Neural Quad Cortex

  • I think the main difference in the results are due to the user (refining and tweaking) which is something that Kemper could avoid by automating the whole refining process if that is possible.

    How many profiles can you point me to that you think are perfectly accurate to the reference amp in a side by side comparison?

  • How many profiles can you point me to that you think are perfectly accurate to the reference amp in a side by side comparison?


    I was referring to the differences in the results between the QC and the Kemper compared to the real amp in Rabea's video.


    I always thought that having the user as part of the equation to the final result opens the door to a not so accurate outcome as compared to having everything automated.


    The opposite is also possible though when the automated refinement process is not good enough vs an experienced user with good ears and knowledge.


    The QC fully automated process seems to be pretty good at least for amps, so if you compare both units, it is not going to be that difficult to make the Kemper results to look worse. Specially, if don't spend enough time refining/tweaking the results on the Kemper profile when this is needed.


    And just to be clear. I am not saying that anybody is making the Kemper to look worse intentionally.

  • so if you compare both units, it is not going to be that difficult to make the Kemper results to look worse. Specially, if don't spend enough time refining/tweaking the results on the Kemper profile when this is needed.

    But, Bea went back and refined the "profile", and to my ears (and his) there was slightly more of a "wooly" midrange (27:25) tone the KPA had that the QC did not. Now that was a fair test done with everything left the same for both (as far as I could tell) and the profiles were "refined". No one made the Kemper look unfairly worse and Bea took the same time for both from what I could tell. Now, that was just "one" comparison and maybe others would turn out the other way. If you have not seen the "redone" video it's here :


    BTW- I have "my" Kemper sitting 2 feet from me as I type this, so I'm not being biased either, just stating what my ears told me as well.

    If you use FRFR the benefit of a merged profile is that the cabinet is totally separated in the profile.


    For my edification only... :D Kemper/Helix user

    Edited 4 times, last by spikey ().

  • But, Bea went back and refined the "profile", and to my ears (and his) there was slightly more of a "wooly" midrange (27:25) tone the KPA had that the QC did not. Now that was a fair test done with everything left the same for both (as far as I could tell) and the profiles were "refined". No one made the Kemper look unfairly worse and Bea took the same time for both from what I could tell. Now, that was just "one" comparison and maybe others would turn out the other way. If you have not seen the "redone" video it's here :


    BTW- I have "my" Kemper sitting 2 feet from me as I type this, so I'm not being biased either, just stating what my ears told me as well.

    I don’t know about you but when I create a profile I try to get it as close as possible. If I can hear a noticeable difference like that, to me that means that it needs more “refine”. Sometimes you have to refine a few times or even tweak a bit.


    In the video, that did not happen. Both devices seem to require different approaches to get the best possible results. I think Rabea tried to make the comparison as fair as possible by not refining/tweaking on the Kemper (1st video) since you don’t have that option on the QC but the problem is that the QC is actually doing it on its own without user input. Then a lot of people complained and he recorded a 2nd video using “refine” but in my opinion he still missed the point since you are supposed to use (and reuse) “refine” as a tool to get as close as possible not just to demonstrate that you used it on the new video.


    That’s why I believe it was not completely fair. I don’t believe that it was something planned or intentional to make the Kemper look worse but that was the result.

  • I don’t know about you but when I create a profile I try to get it as close as possible. If I can hear a noticeable difference like that, to me that means that it needs more “refine”. Sometimes you have to refine a few times or even tweak a bit.


    In the video, that did not happen. Both devices seem to require different approaches to get the best possible results. I think Rabea tried to make the comparison as fair as possible by not refining/tweaking on the Kemper (1st video) since you don’t have that option on the QC but the problem is that the QC is actually doing it on its own without user input. Then a lot of people complained and he recorded a 2nd video using “refine” but in my opinion he still missed the point since you are supposed to use (and reuse) “refine” as a tool to get as close as possible not just to demonstrate that you used it on the new video.


    That’s why I believe it was not completely fair. I don’t believe that it was something planned or intentional to make the Kemper look worse but that was the result.

    Yes - and don`t forget : the QC needs 5 minutes to capture the amp ! If you spend this time on the Kemper you will probably get a better result .... in some cases better than the actual amp. Please keep that in mind ! You are able to tweak the profiles much further with the Kemper . Fore my taste the QC sounds overly produced and not as raw as the Kemper .

  • I can just highly recommend everyone to get to know your gear as best as you can. Knowing how to use all the parameters to get to my sound is worth so much more than 1% more accuracy while profiling and just having nothing but a basic EQ control to tweak after that.

    you have absolutely nailed it here, sir !


    The main reason I have no interest in rushing to buy the latest digital amp/fx solution every few months, or the latest shiny new DAW that blows everything else out the water is that they are all only as good as the user. Every time I get new gear I need to spend time learning how to get the best out of it. In reality spending that time working with in a took I already own and know how to work will typically yield the same or better results.


    With most software the typical user only uses a tiny portion of what it can do. I don’t know the real number but I’m sure a figure like 10% is often banded about for MS Word and Excel, or CAD programs like Solidworks etc........ the number isn’t important the point is that music production tools are no different than any of these other tools.


    Brass players have no option but to work on their sound through their own technique. I remember reading in Miles Davis autobiography that he would go in the woods and blow one note for hours working on his tone. That is extreme but just spending some time working on out own playing technique to shape the sound and some time really learning to get the best out of the tools we already own is usually time well spent. However, guitarists are a strange breed and we always seem to want the latest new shiny toy that is going to suddenly give us the holy grail of tone. I am not picking on others here as I myself am a a recovering gearaholic. I still come off the rails from time to time but I am working hard to beat my addiction. ?


    Remember the answer to the question what is the best X in the world is always “the one you have”. If you don’t have it you can’t use it so make use of what you have and make music. In other words - make music, have fun ?

  • However, guitarists are a strange breed and we always seem to want the latest new shiny toy that is going to suddenly give us the holy grail of tone. I am not picking on others here as I myself am a a recovering gearaholic. I still come off the rails from time to time but I am working hard to beat my addiction. ?

    Thank you, Alan! I definitely agree with your statement and your analogies.


    I would even like to extend your saying: Guitarists are a strange breed, as we always seem to want the latest new shiny toy to chase the oldest of tones ever known :D


    Thankfully our Kemper gives us the means to do just that 8)


    But, Bea went back and refined the "profile", and to my ears (and his) there was slightly more of a "wooly" midrange (27:25) tone the KPA had that the QC did not. Now that was a fair test done with everything left the same for both (as far as I could tell) and the profiles were "refined".

    As I said before, his profile have some extreme parameters like the Definition on 10. Once you reduce that it does give you a more natural sound and a better feel for it. Try it yourself, it definitely worked for me and also we don't know if that was truly how it was set by the KPA.

    As good of a guitar player Rabea is, he has shown over and over again that he has no clue how to use the full potential of the Kemper. I really don't see any ill intentions here, just a lack of knowledge.


    The point I was trying to make before was: does it even matter how accurate the Profile / Capture is right of the bat and how fair the comparison is, if you can adjust it to whatever works best in the end (maybe even surpass the original tube amp)? Well I guess everyone has to decide that on their own and choose their preferred unit accordingly. And again - that's why competition in this market will always be good for us - the consumers.

  • I think Rabea tried to make the comparison as fair as possible by not refining/tweaking on the Kemper (1st video) since you don’t have that option on the QC but the problem is that the QC is actually doing it on its own without user input.

    I agree that the QC does it on its own, but I don't see where that is a problem. ;) Maybe I just don't care for the extra work when the unit makes the tone sound better on its own. Yea I know the "capture" takes longer, but the results speak for themselves. Hey, I own a Kemper and love mine so this is not bashing my KPA in any way, but I also like to get from point A to B in the fast lane when it's possible. The QC seems to handle this in spades.

    If you use FRFR the benefit of a merged profile is that the cabinet is totally separated in the profile.


    For my edification only... :D Kemper/Helix user

  • I am not picking on others here as I myself am a a recovering gearaholic. I still come off the rails from time to time but I am working hard to beat my addiction. ?

    ^^ I don't think this is recoverable lol. That said, I am trying to judge by what I hear and not what I am seeing. To my ears, the shiny is outclassed by the tones I am hearing from the Quad Cortex.

    If you use FRFR the benefit of a merged profile is that the cabinet is totally separated in the profile.


    For my edification only... :D Kemper/Helix user

  • Sound quality of the amps and effects is paramount for me. However, the revelation that the QC will be dependent on the Neural Cloud for backups, captures, etc., will be the deal breaker for me. I don't have or allow any cellular, WiFi or Bluetooth activity in my "studio" when making music.


    Sort of like that Oculus VR headset that require connection to and an account on Facebook just to use. Nope!


    Nope, no way, not in my backyard! Sad choice IMHO by Neural.

    You gotta have the right guns when you enter the town of tone.

  • I agree that the QC does it on its own, but I don't see where that is a problem. ;) Maybe I just don't care for the extra work when the unit makes the tone sound better on its own. Yea I know the "capture" takes longer, but the results speak for themselves. Hey, I own a Kemper and love mine so this is not bashing my KPA in any way, but I also like to get from point A to B in the fast lane when it's possible. The QC seems to handle this in spades.

    I didn't say that it is a problem in that sense. It is not a problem at all. I also prefer that.


    It was a "problem" in the context of the comparison, in the sense that Rabea did not seem to consider it when trying to make a fair comparison. That's why he did not refine on his first video and did not spend much time refining on the 2nd video either.

  • Sound quality of the amps and effects is paramount for me. However, the revelation that the QC will be dependent on the Neural Cloud for backups, captures, etc., will be the deal breaker for me. I don't have or allow any cellular, WiFi or Bluetooth activity in my "studio" when making music.

    You can make full backups without the cloud, but you can't save or export individual files to a thumb drive, PC, or any other medium. I don't care how accurate the captures are, I don't want a company micromanaging my library, and their file management system is an absolute deal-breaker for me. If it weren't for that, I'd be open to trying the QC.

  • I didn't say that it is a problem in that sense. It is not a problem at all. I also prefer that.


    It was a "problem" in the context of the comparison, in the sense that Rabea did not seem to consider it when trying to make a fair comparison. That's why he did not refine on his first video and did not spend much time refining on the 2nd video either.

    And so how much time do you need to refine? Is it close to the same time frame the Cortex used automatically? Longer? Shorter? In other words if we base most things on how long it takes( in most cases that is the way its done) then what Bea did was fair. But you are correct in the fact you can tweak things for hours until you get it right. :)

    If you use FRFR the benefit of a merged profile is that the cabinet is totally separated in the profile.


    For my edification only... :D Kemper/Helix user

  • You can make full backups without the cloud, but you can't save or export individual files to a USB stick, PC, or any other medium. I don't care how accurate the captures are, I don't want a company micromanaging my library, and their file management system is an absolute deal-breaker for me. If it weren't for that, I'd be open to trying the QC.

    Per Doug Castro- "The desktop controller will allow you to create a backup file that you can take on the USB stick." Individually not yet, you are correct. But if you have the backup, what's the difference, a few seconds?

    If you use FRFR the benefit of a merged profile is that the cabinet is totally separated in the profile.


    For my edification only... :D Kemper/Helix user

  • Per Doug Castro- "The desktop controller will allow you to create a backup file that you can take on the USB stick."

    Yes, but you can't save or export individual captures to a thumb drive or computer. For example, if I wanted to give you or anybody else an individual capture, I couldn't simply email it to you or upload it to your QC via a thumb drive. Someone else brought up the use case of making captures at a studio and asked whether those individual captures can be saved to a thumb drive or sent to a client via email.

  • Sound quality of the amps and effects is paramount for me. However, the revelation that the QC will be dependent on the Neural Cloud for backups, captures, etc., will be the deal breaker for me. I don't have or allow any cellular, WiFi or Bluetooth activity in my "studio" when making music.


    Sort of like that Oculus VR headset that require connection to and an account on Facebook just to use. Nope!


    Nope, no way, not in my backyard! Sad choice IMHO by Neural.

    Your choice of course, but "why" do you not have any Bluetooth or wifi in your studio? Many major music brands/companies are using this technology now and are serious about it. For example, the UA OX is a good example of this.

    If you use FRFR the benefit of a merged profile is that the cabinet is totally separated in the profile.


    For my edification only... :D Kemper/Helix user

  • Individually not yet, you are correct. But if you have the backup, what's the difference, a few seconds?

    As mentioned, if I'm at a studio with limited network access and I make some captures using a QC owned by the studio, the engineer can't simply give those captures to me via thumb drive or email. I also can't take individual captures to a studio that has their own QC. Excuse my language, but it's really ******* dumb.