I´m still wondering why they didn´t add it :?:. I know that they tried hard to reduce buttons, ports (or let´s say: holes in the chassis) as much as they could (that´s even the reason why there´s a capacitive touch on/off switch instead of a "haptic" button), but I/Os are no joke...

    I've head something about there not being enough space to add SPDIF, but I don't know if it's true...

  • I've head something about there not being enough space to add SPDIF, but I don't know if it's true...

    yeaah well...I mean...they designed the chassis as well, so... :D You are totally right & that´s most probably the reason (I think I read that on GearPage) but the "space" was their design-decision as well ^^

  • yeaah well...I mean...they designed the chassis as well, so... :D You are totally right & that´s most probably the reason (I think I read that on GearPage) but the "space" was their design-decision as well ^^

    Don't get the super small size. Why design an all-in-one product with cramped footswitches and not enough room for ins and outs? The only reason to need one that small is because you plan on using it with a lot of external effect pedals on a standard size pedal board. But if that's the case, you'll find two mono or one stereo effects loops inadequate to have programed control over all of your external effect pedals, so you're back to tap dancing, unless you want to add one of those expensive midi-controlled multi audio loop devices like Voodoo labs makes. But in that case, you need to make room for THAT on you pedal board. Conversely, the whole point in an all-in-one device is to not need that many external pedals, if any at all, and if you only have one or two external effect pedals, you'll find a device the size of the KPA Stage or Helix reasonable.

    It's also the reason their cute twistable stomp switches are pointless. First, their thinness to me seems like it would be less ergonomic to twist compared with a thicker knob. Second the only reason to make foot switches that double as knobs is because you're making the device needlessly small and have to conserve space.

  • Well, they work differently than kemper, with different demands on the hardware; and many people don't use presets, but scenes, other categories, pla pla.

    Yes.But I guess most lads just want to change between amps.And switch fx on/off.


    Just a step on a freakin' button and this thing changes from rig A to rig B..no drama..I dont want to make a two hours movie.I just want to play a song.Or two..

  • Depending on how big your feet are, it seems that you can push all the switches at once.

    If one is a giant duck, I can see how that's possible, facing the unit up front :D (Ok, i think you meant stepping on the unit with both feet at once. Seems like these would still be some massive feet tho).

  • Yes.But I guess most lads just want to change between amps.And switch fx on/off.


    Just a step on a freakin' button and this thing changes from rig A to rig B..no drama..I dont want to make a two hours movie.I just want to play a song.Or two..

    I would certainly prefer no discernible gaps at all, without having to think about other categories aimed at saving processing power. But thing is the kemper way presupposes using profiles and accomplishes no discernable gaps due to that.


    If I want profiles, that's great. I often certainly do. But if I want amp sims (I often do prefer this workflow, as well; it has saved me time in many cases where finding the right profile for a guitar or profiling amp all over again was an issue) I'm out of luck... Scenes, snapshots, ECT ECT, are a useful workaround to preset gaps.


    Would I prefer just not having to think about discernible gaps? Yes. Is this a bit of a different ballgame considering what is being accomplished? Yea, also, it seems to me... And while not necessarily "better", big numbers of users generally prefer the amp sim approach.


    That surely comes with some limitations, considering this hardware tech.