Neural Quad Cortex

  • Maybe it wasn't a good idea to give these options to the user?

    Oh no, it was a brilliant idea!! It has been proven that with all those options you can get so close that even if there is a difference no one can really tell which is "true" and which is "fake".

    I think that there will ever be these kind of people who do a profile in their bedroom with no isolated listening situation, switch a little bit back and fourth and than complain about not getting close enough. And reading the manual is a topic by its own. :D

    I personal have a signal chain setup which works really well and gives me great results with profiling. But I also started to use these tools to former massage the sound in the direction I want it to be and don't care anymore if there is a difference, my goal is not to match them, my goal is to make the profile sound even better. (at least to my ears. :P) And that's what I use the tools for.

    Btw. why you don't do an official video about the refining process and busting some myths about this? I've searched through your official YT channel and can't find anything about this from your side (perhaps I have overlooked it). I have made for myself a lot of refining tests with different playings, guitars, pickups, DI tracks and have an opinion what works best for me.

  • Yes, it's called endorsing products. It has happened forever. The point is he has a reputation of being a respected player and people want him to demo their products because they know it is in good hands. In 2017 Rabea even posted a youtube video entitled "Getting Endorsements". It's not just him, Pete Thorn, Tom Quayle and a slew of others do the same. I can understand your frustration if you want an honest review and if that's your expectation you have to look somewhere else. If you look at Pete Thorn as an example, tons of product demos, and he makes them all sound great. That's exactly what the vendors want and are paying for. Through this COVID nightmare, it has been a means for many to earn money without gigging.

    Thats exactly what i do. I dont get why people would rather watch *endorsement* reviews when they can look for objective feedback from someone more reputable. I remember Bea saying (back in 2017 or so) that Kemper feels just like a tube amp, and now all of a sudden (when he got endorsed by neural) QC feels better than Kemper. And then people call someone like him *good and honest guy*. But whatever its easy to sell products to that kind of audience anyway.

  • You have to accept these reviews for what they are, these guys value their reputation but of course they're going to emphasise the benefits of a product over it's shortcomings, that's the nature of the game, no need to get offended by it, it's how they make their living.

    There's still value in these reviews, even if they're never altruistic, take them for what they are

  • Thats exactly what i do. I dont get why people would rather watch *endorsement* reviews when they can look for objective feedback from someone more reputable. I remember Bea saying (back in 2017 or so) that Kemper feels just like a tube amp, and now all of a sudden (when he got endorsed by neural) QC feels better than Kemper. And then people call someone like him *good and honest guy*. But whatever its easy to sell products to that kind of audience anyway.

    I think he was just giving his opinion and was not biased towards one camp or the other. He also endorses Kemper profiles through Victory amps. You could see how awkward he looked when he had to state what he felt. As for the sounds I heard, the distortion sounds weren't even close so I don't know how anyone could hide that. I think he is in a difficult spot now. What if he tries his absolute best to make the Kemper sound as good as the QC and he comes up short? People will then blame his profiling abilities or they will nit pick something else. I hope they sound closer but I'm not sure if they will.

    For videos, I prefer the endorsement ads over Joe Shmoe "honest" comparison videos because I just want to see an overview of what the product has to offer and how a pro can make it sound. If it piques my interest then I'll buy it and if it turns out it is not for me then I'll return it within the grace period.

  • You have to accept these reviews for what they are, these guys value their reputation but of course they're going to emphasise the benefits of a product over it's shortcomings, that's the nature of the game, no need to get offended by it, it's how they make their living.

    There's still value in these reviews, even if they're never altruistic, take them for what they are

    The main value is to find out who of these many many reviewers are really experienced enough to handle a serious review.?


    Some of this reviews were just funny.More like pc game reviews the little kids of my girlfriend are obsessed with.


    Pete Thorn made some serious remarks about the capture function.I expect we will have more on this soon.Just because fine little details like the capture having in general less gain than the source..I mean..ouch..

  • The only one I have seen without endorsement was Rhett Shull, so that could be more trustworthy. He seemed to like the QC and said he was buying the unit. Of course, even he had preferential treatment in getting one first to demo.


    In general, the really top players are not a good indication. Their playing might not be representative of what you can achieve yourself.

  • +1

    Maybe something that could be added in a Beta so people might try various pedals and report on quality?

    Would be cool to see how close they might be.

    No Beta version is needed.

    Pedal Profiling is possible since day one, in every firmware. Thousands of Profiler players profile their pedals along with their amps.


    The method is: cable the pedal to the Send and Return and create a Profile. It can be compared to the original by A/B comparison.
    Since the result is similar to a direct amp profile, it could even be used by adding a nice cabinet and sound gorgeous.


    The standard method however is to profile a pedal along with a downstream tube amp, sound and interdependencies adjusted by you to perfection. As you would do with just the amp and the cabinet, before profiling.


    Profiling a specific distortion pedal at fixed settings, stand alone, for reuse in different rigs, has a limited use. The dedicated controls are not available any more to fit the pedal to the amp sound. A real drive control not only controls the drive but often the balance of different circuits in the pedal.


    This, in combination with the fact that the majority of relevant distortion pedals will not produce Profiles accurate enough has led us to the decision not to implement pedal profiles yet.

    For the whole range of overdrive pedals (e.g. TS808), a different profiling approach would be needed, as can be heard in said video.


    We decided instead, to create the Kemper Drive as a very flexible super model to approach overdrive pedals as a whole, as well as in detail, supported by presets.


    The same will happen with Fuzz and Octavia. We will release a Kemper Fuzz with a similar approach soon.

  • We decided instead, to create the Kemper Drive as a very flexible super model to approach overdrive pedals as a whole, as well as in detail, supported by presets.

    I think what most of the people mean when they say "pedale profiling" is that they want it afterwards as an FX... But just a shoot from the hip, could you do a kind of "auto match" feature for matching a pedal setting to the Kemper Drive? I do this actually by ear or even better, I don't care and turn the knobs until the Kemper Drive sounds best with the rig afterwards.

  • No Beta version is needed.

    Pedal Profiling is possible since day one, in every firmware. Thousands of Profiler players profile their pedals along with their amps.

    Silly question but I thought the main reason this is limited is because its a profile and you can't run 2 profiles or have a misunderstood this?


    In other words, no-one runs a Ts808 on its own, its with an amp and hence why you profile with an amp. This seemed to be the difference with the QC is that it treated it as a pedal. Your other points on its validity make sense though.

  • Lots of debate on the QC promos....


    They are promo's so no one is going to give a "balanced" review, consciously or unconsciously. This isn't about deceit or honesty in my opinion, its just advertising. Emphasising strengths and brushing over the weaknesses.


    There is also a difference here between accuracy and what sounds best. In many tests the KPA is indistinguishable between the real and profiled amp. But the real amp isn't necessarily the best. I loved the Superthump vid because to me its sounds way better than Eddies original rig.


    If Rabea had refined the profile and it sounded more accurate than the QC, I would have expected him to say that he still prefers the QC for some other reason. I don't know this because its not happened but I don't expect ( and in someways its unfair) for him to not spin it in favour of QC - that is what he is there to do. That's advertising.


    This is why these vids are interesting but I'm not going to buy on that basis. These are strong professional units that have their own benefits.


    I also think this is a stronger contender for Helix - they should be more worried.


    There is no doubt the QC is a good unit and I suspect it will sit alongside the Ax and Helix as a great unit with its own pros and cons.


    Still love my KPA and feel no reason to have to "defend" it against this new unit ( mainly because so much is subjective) but I do hope it continues to fire CK's inventiveness.

  • Hi there,


    I was quite sure to skip any comment on this topic, but I'm feeling a bit rattled at the moment.


    There are zillions of AB comparisons KPA/Amp to be heard.

    I know of two people who could actually prove that they can decide wether it's the KPA or the amp.


    One of them is a university teacher in Cologne's School of Music. He demonstrated (shortly after the release of KPA) the obvious differences for everyone to hear by means of tons of expensive audio equipment and tons of musical and technical knowlegde.


    Then there is Mr. Chapman of Andertons who could tell the different sources apart because the orange amp in question was interactingg with his playing slightly different from KPA's handling.


    These comparisons took place not long after the KPA's release and they were indeed enough reason for me to buy the thing at once.

    I never had reason to doubt my decision. In fact, the longer I use the KPA and it's numerous revolutionary updates, the more I like it.


    Over the years a vast majority of comparisons support the verdict: no differences except for some very well known configurations.

    Really folks, how can anything (soundwise) be better than 100%? We are not in a political discussion , are we . 1)


    When Shull's contest (see above) came down with a KPA sound that was very far from the amp's sound, my ears and I said: No, no way.

    This thing is loaded. I need not to offer my opinion on nc's nice try. But I don't believe for a minute that all these past comparisons and my own two ears had it so wrong.

    Really guys!

    Just for the record: Everything that is a judgement in these statements is my own absolutely subjective view of the things in question.


    I'd feel better though if all these contest comparions listed above would be viewed as such: Absolutely subjective points of view. After all none of us can look into other people's minds. So let's give them the benefit of the doubt in both ways.


    Greetings

    Joachim


    1) I followed the hard dispute about the gain structure in extreme situations a few years ago. Mr. Kemper explained the matter in a way that agrees with all I know abour physics and mathematics. Of course subjective views can and will differ.

  • I think the QC comparisons so far have left out one very big difference in getting the profile dialed in closer to the amp. The Kemper exposes a number of parameters that allow one to fine tune the profile to the room, the output system. All I saw on the QC was an EQ. When I am tweaking a profile I very rarely reach for the EQ.

  • There are zillions of AB comparisons KPA/Amp to be heard.

    I know of two people who could actually prove that they can decide wether it's the KPA or the amp.

    that’s what I don’t get. Even if the QC “got closer”, how would any of us be able to tell? KPA Users rarely can feel a difference to the mic’d sound ( even when playing solo in a controlled environment and concentrating with all their might to be that guy that can feel a subtle difference) let alone hear a difference 2nd hand, and even less be able to hear such a difference of someone else playing over a YouTube video. If you can hear a difference it’s likely user error or a variable in the ways the reference amp and digital versions are mixed, converted, etc to compare in a video. As we all know as well, a minor change in volume often makes the same thing sound different. Thus if we can hear an audible difference between the QC and KPA, I’m inclined to believe it’s the QC that isn’t faithful to the original, as we know the KPA is

  • However, if the guitar world has moved that far to the forgiving side since then, we could easily publish distortion pedal profiling on said quality level and yield. Still this would not be consistent with my business ethics.

    Hello ckemper. I wasn't talking about baked in profiles that have been around since the Kemper first arrived. I took your comment as meaning you might somehow allow profiling distortion pedals that could then be used as an effect in other profiles. Understood that you don't necessarily think it would work perfectly.


    But thanks for the reply and this is probably getting too off topic for this thread.

  • Because this is internet.


    In internet @CK still feels the need to respond to this silly "congested mids" issue why he feels the need to explain that profiling pedals is not a 100% good idea.

    That indeed the result will be not good.And that this is the reason he did not implement it.


    He is a good guy.With a lot of patience.


    In internet also people who come again and again with the same stupid claims (from "congested" to "several amp types" as base for the profiling ) but ofcourse will never ever notice the little fact that Mark Knopfler and some other living guitar legends obviously dont have the slightest problem to play the KPA.


    No.


    Along comes the next hype which has proven a jack shit yet and everyone gets hysterical.Fo some time.And then...not anymore..

  • In internet @CK still feels the need to respond to this silly "congested mids" issue why he feels the need to explain that profiling pedals is not a 100% good idea.

    That indeed the result will be not good.And that this is the reason he did not implement it.

    This is not exactly my point.

    The search for the "congested mids" issues is to try to identify the problem exacty and nail it down, by either solving the issue or stating, that a certain amp model is reluctant to being profiled. For example, a Marshall JMP-1 is such a known device.

    We come from the known situation that 10000s of authentic Profiles have been created in the past, being played by 10000s of happy guitar players.

    Therefore I am happy to take care of the handful of users that have reported "congested mids" in the direct A/B and find out what the reason is.


    The pedal discussion is not related to this as it is known since years that maybe half of the distortion pedal models cannot be profiled (including the complete group of overdrive pedals) to a crucial quality, and it seems that no one else can make it today.