Neural Quad Cortex

  • It’s the same dimensions as the HX FX and I have never had an issue with that.


    And I have big feet and run it in stompbox mode or whatever they call it.

    Well, almost the same size. Hx is 7.9” deep x 10.8” wide. Qc is listed as 7” deep x 11.4” wide. And a good portion of that depth is screen. And again, fewer switches on HX. If it’s comfy, great! Looks a little crowded to me. We’ll see.

  • What you’re actually seeing is the knee-jerk defensive position taken by some 2 or 3 members on this forum when faced with any perceived slight against their KPA (even when, more often than not, it’s completely imagined), and a reaction to their smug attitudes when another view is put forth.


    This is not bullying.

    And, in my opinion, the TGP thread has been more tolerable than this one, aside from the relentless conspiracy mongering which has, fortunately, died down a bit.


    Different strokes, agree to disagree, yada yada...

    When people get emotional they don’t think rationally!

    Relax!

    QC is just a fad and will be forgotten in 3 years. No need to be so upset.

  • Someone posted the clips from that video. G is the amp.

    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/v9l…cLbGjN2jcUfy-5_vOzja?dl=0


    If that’s the best the QC can do, Kemper shouldn’t have to worry at all. The differences are quite significant.

    I wasnt that impressed with the capture in this video. I mean it wasn't bad, but it wasn't anything groundbreaking. It sounded good, but I could def hear the difference between the capture and the actual amp

  • Someone posted the clips from that video. G is the amp.

    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/v9l…cLbGjN2jcUfy-5_vOzja?dl=0


    If that’s the best the QC can do, Kemper shouldn’t have to worry at all. The differences are quite significant.

    The clips are definitely more similar than they are different. I'd be pleased with that result. A little EQ work, and I think you'd be 95% of the way there. What impresses me is how you can clearly hear the "belch" of the cab at 0:05. There's a real sense of depth and dimensionality.


    Not saying the Kemper doesn't reproduce these qualities, just that the QC appears to do a real fine job.

  • The clips are definitely more similar than they are different. I'd be pleased with that result. A little EQ work, and I think you'd be 95% of the way there. What impresses me is how you can clearly hear the "belch" of the cab at 0:05. There's a real sense of depth and dimensionality.


    Not saying the Kemper doesn't reproduce these qualities, just that the QC appears to do a real fine job.

    If they were more different than similar, what would the point of doing a product like this? :)

    The QC clip has less gain, the top end sizzle seems to be completely missing, definition/attack sounds different as well. I would expect something better from a product that is going to be released around 10 years after the Kemper and claims to be more accurate.

  • The clips are definitely more similar than they are different. I'd be pleased with that result. A little EQ work, and I think you'd be 95% of the way there. What impresses me is how you can clearly hear the "belch" of the cab at 0:05. There's a real sense of depth and dimensionality.


    Not saying the Kemper doesn't reproduce these qualities, just that the QC appears to do a real fine job.

    Totally.


    I think you would have to be stupid to say the QC isn't a good unit or can't produce good sounds.


    My only comment was that it didn't sound as close as other videos. Wondered if there was anything in the signal chain to affect it.


    Go back to what I said many posts ago, accuracy is one aspect, good sound another. The end bit of that equation is how easy is it to get there :).

  • If they were more different than similar, what would the point of doing a product like this? :)

    Your comment was, "If that’s the best the QC can do, Kemper shouldn’t have to worry at all. The differences are quite significant." I'm saying that these aren't apples-and-oranges differences. It sounds like 30 seconds of tone tuning would give the QC what you feel is missing. That's common to the Kemper, too — it's why we get all the specialized amp controls (Definition, Clarity, etc.) inside.

  • Go back to what I said many posts ago, accuracy is one aspect, good sound another. The end bit of that equation is how easy is it to get there :).

    I guess it depends on what you are looking for. For me, accuracy is the only aspect that I consider for this type of functionality. If you get that then good sound is a given if you know how to set it up.

  • Maybe the isolator that he used affected the tone? See video at 4:30 minutes.

  • Well, almost the same size. Hx is 7.9” deep x 10.8” wide. Qc is listed as 7” deep x 11.4” wide. And a good portion of that depth is screen. And again, fewer switches on HX. If it’s comfy, great! Looks a little crowded to me. We’ll see.

    Ah I thought they were the same. Yes I realize the screen takes up a good amount of space.


    It may end up being too cramped for some people for live use for sure. I plan to use it mostly in the studio so the switch spacing is not as much of an issue for me.

  • If they were more different than similar, what would the point of doing a product like this? :)

    The QC clip has less gain, the top end sizzle seems to be completely missing, definition/attack sounds different as well. I would expect something better from a product that is going to be released around 10 years after the Kemper and claims to be more accurate.

    Well if you're being honest with yourself, you'll admit that you've also heard Kemper videos where the profile differed just as much.


    And that isn't very much...

  • Watch this ("7:27)and you get some insight of someone who actually used the QC ... and found some real show stoppers for the live use which might not be so easy to overcome ...

    Sorry to be your fact finder, but this video is quite old by now (in internet terms) and it's been stated that the switching gaps have been ironed out already.

    Also there's a scene mode where gapless switching is said to be optimized '(where there is an inevitable gap between presets but this is all the same with the Profiler).

    Let's only talk facts here.

  • Well if you're being honest with yourself, you'll admit that you've also heard Kemper videos where the profile differed just as much.


    And that isn't very much...

    It is possible but I don't recall one where I could notice differences in so many aspects on my first listen, specially if the "refine" was done properly. Like I said, I would expect much better at this point in time.

  • In that video the capture sounds decent but seems simpler than the real amp somehow.


    I hate the term because it’s so overused and ambiguous in nature but the real amp sounded more “3D” to me, maybe more room sound? It really felt more alive. The capture was lacking something in those upper mids again, no detail there; not quite as complex a grain to the distortion and not quite as lively. Just as if it’s very broad brushstrokes.


    I still believe the next step in accuracy for these units isn’t in the amp capture itself but in the room capture. The air is what brings an amp alive. I had hoped the technology for either the Kemper or the QC would do this by now, I’m tired of dead sound.