Neural Quad Cortex

  • It's not complicated. It's just difficult to get consistent results and there is a learning curve to it. Most professional profilers end having a particular guitar or guitars that gets them the best and most consistent results, and they also tend to repeat the same pattern of things they play while refining.

    But for someone trying to get their first profiles it is not easy to know if you should play chords, some single notes, do palm mutes because that is the style you play...


    In the end the Quad Cortex might get better or worse results, but it will certainly appeal to those looking for a simple capturing process.

    Yes I get your point, but I would assume that more people have problems getting their cabinets in a separated recording room and compare the results of the profiling/refining process with the original sound without hearing the cabinet. ;) And also not every "professional" profiler has such an environment. Some of them are just producing sounds and don't care so much if it's totally spot on, I don't want to blame them if it sounds good it sounds good no matter how it is done.

    Perhaps there could be an official tutorial in which different refining approaches are compared and shown how the sound changes. But this would lead to situations where people copy this process and than complain about that it doesn't get the same result in their environment. I also have my chain which works for me and feed a DI signal back for refining to get the results from which I know they work for me. And as you wrote this is kind of a learning process. But for me, refining gets often over-mystified.

    And yes, the QC is a lot more setup and forget and that's absolutely a point. Even as it takes around 4:30 for the process. :) I'm wondering if there would be any way to improve the Kemper profiling process be increasing the measurement time due to automated refining and perhaps other tools wouldn't they've not already done that? Really, I don't know, perhaps some day they come around with a new measurement approach but I have the feeling that in the last 10 years they might have tried a lot of this internally.

  • When comparing the Kemper to the QC for capturing, and having the reference amp still setup for comparison between all three, time and time again the QC gets closer to the real amp.


    This isn't to be unexpected or a surprise. The Profiler has tech from a decade ago. Machine learning and AI assisted systems have moved on a lot since then.


    No-one gets defensive or passionate when the next model of phone comes out and it has a better camera built into it. It's just the way technology evolves.

  • For those who own both the KPA and a Quad, is this possible? This might be a cool experiment. Make a kemper profile of a Quad preset. But do so of a Quad preset that is just a parallel blend of TWO captured amps and cabs (turning off any unprofileable effects of course) So the resulting Kemper Studio profile would be a blend of the two captures, now functioning as a single studio profile in the Kemper. Would it work, and would it sound decent?


    I put a feature request of something like this. I believe studio profiles can be made that are a parallel blend of two amps; tone junkie has a pack that has some blended profiles, if I understand what's going on in their description. Perhaps not the kPA hardware itself alone. But couldn't some software be utilized (maybe integrated into Rig Manger itself) that could take two profiles and blend them into one new profile? Once done, you of course still have the original profiles but now have a third profile that's a blend of the two, which itself can be imported onto the physical KPA and used like any other Studio Profile.


    An honest question, for those of you with the Quad. Are you finding combinations of two amps and cabs at once, in parallel, say panned left and right, that you find are Better Sounding than using and tweaking any single Capture by itself? And if so, is the perceived benefit really the two amps and cabs being panned or just how you have the post amp stereo effects that deserves the credit?


  • The truth is always make up your own oponion. Never trust someone elses opinion. Sure they can be guideline but that's it. Second hand opinion is useless. Especially this days. Even if someone gets a free product, they feel an obligation to be nice and give something a better review than it deserves sometimes. If you're nice I feel I must be nice back. That's the human nature and in most cases that's only positive. But in the business world? Be aware of all traps and bs.

    so true

  • For those who own both the KPA and a Quad, is this possible? This might be a cool experiment. Make a kemper profile of a Quad preset. But do so of a Quad preset that is just a parallel blend of TWO captured amps and cabs (turning off any unprofileable effects of course) So the resulting Kemper Studio profile would be a blend of the two captures, now functioning as a single studio profile in the Kemper. Would it work, and would it sound decent?


    I put a feature request of something like this. I believe studio profiles can be made that are a parallel blend of two amps; tone junkie has a pack that has some blended profiles, if I understand what's going on in their description. Perhaps not the kPA hardware itself alone. But couldn't some software be utilized (maybe integrated into Rig Manger itself) that could take two profiles and blend them into one new profile? Once done, you of course still have the original profiles but now have a third profile that's a blend of the two, which itself can be imported onto the physical KPA and used like any other Studio Profile.


    An honest question, for those of you with the Quad. Are you finding combinations of two amps and cabs at once, in parallel, say panned left and right, that you find are Better Sounding than using and tweaking any single Capture by itself? And if so, is the perceived benefit really the two amps and cabs being panned or just how you have the post amp stereo effects that deserves the credit?

    My assumption is it would work in the same way as profiling 2 amps at the same time.


    Not much point blending profiles ( offline) because you won;t be able to hear it or adjust the relative blend once in the KPA because the KPA can only run one profile


    I don't get this obsession with blending amps..this is all possible ( albeit workflow has a slight overhead) for studio either through recording separate tracks or copy and pasting a dry track and reamping.


    Live - why would you want to pan one amp stage left and one amp stage right?


    just because you can doesn't mean you should...

  • When comparing the Kemper to the QC for capturing, and having the reference amp still setup for comparison between all three, time and time again the QC gets closer to the real amp.


    This isn't to be unexpected or a surprise. The Profiler has tech from a decade ago. Machine learning and AI assisted systems have moved on a lot since then.


    No-one gets defensive or passionate when the next model of phone comes out and it has a better camera built into it. It's just the way technology evolves.

    We usually deal a lot with musicians that do not see Refining as a burden, but in stead as a chance to control and polish the profiling outcome. As a good reference, there are the Guido Bungenstock videos that are spot on.


    I have the assumption that you are not interested in finding reasons for your Profiles having too much bass.

  • When comparing the Kemper to the QC for capturing, and having the reference amp still setup for comparison between all three, time and time again the QC gets closer to the real amp.


    This isn't to be unexpected or a surprise. The Profiler has tech from a decade ago. Machine learning and AI assisted systems have moved on a lot since then.


    No-one gets defensive or passionate when the next model of phone comes out and it has a better camera built into it. It's just the way technology evolves.

    Also, you're making the fallacy of assuming new technology must necessarily yield better results, which might be often the case, but need not be (independently of my own personal preference for the KPA)

  • I agree mostly. My own real world with blending amps live was being a poor college student and running line and a friends budget tube amps set clean with a rat pedal. While cool sounding it wasn’t practical for volume sake alone. Second, the best sounds I could coax get out of a pod HD were a blend of two. I only mention because it seems to be such a highly requested feature and quad users (I suppose two kpa owning people here could offer some insight too) found a good live use.

  • We usually deal a lot with musicians that do not see Refining as a burden, but in stead as a chance to control and polish the profiling outcome. As a good reference, there are the Guido Bungenstock videos that are spot on.


    I have the assumption that you are not interested in finding reasons for your Profiles having too much bass.

    How do you honestly expect me to react to this? Have I not demonstrated open-mindedness in several direct conversations with you over the years? I'm pretty sure I have.


    Also, you're making the fallacy of assuming new technology must necessarily yield better results, which might be often the case, but need not be (independently of my own personal preference for the KPA)

    Not true. I never said that new technology always results in better results. I said that if it does, it shouldn't come as a shock or a surprise given the maturation of the underlying mathematical frameworks that these profiling/capturing technologies use.


    If the QC sounded not as good to me, then I would say so. I have no allegiances or brand loyalty. I'm not a hyped up Youtuber, I'm not a gun-for-hire, and I'm not a partisan. These things are just tools to me.

  • We usually deal a lot with musicians that do not see Refining as a burden, but in stead as a chance to control and polish the profiling outcome. As a good reference, there are the Guido Bungenstock videos that are spot on.


    I have the assumption that you are not interested in finding reasons for your Profiles having too much bass.

    it’s kind of a strange concern of some. Aside from commercial profile makers, how often does one profile or capture anyway; even pros only get there hands on just so many amps? And when doing so, how much time is first spent setting everything up, tweaking, moving the mic or mics around, listening to the result in another room on monitors to the mic’d sound for perfection. These time consuming steps prior to starting the simple profiling or capturing processes make whatever 15 seconds is spent on refining meaningless. It’s kind of like when my wife spends an hour rearranging a hard to reach shelf in the kitchen in order to save 10 seconds accessing a plate she uses once every year or two.

  • it’s kind of a strange concern of some. Aside from commercial profile makers, how often does one profile or capture anyway; even pros only get there hands on just so many amps? And when doing so, how much time is first spent setting everything up, tweaking, moving the mic or mics around, listening to the result in another room on monitors to the mic’d sound for perfection. These time consuming steps prior to starting the simple profiling or capturing processes make whatever 15 seconds is spent on refining meaningless. It’s kind of like when my wife spends an hour rearranging a hard to reach shelf in the kitchen in order to save 10 seconds accessing a plate she uses once every year or two.

    It's just about accuracy. Nothing to do with our wives, nothing to do with how often we do or don't make profiles, and nothing to do with time consumption.


    Just accuracy.


    And that isn't a strange concern. It's the entire point of the technology.

  • Not true. I never said that new technology always results in better results. I said that if it does, it shouldn't come as a shock or a surprise given the maturation of the underlying mathematical frameworks that these profiling/capturing technologies use.


    If the QC sounded not as good to me, then I would say so. I have no allegiances or brand loyalty. I'm not a hyped up Youtuber, I'm not a gun-for-hire, and I'm not a partisan. These things are just tools to me.

    I think the point here is your assumptions on why something sounds better.


    I nearly responded to the "machine learning and AI has advanced over the years...", point you made but realising that this is from the QC website but held off, but this similar.


    I struggle to see the connection between machine learning ....machine learning and AI as I understand it are about taking constant information and adapting the processing. Not sure how that relates to a capture unless you make 100's of captures and then some changes, and the machine learns to modify based on those inputs.......but.....and this is my point.....I am no expert and actually have no real understanding of how these things are coded, despite quite a reasonable background in software development.


    In reality I don't care if its new, old, cutting edge tech its the results that count. I'm really happy you are pleased with the QC sound and continue to be curious on the differences you are finding.


    The speculation on "why" is really for the Kemper team.

  • it’s kind of a strange concern of some. Aside from commercial profile makers, how often does one profile or capture anyway; even pros only get there hands on just so many amps? And when doing so, how much time is first spent setting everything up, tweaking, moving the mic or mics around, listening to the result in another room on monitors to the mic’d sound for perfection. These time consuming steps prior to starting the simple profiling or capturing processes make whatever 15 seconds is spent on refining meaningless. It’s kind of like when my wife spends an hour rearranging a hard to reach shelf in the kitchen in order to save 10 seconds accessing a plate she uses once every year or two.

    Have you ever done a profile? It seems you haven't.


    Refining is not a problem if it always got you better and more accurate results. But it doesn't. There is a learning curve to it and this makes the Kemper just more difficult to use if for instance you just have your amps with your tones and want to have them in a more portable system.


    I love the Kemper, I think I left this clear. There is so much more to it than the accuracy of profiling.


    But I really feel that at this point having an option of having an accurate profile without the uncertainty of the refining method would appeal to many people.


    It is clear that que Quad Cortex can, on some circumstances, better and most accurate results.


    ckemper you are most likely more intelligent and knowledgeable than most of us. I am sure that it would be relatively easy for you to just add an option for users to choose, to just "refine" the profile automatically or leave the refining to the user whenever he chooses to do it.

  • I'm pretty sure that during the refining process the Kemper compares the profile with the real amp continuously, so it has to happen right there and then, when the amp is still connected and dialed in. So likely not possible "whenever he chooses to do it".

    Kemper PowerRack |Kemper Stage| 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 | 1988 Desert Yellow JEM

  • I'm pretty sure that during the refining process the Kemper compares the profile with the real amp continuously, so it has to happen right there and then, when the amp is still connected and dialed in. So likely not possible "whenever he chooses to do it".

    Please bear in mind that English is not my first language so I might phrase things a bit odd.


    What I meant is that we could have 2 options:


    - Make the Kemper auto refine the profile (updated method QC style)

    - Do the refine ourselves using our own guitar (classic method)



    Is it more clear like that?

  • It's just about accuracy. Nothing to do with our wives, nothing to do with how often we do or don't make profiles, and nothing to do with time consumption.


    Just accuracy.


    And that isn't a strange concern. It's the entire point of the technology.

    I am sorry to tell you that your point is wrongly argumented. You implied that the quad cortex is more "accurate" than the kemper, and somehow it improves the more you capture the amp. I dont hear this, I already heard the quad cortex with my own ears after capturing several times, and it is more precise but not more accurate than the kemper. If you run the capture process several times in a row with the same parameters, the results are almost the same capture, san the HiFi-ish sound I get on my studio monitors with some of the amps (Specially my twin) that definitely make it not "more accurate" than the kemper. If anything, the results on the QC are more repeteable, than the kemper after refining (before refining its almost the same), but I can get more accurate results (sometime closer to the real amp, sometimes farther away, but overall close to the real deal) after refining. Refining is a bit of a craft process, you may like it or not, but it has a reason to be.


    Precise =/= Accurate


    That being said, the QC I find it is way more precise than the kemper, and pretty accurate, dont know if more than the kemper so far, because most of the captures have a very strange bump on the high frequencies. And by the nature of the process (I bet my last batches of hair it is observation of a transfer function) on the kemper, refining fills a small gap where by design should be on the model to create the profile.


    Still not buying QC, my friend has it and we both agree it needs a ton more maturity overall, maybe after a couple of years. I am more inclined to get a Stage or FM3, who knows...

    The answer is 42