Neural Quad Cortex

  • I liked 3 for the top-end and 5 for the punch. Rest sounded OK as well but pretty much the same.


    Did you post the result?

    Kemper PowerRack | Rivera 4x12 V30 cab | Yamaha DXR10 pair | UA Apollo Twin Duo | Adam A7X | Cubase DAW
    Fender Telecaster 62 re-issue chambered mahogany | Kramer! (1988 or so...) | Gibson Les Paul R7 | Fender Stratocaster HBS-1 Classic Relic Custom Shop | LTD EC-1000 Evertune

  • I did but I took them down to make it truly blind again. I'll post again later.

    Ok. I you have time I would appreciate a dm :)

    Kemper PowerRack | Rivera 4x12 V30 cab | Yamaha DXR10 pair | UA Apollo Twin Duo | Adam A7X | Cubase DAW
    Fender Telecaster 62 re-issue chambered mahogany | Kramer! (1988 or so...) | Gibson Les Paul R7 | Fender Stratocaster HBS-1 Classic Relic Custom Shop | LTD EC-1000 Evertune

  • I’ve owned a KPA since day one, and have owned a second for the last 5 years so I could do stereo amping. The easiest way I can say it is this - after having the Quad Cortex for 2 weeks, I’ve sold both my Kempers. The KPA was a game changer. But, it is not an amp, it is technology. Technology doesn’t age well, and isn’t built to. Technology evolves and improves, and the QC is the latest evolution. I will always respect Kemper for being the trailblazers they are. I don’t say this to start any inflammatory discussions, but I did not find any area in which the KPA did as well as the QC, with the ONE exception of the QC having fewer effects at this point. But I lived through the development of the KPA effects arsenal, so I know that it takes time. From form to function, feature set, design, sound, feel, build, and convenience, the QC takes it. Neural is the new king on the block for me. Anyone who is the least bit interested in guitar processing technology should try one for themselves.

  • Something I just do not understand people asking for a new kemper. I've never heard people bashing away an old vintage mashall amp asking for a touchscreen instead of knobs, or 'i want to route the mesa equ either in front, or post amp' .... Why I'm not able to switch my bogner channel from my IPAD ? ... So you get the point.


    Ok the Kemper is a digital unit, but its spirit is to give an amp experience with a classical set of FX just like on an old pedal board. I like the simplicity, il like to be able to get directlty access to almost all main action (amp tone stack, and enable/disable fx)


    I'm still impressed after more than 10 years, ... what, 5 revision of axe fx, more line 6 unit, ampfire, now QC (without counting on 10000 plugins) still compare their sound s and feel to try to achieve what a kemper do...


    So, What does Kemper say to the God of death ?...... No Today

  • Something I just do not understand people asking for a new kemper.

    I don't understand why people WOULDN'T ask for a new Kemper. Again, it's technology. There's always room for improvement.


    I remember interviewing Christoph for the Guitar Center Pro video we did on the KPA shortly after it was launched. He mentioned that there was no need in his mind to improve the profiling algorithm, because to his ears it sounded as good as/indistinguishable from the real thing. Which, of course, is a fine opinion for him or anyone to have. However, we know that it is mathematically and physically NOT a 1 to 1 - so, for the sake of advancement, there is definitely a usefulness in others continuing to evolve the technology, which is exactly what the QC has done with it's more extensive capturing process (more varied test tones, significantly more processing time to assemble the "capture", more CPU to harness). Not to mention the other additions such as stereo, tri-and quad amping - which is something I've been wanting the Kemper to do since day 1.

  • Eh, I agree in principle, I disagree in practice because the KPA still sounds relevantly better to my ears.

    Developing a new capturing/profiling technique does not mean developing a better one, and I am afraid for now that's indeed the case of the QC. Glad to be proven wrong in future updates.

  • Something I just do not understand people asking for a new kemper.

    Everybody has different needs. That’s all there is to understand, really.


    I don’t need my Kemper to sound better. I think it sounds great, for the most part. What I do need is a smaller form factor with a more modern UI.


    I think Kemper missed the mark on the Kemper Stage in relation to my needs. But of course that’s only my opinion and nobody should be upset by it. It’s a great unit I’m sure.


    Had they made it smaller, with a more modern interface, I would probably have purchased one.


    But I have a feeling that given the direct competition from the QC (the only real competition they’ve ever had) they will be bringing something to the market at some point in the not-too-distant future that will be amazing.

  • I’ve owned a KPA since day one, and have owned a second for the last 5 years so I could do stereo amping. The easiest way I can say it is this - after having the Quad Cortex for 2 weeks, I’ve sold both my Kempers. The KPA was a game changer. But, it is not an amp, it is technology. Technology doesn’t age well, and isn’t built to. Technology evolves and improves, and the QC is the latest evolution. I will always respect Kemper for being the trailblazers they are. I don’t say this to start any inflammatory discussions, but I did not find any area in which the KPA did as well as the QC, with the ONE exception of the QC having fewer effects at this point. But I lived through the development of the KPA effects arsenal, so I know that it takes time. From form to function, feature set, design, sound, feel, build, and convenience, the QC takes it. Neural is the new king on the block for me. Anyone who is the least bit interested in guitar processing technology should try one for themselves.

    I’m curious to hear your opinion of the amp modeling.


    I’ve seen plenty of examples of the capture technology and from most accounts it is on par with the KPA. But part of the reason I have a QC coming is because it also has modeling.


    I have never owned a hardware modeler like a Helix or an Axe. Can you compare the QC models to either one of those?

  • IMO they all sound similar enough where it makes no difference on a recording or live performance.


    So as far as I'm concerned, the only things that matter at this point are how they sound in the room, and how they feel playing... which could be more different than the recordings show, but are things that only you can tell us.


    Just for fun (and at the risk of likely being way off).... I will take a guess #1&#2 were Kemper, #3 was the QC and the #4-6 were the real amp.


    #3 sounded the most different to me... highs stood out more than the rest of them, maybe a little too much?

  • I’ve owned a KPA since day one, and have owned a second for the last 5 years so I could do stereo amping. The easiest way I can say it is this - after having the Quad Cortex for 2 weeks, I’ve sold both my Kempers. The KPA was a game changer. But, it is not an amp, it is technology. Technology doesn’t age well, and isn’t built to. Technology evolves and improves, and the QC is the latest evolution. I will always respect Kemper for being the trailblazers they are. I don’t say this to start any inflammatory discussions, but I did not find any area in which the KPA did as well as the QC, with the ONE exception of the QC having fewer effects at this point. But I lived through the development of the KPA effects arsenal, so I know that it takes time. From form to function, feature set, design, sound, feel, build, and convenience, the QC takes it. Neural is the new king on the block for me. Anyone who is the least bit interested in guitar processing technology should try one for themselves.

    Fair comment, but I'll probably do the same thing I did with the Kemper and wait a year or two for the kinks to be ironed out.

  • I don't understand why people WOULDN'T ask for a new Kemper. Again, it's technology. There's always room for improvement.


    I remember interviewing Christoph for the Guitar Center Pro video we did on the KPA shortly after it was launched. He mentioned that there was no need in his mind to improve the profiling algorithm, because to his ears it sounded as good as/indistinguishable from the real thing. Which, of course, is a fine opinion for him or anyone to have. However, we know that it is mathematically and physically NOT a 1 to 1 - so, for the sake of advancement, there is definitely a usefulness in others continuing to evolve the technology, which is exactly what the QC has done with it's more extensive capturing process (more varied test tones, significantly more processing time to assemble the "capture", more CPU to harness). Not to mention the other additions such as stereo, tri-and quad amping - which is something I've been wanting the Kemper to do since day 1.

    It is not all the request for features in a Kemper II that are exciting for me. Dual amps, more processing, or a colour screens all seem a bit dull and probably won't make me sound any better. It is what C Kemper will come up with that we don't expect that keeps me interested.


    Sadly he might well just move on to a completely different product if history is repeated.

  • I've been watching a few videos of the QC, the Kemper and the Axe FXIII. All the tech sounds remarkable nowadays, that's for sure.


    I'm guessing you could go with any of these devices and it will be awesome. Which is the best? I'm sure you could have three guys with three different devices and each one will say his is the best.


    In that sense, I doubt we will get any objective feedback on this thread anymore than we would if we watched youtube videos.


    For me, I'll hold on to the Kemper for now, since what I like most about it is that it is a mature platform and sounds really good. There's an editor, there are good FX and the tones are as good as any of the other Top 3 devices.


    I mean, sure, you can nitpick about whether the Kemper or QC is more accurate, but the Kemper sounds good, I really doubt anyone who claims that it is inferior is speaking with any objectivity.


    After all, we've seen this time and again with any and every new product. People like what they spent money for, especially the newer stuff that just came in.

  • Ingolf


    You received the Quad Cortex;Would like to hear your opinion on that thing;A friend of mine received his,played it two weeks and sold it +200€.


    He kept the SLO plug in though..

    Hey Nikos!

    Sorry for taking so long, very busy ATM.

    You want my opinion of the QC?

    Frankly speaking I'm too old for honeymoons therefore I can only give you a few of my impressions (which are strong and important to ME (not necessarily to anybody else).

    I have been playing Kemper (Head, Powerhead, Powerrack, Stage) since 2012 and the QC will not change this, i.e. I won't part with my Profiler for the QC.

    I will likely keep the QC though. It can do many things (as does the Helix) but it sounds better (than the Helix, not the Profiler).

    The QC UI is great in theory, in reality I find a lot of the actions to work the touch screen a bit clunky, not logical, and the touch screen itself is a bit unresponsive.

    The Kemper UI, once you grasp the concept, is very stringent and consistent. And it has been for a long time. Very well thought out, with direct access to functions where it counts most. I think the QC doesn't have an advantage UI- wise, despite all the people on the internet claiming it has.

    Regarding the profiling/capturing: both units are accurate enough IMO to get great results and I don't get all the pissing contests on YT at all.

    Both units sound great to me, and the modeling aspect of the QC is very nice (and much better than the Helix IMO) BUT: I still like the sound and feel of the Profiler a bit better. Why that is I don't really know, but I think it's got to do with the fact that Kemper cabs are something else than impulse responses. I have always felt and still feel hat Kemper cabs sound a bit more lively.

    The QC has got a lot of praise for its flexible routing grid, and the Profiler got slammed for its rigid 4 slots pre 4 slots post grid.

    BUT: The Profiler will give you stereo main outputs with a cab sim plus stereo monitor outputs without a cab sim at all times. When you try to get this with the QC you eat up 3 of the 4 grid lines (and won't even have a stereo output for a monitor signal without cabs).

    Which means: where it counts, on stage, in bread & butter scenarios that are trusted and proven for guitarists for decades, the Profiler wins for me, hands down.


    BTW: The QC has no Cabdriver (one of the most ingenious features of the profiler).

    What if you like a capture you loaded from the Cortex cloud and want to subtract the cab portion (for monitoring over a guitar cab)? No dice!

    The QC can be (and I'm sure it will be) a jack of all trades for people who want routing experiments, double amps (though please note they wouldn't even be possible with the QC given my routing demands above) and an audio interface.

    And I'll keep it for that, for playing around and experimenting for fun. And perhaps for playing one gig or two as well.

    But it will not at all push the Profiler from the top in the foreseeable future, IMO.

    Even when I consider the potential of the QC (I know that its OS is still in its infancy).

    Last but not least: The peripheral solutions in the Kemper ecosystem (like the Kabinet/Kone) which make for a much better AITR experience than what any of the other top- tier modelers have to offer set the Profiler even further apart.


    My 2 cents.