Neural Quad Cortex

  • It's one of the main reasons I never buy something based on a youtube video or review. There's just too many subtle ways to "fool" people even if by complete accident.


    If the argument is the raw QC capture is closer to the original than a raw Kemper profile right out the gate I mean I agree 100% at least based on my tests. I would imagine the QC process is automating a lot of what a Profile maker would typically do post capture on their Kemper and baking it into the capture so you don't even see it. There are pros and cons to this of course, people who don't like tweaking or want instant gratification will obviously go for the piece of gear that gives them that. I'm guilty of this, it's one of the main reasons I dislike fractal: all the tweaking.


    I just think the point should be made that with a little tweaking you can get the Kemper just as close as a QC profile granted they will still have their own flavor. That's true in even real tube amps and cabs though, you can line up 10 5150s into Mesa OS 4x12s with the same settings and mic placement and they all will sound slightly different. Heck even just take 10 SM57s and they all sound slightly different its just the nature of electronic components. A lot of things effect sound even some things most people don't even consider like: room temperature. In this example I used a simple post EQ and in a lot of professional profiles I've bought I've noticed that quite often there is an EQ in the FX block somewhere that often has a very subtle move just like the one I made. Nothing massive just maybe a 1-2 db cut or boost to a specific frequency. Probably to achieve the same thing: to get it as close to the original as possible. You're taking a different route to the same destination.


    In the context of a mix I honestly believe I couldn't pass a blind test between the two with 100% accuracy. I did a ~2 db cut on 200hz on the refined kemper and even that might have been a hair too much but a lot of that whomp will be removed in post anyway through the use of a high pass filter and multiband compression to tame palm mutes.

  • I don't know now but when the kemper came it was forbidden to discuss it on the fractal forum.

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

    Henry David Thoreau

  • I don't know now but when the kemper came it was forbidden to discuss it on the fractal forum.

    I do remember that, moderators were pretty aggresive about people making comparisons to the kemper on the forums. We should be glad there is an open mind community in here.

    The answer is 42

  • I'm not angry at all, I value your feedback and contribution. What I would say is what you've done there is make it impossible to hear the differences by introducing a double-tracking element.


    Your perspective is that in a mix no-one would be able to hear a difference. That isn't what I have been arguing against or disagreeing with or however you want to say it. It isn't really related to my fundamental position - which is that in it's raw post-capture state, the QC gets closer to the real amp than the Kemper. At least in a way that I don't feel I need to do any work to it in order to make it better.


    I don't need to EQ the QC. I don't need to mess around with a set of refinement stages that may or may not push the tone in the wrong direction.


    I plug in. I capture. I click okay. It's a superior process in my opinion.


    Regarding the KPA files being quieter - I perceive them as roughly the same volume. That's what my ears tell me.


    I don't understand why you would say I should EQ on the Kemper when making the profile - isn't the whole point behind any kind of profiling technique, that we want to get as close as possible to the reference sound??


    What we're comparing here is how close each unit gets to the reference tone in it's rawest state. As soon as you introduce other variables, the comparison ceases to have meaning in my opinion - I've never said you can't make the Kemper sound good. That isn't my claim.


    My subjective experience is that I often have quibbles and insecurity about what I hear from the Kemper. But with the QC I don't have that. Until I load a reverb.... and then I want to go back to the Kemper 8o8o8o8o


    I'm not trying to shit on the Kemper. I'm really not. But to me, the QC is more pleasing right off the bat. And that's what I want. Because I've got tunes to write. I don't have the time to be constantly second guessing myself.


    ckemper - We had private email conversations back in 2015 about this, iirc. From my FXpansion work email address.


    I also find it strange you'd say that about refining with palm mutes. My experience is that refining by playing palm mutes actually makes the problem worse.

  • I don't disagree with any of that.


    I've never contradicted anything you've said here, and I wouldn't. It's basically spot on and is totally congruent with my opinions on QC versus Kemper.



    ckemper - again, I'm not trying to shit on it. I mean, I'm a nobody anyway. So what would be the point? I'm just offering my opinion having used the QC for some time now, right next to my Kemper. I like them both. I just prefer the QC for amp tones. There's less fighting require, and I feel less insecure about the accuracy of the tone, whether I did something wrong during refinement, etc etc.


    Whilst you're reading the thread, can you release a delay and reverb pedal?? I'd buy the hell out of that!! :D:D:D:D

  • Some other 'in use' things...


    - The lack of decent midi on the QC is starting to annoy me now. I can't switch my pedals at the same time as switching scenes. Well... I can, if they're all setup to use the same midi PC's and what not... but that's a real ballache. And the Strymon stuff uses an additional CC to control the bypass state at the time of switching... so either way.... it doesn't quite do it for me.


    - Using it for bass is a bit limiting right now. Or at least, the gear I would want isn't there. The Helix has really spoilt me when it comes to bass!


    - I had some weirdness the other night where it wouldn't connect to my WIFI router. It hasn't done it since. Touch wood it was just a random thing.


    - The expression pedal control isn't as good as the Helix or Kemper. It's a bit annoying if you want to control multiple things all at once, and get the values right. They express (heh heh) values in percentage. So you have to program it... move the pedal.... oh shit my min and max are wrong.... tweak again.... check it again.... it's not as fluid as it could be.


    - How the banks are all arranged is starting to piss me off. And I want to delete all of the stock captures and use that space for my own ones. Grrrr.

  • Your perspective is that in a mix no-one would be able to hear a difference. That isn't my perspective and isn't really related to my fundamental position - the QC gets closer to the real amp than the Kemper.


    I don't need to EQ the QC. I don't need to mess around with a set of refinement stages that may or may not push the tone in the wrong direction.

    "In a mix" is where 99.9% of listeners are going to hear your guitars. That's why I've always put a big emphasis on dialing in tones within a mix or at the very least double tracking (which in itself makes the guitars tonally different) and not to sound good completely isolated on their own. As I've stated if the argument is a raw QC capture is more accurate than a raw Kemper one I don't think you'll get any argument out of me or anyone else. That doesn't mean the Kemper can't be just as accurate to the real thing as the QC once you make a few adjustments, that's exactly why all the options to do so are there on the Kemper. It also doesn't mean that a capture or profile even has to be 100% accurate to sound good and honestly that's a situation that doesn't effect very man people.


    I hate to make over-arching statements based on anecdotal evidence but in my experience the majority of the people who use a Kemper and probably QC users as well do not and will not make their own profiles. They use the ones provided or buy packs from 3rd parties and at that point there's is no way to tell how accurate it is to the source because you weren't there. Sure you could make the argument you could just go based on the reputation of the algorithm but there's no way to be 100% sure. For those people the process is ultimately irrelevant because they turn the browse knob and get the sound they want.


    I don't understand why you would say I should EQ on the Kemper when making the profile - isn't the whole point behind any kind of profiling technique, that we want to get as close as possible to the reference sound??

    Would you not EQ your guitars in a mix or live? The real question is why wouldn't you that's exactly what the tools are for. It's kind of like having all the ingredients to make your favorite meal but leaving a few of them out because why should you have to add them? The meal should just taste good without them right? Maybe not the best example but hopefully one that's easy to follow. To me this is illogical, you want it to be as close as possible to the reference sound but don't want to take the appropriate steps to make it happen? You're ultimately ending up at the same place with either unit it's just one is requiring less work than the other.

  • "In a mix" is where 99.9% of listeners are going to hear your guitars. That's why I've always put a big emphasis on dialing in tones within a mix or at the very least double tracking (which in itself makes the guitars tonally different) and not to sound good completely isolated on their own. As I've stated if the argument is a raw QC capture is more accurate than a raw Kemper one I don't think you'll get any argument out of me or anyone else. That doesn't mean the Kemper can't be just as accurate to the real thing as the QC once you make a few adjustments, that's exactly why all the options to do so are there on the Kemper. It also doesn't mean that a capture or profile even has to be 100% accurate to sound good and honestly that's a situation that doesn't effect very man people.


    I hate to make over-arching statements based on anecdotal evidence but in my experience the majority of the people who use a Kemper and probably QC users as well do not and will not make their own profiles. They use the ones provided or buy packs from 3rd parties and at that point there's is no way to tell how accurate it is to the source because you weren't there. Sure you could make the argument you could just go based on the reputation of the algorithm but there's no way to be 100% sure. For those people the process is ultimately irrelevant because they turn the browse knob and get the sound they want.


    Would you not EQ your guitars in a mix or live? The real question is why wouldn't you that's exactly what the tools are for. It's kind of like having all the ingredients to make your favorite meal but leaving a few of them out because why should you have to add them? The meal should just taste good without them right? Maybe not the best example but hopefully one that's easy to follow. To me this is illogical, you want it to be as close as possible to the reference sound but don't want to take the appropriate steps to make it happen? You're ultimately ending up at the same place with either unit it's just one is requiring less work than the other.

    Well, now we're gonna get into the philosophy of audio engineering I suppose. To me, when I EQ a guitar in a mix or live, I'm not EQ'ing the guitar to fix inherent problems in the guitar. I wouldn't track it if there were inherent problems - I'd aim to fix the problems before tracking. Not always possible of course, but that's the ideal.


    But when I'm EQ'ing in a mix or live, I'm EQ'ing to make it fit with other instruments. This is a different thing to what we're talking about here. If I was making the claim that the Kemper can never be made to sound good, or close to the real amp, then everything you've said here would absolutely oblierate my perspective, and I should run home with my tail between my legs.


    But that isn't my claim. My claim is purely one about accuracy immediately following the completion of a capture/profile. That's it. Everything that follows after that is indeed in the realms of production, engineering, and pure subjectivity.


    If it takes extra steps for the Kemper to get closer to the sound, then this should surely indicate that advances need to be made on the profiling tech, so that the Kemper can make things easier and faster and better for their users, no???


    To me, it doesn't quite make sense to say "yes, I agree with you, but you can do XYZ to get closer" - like.... the XYZ is already a foregone conclusion. Doesn't need to be said really.



    As an aside; I try not to EQ if I don't have to. I don't want to introduce phase-shifts unless I absolutely have to.


    Quote


    As I've stated if the argument is a raw QC capture is more accurate than a raw Kemper one I don't think you'll get any argument out of me or anyone else.

    To be clear - that is exactly what I'm saying. Nothing more.


    Speaking completely blue-sky a minute - What if Kemper releases Profiling 2.0 in 6 months time, which further automates the process and uses more tones during it's capture process that all of a sudden the Kemper is then way closer than the QC.... would I be out of order if I then jumped on the NeuralDSP forums and started talking about how I now prefer my Kemper for profiling?? Coz that's exactly what would happen! :D


    What I'd like to see I guess would be something like this:


    - Some clarity on what to play to solve XYZ problem during refinement. Maybe even have the Kemper prompt the user - ie: play this to make your palm mutes more accurate, play this to make your lead tone more accurate, etc.

    - Add the definition control to the pages of the refinement stage, so that it's right there and ready to go. It's probably the most important parameter going and actually if I was wanting to get closer to the amp, I'd reach for that before an EQ.

    - Some sort of option where I can tell the Kemper that XYZ set of profiles are all from the same amp channel, and to treat them in similar ways. Sometimes I notice if you profile a high-gain channel at different levels of gain, the refining stage makes them all sound quite inconsistent from one another. This isn't something you would spot unless you were right there when the profiling is occurring. The QC has the same issue btw.

    - Figure out a way to improve the "noise-gate detected" issue. Sometimes a noise-gate is detected when there isn't one.

    - Some amps like the Fryette Sig:X don't profile very well. I think it's because the Sig:X has some dynamic frequency response stuff going on at the input. So I would guess that what the Kemper hears when I'm playing my guitar is different to what it hears when it's sending all of it's test tones. I think this should be investigated; get the thing on a test bench and debug what the Kemper is doing and see if anything can be done to improve the accuracy.

    - Are there any more parameters in the amp circuit that can be exposed to the user??? I know the vision for the Kemper is to make things easy and simple to use. But if there are other parameters that we can tweak that are being hidden from us... maybe that's a path forward???



    Anyway.... I plan to do a video of each unit side by side. Not as a stupid "ZOMG! THE KEMPER IS BAD!!!" type video. But just an educational video where people can hear the differences in a post-rock/post-metal kind of context. I am a fan of the Kemper, I just would like to see some improvements.

  • 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.

    This ++.


    If any of you have ever lugged a VHT 4x12 cab with P90's in it (and another VHT "fat bottom" 2x12 cab) around with a VHT UL head every night, you can likely understand why I started "softening" my "militantly anti-digital" attitude :).


    Now, when I did start thinking about digital, it was with the absolute certainty I would be giving up some tone for the weight....... I was wrong.


    I think that QC has an entire generation of growth before it matches the road worthiness of the KPA though. For gigging, I think there are lots of holes in the design.

  • 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.

    - Multi amps

    - Simple way of capture

    -Size and form factor

    - UI and touch screen

    - Wi-Fi

    - Flexibility on chain path

    - Pedal Captures

    - USB audio



    I agree with you that the current state of the QC is like a toy. I also don't want any fight and think that the Kemper is globally a lot better. But there's no doubt that the QC has several features that are not present on the Kemper. All I said is that because the QC is behind in many other aspects, Kemper has time to catch up and still be always better. I would like that. I love Kemper as a product but also the company and it's business philosophy.

  • Thanks for the explanation. I agree with all that. Most of it isn’t that important to me, but I know is for many others. I’ve always preferred 1 great sound, to a whole lot of options that aren’t so good.


    And yes, very impressed with Kemper as a company.

  • I have found a video with sounds I loved. I don't know how much the Koch tube power amp (which I also like a lot) participated to this overall dense and creamy guitar sound (of course it did)...


    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Better have it and not need it, than need it and not have it! - Michael Angelo Batio

  • Speaking completely blue-sky a minute - What if Kemper releases Profiling 2.0 in 6 months time, which further automates the process and uses more tones during it's capture process that all of a sudden the Kemper is then way closer than the QC.... would I be out of order if I then jumped on the NeuralDSP forums and started talking about how I now prefer my Kemper for profiling?? Coz that's exactly what would happen! :D

    You making the effort to document and share your frustrations with the Kemper is appreciated, not out of order or anything like that. You're relating anecdotal experiences. I don't get why anyone would feel the need to invalidate your opinions, and from what I've read I don't think anyone is. Even with CK, maybe there's a bit of impatience or frustration in his tone, but ultimately I'm thinking that's because he's hoping for you to have the best results possible, not because he wants to smother a dissenting viewpoint. He's let years and years and years of misinformation about his products posted on TGP go by without a response or even a peep. Anyway, it should be enough for anyone feeling defensive (?!) that there's also a ton of anecdotal evidence, many many years of examples, where musicians are unable to discern a source amp from a profile. The Quad Cortex is a polemic device. The rollout was characterized by a lot of ugly behavior among people who hadn't even tried the device. And then there were enough discrepancies between the touted capabilities and what was delivered at release to at least question the integrity of the claims. All of that aside, you getting specifically at the tech, the capture capabilities as you measure them against the Kemper, is an interesting read. I hope you don't stop.

  • You making the effort to document and share your frustrations with the Kemper is appreciated, not out of order or anything like that. You're relating anecdotal experiences. I don't get why anyone would feel the need to invalidate your opinions, and from what I've read I don't think anyone is. Even with CK, maybe there's a bit of impatience or frustration in his tone, but ultimately I'm thinking that's because he's hoping for you to have the best results possible, not because he wants to smother a dissenting viewpoint. He's let years and years and years of misinformation about his products posted on TGP go by without a response or even a peep. Anyway, it should be enough for anyone feeling defensive (?!) that there's also a ton of anecdotal evidence, many many years of examples, where musicians are unable to discern a source amp from a profile. The Quad Cortex is a polemic device. The rollout was characterized by a lot of ugly behavior among people who hadn't even tried the device. And then there were enough discrepancies between the touted capabilities and what was delivered at release to at least question the integrity of the claims. All of that aside, you getting specifically at the tech, the capture capabilities as you measure them against the Kemper, is an interesting read. I hope you don't stop.

    Man, thank you for that.


    And I totally agree with what you say about Christophe. His composure over some of the stuff said about the Kemper by actual industry competition.... admiral.


    At the end of the day.... okay... I was born in 1984 ..... so I would've been 6 years old.... but at the end of the day.... could anyone 30 years ago expect the absolute embarrassment of riches that we as guitarists have at our disposal now??? It's astonishing. Piano players don't even have it this good!!

  • If anyone has a Cortex and a Kemper and you're NOT Stacking them together, you are missing out big time!


    I know this setup would be crazy expensive, ridiculously sketchy to take to small gigs, and logistically a bigger hassle than just taking one or the other but oh my... the tones for articulate high gain are just really something special going on in my headphones right now and it wouldn't be very Gucci of me to not share this. Chugs and Cheers!

  • If anyone has a Cortex and a Kemper and you're NOT Stacking them together, you are missing out big time!


    I know this setup would be crazy expensive, ridiculously sketchy to take to small gigs, and logistically a bigger hassle than just taking one or the other but oh my... the tones for articulate high gain are just really something special going on in my headphones right now and it wouldn't be very Gucci of me to not share this. Chugs and Cheers!

    How are you using both??

  • How are you using both??

    For now just running the cortex straight into the front of the kemper. Using cortex overdrives, amp models and captures into clean or semi light crunch profules. Sometimes just using the Kemper for cabs, delay and reverb. Stacking in all sorts of various ways has given truly wonderful results. Sometimes I think I like profiled cabs better but still going back and forth quite a bit.

    Utilizing the kone imprints with cortex models and captures have yielded some great results as well.

  • For now just running the cortex straight into the front of the kemper. Using cortex overdrives, amp models and captures into clean or semi light crunch profules. Sometimes just using the Kemper for cabs, delay and reverb. Stacking in all sorts of various ways has given truly wonderful results. Sometimes I think I like profiled cabs better but still going back and forth quite a bit.

    Utilizing the kone imprints with cortex models and captures have yielded some great results as well.

    Have you tried using midi on the QC? As in changing scenes on the QC via the kemper remote, or is that not possible?