Neural Quad Cortex

  • You'll find threads and comments from me going back to 2011/2012, where I spoke about palm mute response on the Kemper and lack of accuracy. It's not a new thing and it's nothing to do with buying new toys. I have plenty of toys!

    If you found what you're looking for in the QC I'm happy for you and I mean it! :) What I meant is that I personnaly don't see a so call ''game changer'' in this device that would urge me to make the change from my trusty Kemper that's it!

  • If you found what you're looking for in the QC I'm happy for you and I mean it! :) What I meant is that I personnaly don't see a so call ''game changer'' in this device that would urge me to make the change from my trusty Kemper that's it!

    No probs! I'll be happy owning all 3 for a while. I've got the Kemper and Helix already, and 5 valve amps, so it's not like I have any brand loyalty or anything like that.

  • One thing that makes the Kemper more flexible for me is the fact that amps and cabs in studio profiles can be separated, even if it's not a perfect separation. The QC can make direct profiles, but I suspect most captures that are uploaded to the cloud will be full captures. While you capture your own amps, there are a lot of people who'll be relying on the capture community exclusively, namely because they don't have any amps of their own to capture.

  • One thing that makes the Kemper more flexible for me is the fact that amps and cabs in studio profiles can be separated, even if it's not a perfect separation. The QC can make direct profiles, but I suspect most captures that are uploaded to the cloud will be full captures. While you capture your own amps, there are a lot of people who'll be relying on the capture community exclusively, namely because they don't have any amps of their own to capture.

    Yep, I can see that. Although what I would say is that for more or less 50% of the Kemper's lifetime so far, no-one was really making amp-only profiles. There are tons and tons of kemper profiles out there that are amp+cab+mic, and it's disappointing when you see a profile you'd like to use but it has the cab baked in.


    People going into QC now in 2021 are well aware of the use-case for both types of profile, so you'd imagine they'd invest in a simple £40 DI box that can sit between their amp and cab, so when they do a capture, they can just do two.


    All this stuff lives and dies on your intended use case.

  • Yep, I can see that. Although what I would say is that for more or less 50% of the Kemper's lifetime so far, no-one was really making amp-only profiles. There are tons and tons of kemper profiles out there that are amp+cab+mic, and it's disappointing when you see a profile you'd like to use but it has the cab baked in.

    You can always bypass the Cab section of studio profiles. Even if it doesn't yield a perfect separation between amp and cab, I've been able to convert many commercial profiles I originally didn't like into some of my favorites simply by swapping out cabs.

    People going into QC now in 2021 are well aware of the use-case for both types of profile, so you'd imagine they'd invest in a simple £40 DI box that can sit between their amp and cab, so when they do a capture, they can just do two.

    People who keep up with this stuff will probably be aware, but I don't think they necessarily represent the average user. Even though direct profiles are fairly common knowledge in the KPA community, studio profiles are still pretty predominant on the Rig Exchange.

  • Lets assume for a moment that the QC gets you a better capture with less work than the KPA. For those that this is the most important feature, I would say the QC is the product for you. I must say that this seems to be a strange one for me to understand. Even for people who have enough amps to want to profile a significant amount (and I can't imagine that this is a very big demographic. Most people I know have exactly 1 to 2 valve amps with the lions share having 1), how much of your time is spent profiling vs playing? Who cares if it takes the KPA 15 min to get as close to the original as the QC did in 5? Seems a bit like a nit-pick to me. To each his own.


    For recording, I agree that having a USB feed is very appealing. Assuming that all the tones and efx that you want or need are in the QC, then it could also get the nod for the recording crowd.


    For those that are bedroom bandits, I would say it is a toss up. Since the QC doesn't have a PC editor yet, the Kemper is likely a better fit. Sure, the on-device GUI is very nice on the QC, but is that really how a bedroom bandit would want to setup and modify their tone? I doubt it seriously. It is much more likely that they will want a nice PC interface. Perhaps when the QC editor comes out this category will change. The QC does allow 4 parallel paths which is superior to KPA's 2. If you are a tweaker, this might be for you .... but then again, if you are a tweaker, I would suggest the AxeIII Fx is by far the superior machine.


    For live, I am just not seeing it at all. The KPA is simply a superior live gig machine IMO.


    For those that want the greatest number of great tones and efx setups available to them, the KPA again wins handily. It simply has almost a decade of profiles to pick from in addition to numerous commercial profiles.


    Finally, for those who just have GAS in a bad way every year, the QC is seriously a "must have". It is a very cool little box. If I didn't have to worry about putting kids through college, I might well have one just .... because!

  • Your profile is spot on, beside the differences in the bass response. Such deviations can easily be controlled by refining with that same palm mutes and checking again. Takes 30 seconds.

    I think the point they’re making is about how they feel, their own uncertainty, not necessarily the true accuracy, so it’s more about the process/user experience.


    My own take-away from this is that users are now willing to accept an “extended profiling” mode that takes longer and just gets it more accurate out of the gate so that refining isn’t needed. They want to be more assured.

  • Or: Sorry kids, no college for you. Daddy is getting a new toy today. :D

    Think for yourself, or others will think for you wihout thinking of you

    Henry David Thoreau

  • From what I see so far the QC is not a step forward but just another step sideways from Kemper. Live use seems still behind Kemper .

    Still looks to be an excellent unit, but certainly not a game changer at this point.

    I am looking forward to trying a QC :)

  • I don't quite understand the live use comments. Barely anyone has tried it in a live situation yet, and these devices nearly always have some sort of learning curve. At the very least it has a bigger screen for reading patch names easier, as well as an easier to read tuner. Those are two huge things right there. I'm concerned about the proximity of the footswitches across the two rows though. That could destroy a live show. The Helix and Kemper footswitch both leave a bit more room, but require more floor real estate because of it.


    I think the point they’re making is about how they feel, their own uncertainty, not necessarily the true accuracy, so it’s more about the process/user experience.

    I don't think it's accurate at all to describe my latest JVM profile as being spot on - there are significant differences in not only the low end frequency response, but also the mid-range where the profile has this extra layer of quackiness that the real amp didn't have. It's not just about the process or the experience.

  • I don't quite understand the live use comments. Barely anyone has tried it in a live situation yet, and these devices nearly always have some sort of learning curve. At the very least it has a bigger screen for reading patch names easier, as well as an easier to read tuner. Those are two huge things right there. I'm concerned about the proximity of the footswitches across the two rows though. That could destroy a live show. The Helix and Kemper footswitch both leave a bit more room, but require more floor real estate because of it.

    I don’t like the compact/tight placement of switches, no morphing , no built in amp, I don’t like wall wart style power and the big one for me is the ability to adjust the output eq without the need to adjust my rigs/patches for quick adjustments at a gig.
    Sure there are work arounds and you are correct that I have not tried the unit, this is just my initial impressions with reading the manual and viewing the unit in videos and pictures. So yeah, the jury is still out on it...

  • 8. The pitch effects on the QC ... they're serviceable. The whammy has the warbly whammy thing to it.... it's okay... good enough for my needs, but if you're super super super picky about this, you might wanna keep your whammy hanging around! For me, the QC is better simply because the whammy block offers a wet/dry mix control, which is essential for a few atmospheric pitchy things I do.

    Interesting. Other users have reported that the QC has the best pitch effects they've ever tried.


    I am not a big transpose/pitchbend guy. At most I would use it to downtune by a half step. If it can handle that without any problems I'll be good to go.


    Thanks for the review btw...great job.

  • I don’t like the compact/tight placement of switches, no morphing , no built in amp, I don’t like wall wart style power and the big one for me is the ability to adjust the output eq without the need to adjust my rigs/patches for quick adjustments at a gig.
    Sure there are work arounds and you are correct that I have not tried the unit, this is just my initial impressions with reading the manual and viewing the unit in videos and pictures. So yeah, the jury is still out on it...

    I don't understand the no morphing complaint. You can assign any parameter on the QC to an expression pedal. This could easily be used to adjust gain, or even switch between different amps and cabs, e.g., switch between rows in a QC patch.

  • Interesting. Other users have reported that the QC has the best pitch effects they've ever tried.


    I am not a big transpose/pitchbend guy. At most I would use it to downtune by a half step. If it can handle that without any problems I'll be good to go.


    Thanks for the review btw...great job.

    Honestly???


    Very skeptical of the "best pitch effects I've ever tried" line. They're serviceable, but the new Helix ones sound miles better IMHO - it's not a functional thing, it's a tonal thing. Their whammy sounds squeally and high-pitched warbly to me. The Kemper and Helix have better pitch effects.


    I'm fortunate though that I'm not actually THAT picky. I just need a root ->> 5th above whammy with a 30/70% mix, so I can do some atonal ebow weirdness.... and a low octave effect for some riffs. That's about it.

  • Honestly???


    Very skeptical of the "best pitch effects I've ever tried" line.

    Yeah it's just another opinion, of course. I have not tried it yet, but I tend to squint when I hear things like "best pitch effect ever!"


    They were specifically comparing it to the Digi Drop pedal and the Axe FX, if I recall.


    I have found that even going just a whole step down on the Kemper results in noticeable latency. It sounds great! But I notice the lag.

  • As for live use, I find the QC to be - possibly - a much better user experience than my Kemper Rack. I won't know until I try it of course.


    I have used the Rack on countless gigs and it has been OK. But I'm tired of carrying it around. If I can stuff the QC in a guitar case and carry my speaker that will be a big help to my aging and aching bones.


    I have never tried the Kemper foot controller. Too pricey on top of the $2700 I paid for the Rack back in 2014. It does look cool. But I'm not a big morphing guy. I have a BJ Devices Midi controller with a built in exp pedal that has worked just fine. With the QC I'll be able to leave that at home as well.


    Not worried at all about people spilling drinks on my unit. Not at most of the venues I play.


    All of the above is dependent on the Qc sounding good to me. If it doesn't work sound-wise, I'll continue to gig with the Kemper.

  • I don't understand the no morphing complaint. You can assign any parameter on the QC to an expression pedal. This could easily be used to adjust gain, or even switch between different amps and cabs, e.g., switch between rows in a QC patch.

    That is quite a bit different than morphing which can control so much more at once. ***( edit I do see that you can assign more than one item to an expression pedal on the QC, so would like to compare more with Kemper morph)


    I also do not see a way to assign the volume knob to just one output independent from the other outs , like I can do with the Kemper and monitor output. This is something I use quite often live

    Edited once, last by drog ().