If I had to express my current state of mind on the Kemper vs QC issue it would be:
Kemper is in front by a lot as a global solution. But QC will catch up eventually. And Kemper should and probably will try to compensate in the several subjects that the QC has already the upper hand. They have time to do it.
If I had to express my current state of mind on the Kemper vs QC issue it would be:
Kemper is in front by a lot as a global solution. But QC will catch up eventually. And Kemper should and probably will try to compensate in the several subjects that the QC has already the upper hand. They have time to do it.
I’m curious to know in what way you see the QC having the upper hand?
Owning both, I would say the main difference is the multi amps in the QC and that it is easier to get a good capture (harder to get a great one). Other than that, I think the Kemper is much better.
Not wanting a fight. Genuinely interested. I bought the QC and want to like it, but it feels like a toy to me. I keep thinking I must be missing something.
I honestly don't understand the obsession with profiles/captures having to be "100% accurate". IMO neither of them are but they're pretty close. To me all I care about is that it sounds good, when I buy a reamp zone or tone junkie profile the first thing that pops into my head isn't "I wonder if this sounds exactly like the source amp" it's "damn that sounds really good let me favorite that and turn the knob here... eh don't like that one too much delete.... oh this ones nice going to favorite that". Tone is subjective anyway what I like isn't what other people will like and vice versa if you find the piece of gear that gives you a tone you love there's no reason to go chasing another 1%.
I did listen to Drews comparison though and immediately one thing stood out to me (and I'm not saying this was intentional so please don't get angry): The KPA files were quieter. The human ear perceives louder as better and its one of the oldest tricks in the book. I loaded the QC and refined up in reaper, hard panned them and volume matched and took a tiny dip out of 200hz and honestly I can't tell a difference between them. Yes that means I had to EQ to Kemper file but that should have been done when making the profile.
Is a raw capture more accurate out the gate? Eh probably but having to make one less move during the process isn't worth 2 grand to me. I'll just circle back to the point where I don't see why the heck it even matters. If it sounds good: it sounds good, both the kemper and QC add their own flavor to their profiles so are you a vanilla or a chocolate kind of guy?
EDIT: For anyone interested heres my results with Drews Files. Throw some drums/bass over the volume matched one and honestly good luck trying to figure out what is what
I honestly don't understand the obsession with profiles/captures having to be "100% accurate".
So you are talking from a hobby perspective maybe?
Think of a studio engineer, who wants to capture his (signature) signal chain to simplify studio life and workflow. Of course he wants results as accurate as possible. Good tone is, what he has already dialed in at the source! That's exactly what he wants to preserve.
The whole concept of Kemper and also QC is based around accuracy - what else?
Or how many will buy gear with this slogan: "Our unit makes random captures that can sound very good and often pretty similar to the source in your studio. A random good tone does not need more accuracy." ?
Display MoreSo you are talking from a hobby perspective maybe?
Think of a studio engineer, who wants to capture his (signature) signal chain to simplify studio life and workflow. Of course he wants results as accurate as possible. Good tone is, what he has already dialed in at the source! That's exactly what he wants to preserve.
The whole concept of Kemper and also QC is based around accuracy - what else?
Or how many will buy gear with this slogan: "Our unit makes random captures that can sound very good and often pretty similar to the source in your studio. A random good tone does not need more accuracy." ?
An engineer knows that guitar tone has much to do with the other instruments in the mix and how they interact/mask each other in full band context as it does the guitar itself. The guitars on professional recordings do not sound exactly like the source by the very nature of mixing and I would argue the whole concept of the Kemper and QC in a studio setting is based primarily on saving time and as a stop gate for something going wrong (tube blows, intern bumps the mic, ect). Even something as simple as a HPF can significantly alter the sound of the source tone.
Then again most studios I've worked at or recorded at don't profile amps on site they use profiles already on the unit. Its easy to just sit there and go through profiles while the artist is playing to find a tone that works for their style. In most cases though if the artist has a specific amp they use/like you're going to use that and not a hardware unit. While you'll see plenty of these in bedroom setups and some studios their main application is for live use, at least in my opinion, and that's a whole other can of worms. Sound reinforcement and studio engineering are two very different beasts and often you're at the mercy of the room.
The accuracy is there. For the purpose of punch-ins, or other later use, or archiving album tones for potential use on the road, the Kemper is there. Sounds like the QC probably is too. Mind you, none of those uses is truly about granular scrutiny outside of a mix, which is why for decades before any of these devices existed plenty of folks were able to go back in and add punches that are relatively invisible. And in terms of live, even the most diligently curated concert scenarios are beholden to the realities of each venue, and so it’s not as if artists are going around the world sounding exactly like their records, except maybe in their in-ears.
The earlier point about not obsessing over accuracy is a good one. Who knows what Bert M’s Filmosound amp sounds like in the room? What I do know is that I’ve played through one of the guitarist’s amps that inspired a few of Bert’s rigs in that pack, and I’m telling you the feel and the vibe is close enough, and it’s not even the exact same physical amp. Again, this is not to dismiss any of the frustrations experienced by people who are diligently attempting to get the most accurate profiles of their amps, for the purpose of sharing or selling.
There’s also a mindset involved, and more general musical experience too. A Bert Meulendijk or Michael Britt or name your session ace, dials in pretty much anything to sound like ... himself. We’ve all seen it happen in person. Someone who is identified with a particular rig is standing in front of a whole different setup and still sounding exactly like himself. They’re not particularly hung-up on the minutia that may frustrate scientists. So maybe a more relaxed attitude about this stuff actually gets you there more easily.
And again, for years already the accuracy has proven to be such that most people are fooled most of the time so I don’t think anyone’s saying that it doesn’t matter at all.
It just means that there are several factors that come into play, in terms of the totality of the experience and the joy of using the device.
This thread is easily the most active one on this forum, and has been for some time now.
For a Kemper-centric message board, this seems odd to me.
Carry on....
I just don't think you can honestly go wrong with anything made in the past decade or so. Everyone has their personal tastes of course and as an example I am not a big fan of fractal products or Bias FX. The difference is I don't walk up to everyone with an Axe-FX and say "that thing is trash you should sell it and buy this other thing" because the fact I don't like it didn't stop hundreds if not thousands of people from getting stellar tones out of them. Heck I've heard some pretty incredible things out of Pod Farm of all things and know some engineers who still use it... they're all tools and a tool is only as good as the person using it.
One thing I've always found to be true in general is that most professional guitar players aren't really that picky anyway. If you take someone like Santana, EVH, or MJR and plug him into almost anything (that's decent ok I'm not talking about a 9v battery clip on practice amp) it's going to sound like them. The argument to me is really no different than someone trying to argue that a Mesa amplifer is better or worse than an 5150. I mean they're both good in their own way and they both have tons of commercial success. It's just a different flavor of ice cream.
I've always told people that if you own something "high end" and can't get the sound you want out of it buying a new piece of gear probably isn't going to solve that issue for you and far too many people put way too much focus in their isolated solo mono track guitar sound than how it sounds in a full band setting. If you took a track that has your favorite guitar tone of all time and muted everything but one guitar and panned it center it's a good chance you wouldn't even like it anymore.
Context in a full band matters.
Again I'm not trying to mean or anything part of the fun of being an engineer for me is the wide variety of tones and playing styles you deal with. If everyone recorded with the same thing it would be boring. Every tone is unique and has its own set of challenges to make it work. Got a SLO-100 full stack? Cool lets do it. Kemper? Cool lets do it. Fractal unit? Cool lets do it. One of the best pieces of advice I ever received in school was: "A bad song mixed well is still bad; A good song mixed bad is still good"
For the most part, Kemper is there. Not so, so much to talk about. Then a new, heavily promoted device with aped tech from CK's arsenal of magic is now on the market. Why wouldn't that be interesting to people who are already wasting time posting comments on the internet?
In the end, all of this stuff is pretty much the same. That goes for drive pedals too. My preference in the studio has always been little vintage amps—Valco, Bell & Howell (more recently), Vibro Champ, Magnatone, things that you turn on and it's instant vibe—and Dumble-related amps live (which can be anything, a modded DR with a EVL speaker, or sure a Dumble-clone). Neither of those ideas is original, in fact that's common. Kemper works for a guy like me. If it was super-challenging to get at tones, or the manufacturer had an icky vibe ... yknow, always looking for personal data or berating owners on the internet, it wouldn't be worth it. Great tones is only part of it.
This thread is easily the most active one on this forum, and has been for some time now.
For a Kemper-centric message board, this seems odd to me.
Carry on....
It really is a curiosity, why this thread is so active? Kemper dropped a bomb on both the digital world, and world of tubes (that many like me, love) when it released. For a decade it sat totally unchallenged. Now, there is direct competition.
I lost all interest in the QC. Someone mentioned tone only being part of why you choose one or the other and I agree. The promotional stuff and conduct of the QC community, thus far, has made me lose any interest.
I really appreciate Kemper as a company and not just a product. And there it is, my first post after being a Kemper player for over a year and a half. Inspired by QC, ironically.
It really is a curiosity, why this thread is so active? Kemper dropped a bomb on both the digital world, and world of tubes (that many like me, love) when it released. For a decade it sat totally unchallenged. Now, there is direct competition.
I lost all interest in the QC. Someone mentioned tone only being part of why you choose one or there and I agree. The promotional stuff and conduct of the QC community, thus far, has made me lose any interest.
I really appreciate Kemper as a company and not just a product. And there it is, my first post after being a Kemper player for over a year and a half. Inspired by QC, ironically.
It's really quite obvious if you think about it. The Kemper has been around for a long time and everything worth saying about it has already been said multiple times. It's also never really had any type of competition so this is really the only "new" thing to talk about when it comes to the Kemper.
It's really quite obvious if you think about it. The Kemper has been around for a long time and everything worth saying about it has already been said multiple times. It's also never really had any type of competition so this is really the only "new" thing to talk about when it comes to the Kemper.
It's had plenty of competition. Just the same as tube amps compete with digital, the Profiler competes directly with Fractal, Line6 and tube amps for that matter. If you define its competition as only those that get their sounds by capture/profiles/snapshot....whatever, you're being far too narrow.
The market doesn't care about the technology used. Only if a feature set ticks the correct boxes.
There has also been plenty new to talk about with Kemper. Rig Manager, new effects/features, new form factor, a dedicated speaker with cabinets and now a wireless app incoming. Plus, whatever else they're setting the OS up for.
What Kemper doesn't do, and hasn't since CK's creation of Virus synthesizers is follow someone else. He has a vision for what he wants to do and (for the most part), the rest of the world can get lost.
Display MoreIt's had plenty of competition. Just the same as tube amps compete with digital, the Profiler competes directly with Fractal, Line6 and tube amps for that matter. If you define its competition as only those that get their sounds by capture/profiles/snapshot....whatever, you're being far too narrow.
The market doesn't care about the technology used. Only if a feature set ticks the correct boxes.
There has also been plenty new to talk about with Kemper. Rig Manager, new effects/features, new form factor, a dedicated speaker with cabinets and now a wireless app incoming. Plus, whatever else they're setting the OS up for.
What Kemper doesn't do, and hasn't since CK's creation of Virus synthesizers is follow someone else. He has a vision for what he wants to do and (for the most part), the rest of the world can get lost.
I absolutely mean profiles and not modeling. I do own a Helix now, and I do like it, but I would have never touched digital if not for the KPA. I still don't like modeling so much, as it is today.
I think modeling and profiling are two different animals. I vastly prefer profiles. I use Helix for practical reasons, but I would haul tube amps over the Helix.
I don't think I am alone in that, either. I think a lot of people and even the market, see this as the first to compete directly with the Kemper. The Kemper managed to convert some militantly anti-digital people; like me.
I absolutely mean something that profiles and not modeling. I do own a Helix now, and I do like it, but I would have never touched digital if not for the KPA. I still don't like modeling so much, as it is today.
I think modeling and profiling are two different animals. I vastly prefer profiles. I use Helix for practical reasons, but I would haul tube amps over the Helix.
I don't think I am alone in that, either. I think a lot of people and even the market, see this as the first to compete directly with the Kemper.
They are two different animals.
To suggest they don't compete in the marketplace is incorrect. It just is. The debate of Fractal/Line6/Kemper has raged for years.
They are two different animals.
To suggest they don't compete in the marketplace is incorrect. It just is. The debate of Fractal/Line6/Kemper has raged for years.
It's really difficult to see what I mean and why this thread is so active? That is my ultimate point. Kemper always had that angle to itself and it is a big selling point.
And yeah, it was and is, no competition on a personal level for a lot of people. When I put my tubes out to pasture, there was absolutely no competition. The thought never crossed my mind to even look at fractal or LIne6.
Now, after getting the KPA I accepted digital into my life, but for me there is still no competition. I still take Fractal and Line6 with cynicism.
It's the perspective of a luddite but we are many.
They share the same market the same way Taco Bell shares the dinner market with a five star restaurant.
Display MoreIt's really difficult to see what I mean and why this thread is so active? That is my ultimate point. Kemper always had that angle to itself and it is a big selling point.
And yeah, it was and is, no competition on a personal level for a lot of people. When I put my tubes out to pasture, there was absolutely no completion. The thought never crossed my mind to even look at fractal or LIne6.
Now, after getting the KPA I accepted digital into my life, but for me there is still no competition. I still take Fractal and Line6 with cynicism.
It's the perspective of a luddite but we are many.
They share the same market the same way Taco Bell shares the dinner market with a five star restaurant.
I don't disagree. This thread has life because the topic deviates constantly. It's not about 'one' thing, really.
For those that have already chosen - there is no competition. Regardless of which way you chose. At the same time, I know of numerous people that have two or even three different boxes that do the 'same' thing and use them for different reasons.
I did listen to Drews comparison though and immediately one thing stood out to me (and I'm not saying this was intentional so please don't get angry): The KPA files were quieter. The human ear perceives louder as better and its one of the oldest tricks in the book. I loaded the QC and refined up in reaper, hard panned them and volume matched and took a tiny dip out of 200hz and honestly I can't tell a difference between them. Yes that means I had to EQ to Kemper file but that should have been done when making the profile.
This exactly what I have noticed too.
The incorrect volume matching is a new aspect of the dual comparison clips.
It does not happen when you do an A/B comparison in the Profiling Mode.
The Profile is spot on with the exception of the bass response, mainly revealed by playing palm mutes.
I have mentioned earlier in this thread that such deviations can usually be polished in a few seconds by refining that same palm mutes. Should be intuitive.
drew_fx : We have no message from you that you have tried to refine that way.
I like this topic because in general this community always trives for excelency, and even when half of the arguments here are a scratched CD on repeat, we are actually looking for indept comparisons. In the future expect me to have my hands on the QC again and do a full frequency test and transient response test, the differences should be really obvious when doing the A/B/Cing of QC/Kemper/Amp, with test signals and maybe a reamped track.
As said before, how closer can we get? does it really matter? A couple of days ago we were reading M Britt and how he is already past conventionalism, and he is trying crazy combinations for Merged profiles. The magnus on Music is, if it sounds good, its good, the why and how is harder to explain. All power to all the QC buyers, this for sure is driving something forwards
I don't disagree. This thread has life because the topic deviates constantly. It's not about 'one' thing, really.
For those that have already chosen - there is no competition. Regardless of which way you chose. At the same time, I know of numerous people that have two or even three different boxes that do the 'same' thing and use them for different reasons.
I just think those who have always been more open minded towards digital can over look the rabid prejudices many of us had towards it, and how that affects our perception.
I think we agree on the facts, but are simply looking at it through different lenses.
When I went digital it wasn't a conscious decision but: The thought of anything other Kemper never crossed my mind because only Kemper can profile. How many who sympathize with that, I don't know. I suspect its enough to give this topic legs.
