Posts by MadH

    Do you mean the auto-refinement part of the Capture process helps yield better results right off the bat so users won't have to feel compelled to use 3rd part Captures (like what can occasionally can happen when working with Profiles), and that avoids the problem of using Captures/Profiles that someone else dialed in ? Because that I can definitely agree with and can see where you're coming from :) Although, just as our subject matter reveals, you can get even better and more accurate results when Refining properly with the KPA. So that also is a way to avoid the problem of being driven to use 3rd party Profiles after not being satisfied with your own attempts to make Profiles.

    No, I believe that being able to share and use everybody else's profiles is probably the best feature of the Profiler because that way you can access many amp tones that you wouldn't have otherwise. I don't believe that having auto-refine would result in people not being interested on third party profiles.


    What I meant is that if the refine process can be automated and "works well", then you can trust that all third party profiles are as close to the real amp as possible. At the moment you can't assume that. Taking as example recent videos:


    Rabea's video.

    You can see that he did not put much effort into refining to get it as close as possible. He even deleted a previous video where he did not even use refine when it was obvious that it was needed. I would assume that's the same method he used to create his commercial profiles. If that's the case then probably those profiles are not as close to the real amp as they could have been. I don't mean that they sound bad. Just talking about accuracy.


    MBritt's video.

    Same thing. Not enough refining. Good tone but not as close as it could have been. This surprised me because he is clearly taking a lot of time to set up everything properly (amp, mic positions, mix, ...) but then after all that he does not put few minutes into refining to make it perfect.


    Lastly, Guido's video.

    He really took the time needed to make it as perfect as possible. I think most people would be satisfied if auto-refine could give results as good as these.

    Comparing IR’s on two different digital boxes seems odd to me ? You should be comparing against the real cabinet? You are after all assuming the Torpedo is more accurate, or just different?

    IRs sound the same in pretty much all devices/plugins unless they are truncated significantly. The Profiler does not seem to use IRs or at least not the same way. The IR conversion utility converts IRs to whatever it is that the Profiler is using. It just does not sound the same though.

    I agree completely with you. My guess is that the Profiler does not do auto-refining because when they created the device, they were not able to have results as accurate as they wanted to. On top of that, Kemper has not had any competition for what it does since its release, so probably auto-refining has not been a priority for them.


    Things are changing now. Kemper has a real competitor that does something that the Profiler doesn't do. Even if not perfect at the current state, the results are extremely good in some cases and in many others better than what a casual user may achieve with the Profiler. Neural DSP also said that they will keep working to improve the results.


    What I always liked about the Profiler vs a modeler, is that I can actually compare the real amp vs my profiles and see how accurate they are. With a modeler, such as the Axe FX, you have no choice but to rely on somebody else's ears. Same thing happens when using somebody else's profiles. This is what Neural DSP is trying to avoid and what I believe Kemper should do as well.

    M Britt definitely could have done a wee bit more Refining imo lol :D


    I think a huge part of the level of accuracy reached when profiling has to do with the Refining technique. I'm not sure if you saw the video of Guido B making some Profiles but in that vid, I couldn't hear even the smallest difference between the amp and Profile-much like my experience with other amps being Profiled as well. A big difference in the Profiling technique between Guido and M Britt is their Refining technique. Guido B took the time to Refine each register and aspect of the tone that needed refinement, and Refined as many times as he felt necessary until 100% accuracy. And M Britt only Refined one time and it was quite short.


    So far evidence has shown that if someone takes the time to Refine each aspect of the tone that needs Refining, there really can be a level of authenticity reached that's indistinguishable from the real amp. It's crazy how much of a difference that Refining multiple times can make :)

    I was surprised by that. His profiles are usually quite good and I assumed that he spent adequate time refining. Specially when the differences are that obvious.


    I guess he goes after the sound that he prefers instead of accuracy. I rather have accuracy from the start and then adjust to taste on my own.


    I still believe that if accuracy is the goal then refining should be fully automated because if not, when using somebody else's profiles, the results will always depend on how much effort they put on refining and their ears.

    Another comparison including the Kemper here.


    In this one I have the impression than the QC seems to be closer than the Kemper but I am not sure if it is due to a level difference.

    B is the Quad Cortex.

    Was it revealed? I must have missed it. On the 1st clip I thought that A was the amp as well but on the 2nd clip, which was cleaner, I would have said that B was the amp because it sounded more dynamic. That could be attributed to the playing though.


    The differences are very apparent but since the recorded signal does not seem to be the same, in some aspects, it is more difficult to guess if those differences are due to the capture process or just caused the by different playing.

    Another comparison if anyone is interested.



    They also sound significantly different to me. He has not revealed which one is which yet I believe.

    Well if you're being honest with yourself, you'll admit that you've also heard Kemper videos where the profile differed just as much.


    And that isn't very much...

    It is possible but I don't recall one where I could notice differences in so many aspects on my first listen, specially if the "refine" was done properly. Like I said, I would expect much better at this point in time.

    Go back to what I said many posts ago, accuracy is one aspect, good sound another. The end bit of that equation is how easy is it to get there :).

    I guess it depends on what you are looking for. For me, accuracy is the only aspect that I consider for this type of functionality. If you get that then good sound is a given if you know how to set it up.

    The clips are definitely more similar than they are different. I'd be pleased with that result. A little EQ work, and I think you'd be 95% of the way there. What impresses me is how you can clearly hear the "belch" of the cab at 0:05. There's a real sense of depth and dimensionality.


    Not saying the Kemper doesn't reproduce these qualities, just that the QC appears to do a real fine job.

    If they were more different than similar, what would the point of doing a product like this? :)

    The QC clip has less gain, the top end sizzle seems to be completely missing, definition/attack sounds different as well. I would expect something better from a product that is going to be released around 10 years after the Kemper and claims to be more accurate.

    Well, yea if both units require time to tweak/refine/capture their best tones, and you take that time away from one of them then you have ruined the comparison test, have you not? I did not allow for that with the Kemper because I was basing the time allowed only from the QC's perspective. I have since been "notified" that refining Kemper's tone properly may take a longer period of time, and that's what I think Bea should allow/redo. Or did you mean something else?

    Again, time should not matter in the sense that you should use as much time as you need to have the best possible result. Actually, Rabea posted a new video capturing pedals on the QC. The results were not as good as with the the amps and he invested some time tweaking the capture (using his ears) until he was satisfied to get it closer to the original tone. Not sure why he did not do that on the comparison video.

    Put that way, yes I see your point. Even if it is built in that way for the QC, the Kemper should have been allowed to have equal tweaking time. I would LOVE for Bea to do a "redo" again and allow this to happen.

    It is not even about equal time. It should not matter if you spend more time one way or the other. It is about using the tools available and your ears with the intent of achieving the best possible outcome. Not just using them for a certain amount of time just to prove a point or for the sake of it.

    And so how much time do you need to refine? Is it close to the same time frame the Cortex used automatically? Longer? Shorter? In other words if we base most things on how long it takes( in most cases that is the way its done) then what Bea did was fair. But you are correct in the fact you can tweak things for hours until you get it right. :)

    Look, I don’t think that what I am saying is anything new for people that create profiles. If the results are not close enough you can usually get it much closer in a few minutes. Probably less time than what the QC takes. You just simply use your ears and repeat the refine process if the first time did not make it for you. It is that simple in most cases. The SLO in particular has been profiled with success by a lot of people.

    I agree that the QC does it on its own, but I don't see where that is a problem. ;) Maybe I just don't care for the extra work when the unit makes the tone sound better on its own. Yea I know the "capture" takes longer, but the results speak for themselves. Hey, I own a Kemper and love mine so this is not bashing my KPA in any way, but I also like to get from point A to B in the fast lane when it's possible. The QC seems to handle this in spades.

    I didn't say that it is a problem in that sense. It is not a problem at all. I also prefer that.


    It was a "problem" in the context of the comparison, in the sense that Rabea did not seem to consider it when trying to make a fair comparison. That's why he did not refine on his first video and did not spend much time refining on the 2nd video either.

    But, Bea went back and refined the "profile", and to my ears (and his) there was slightly more of a "wooly" midrange (27:25) tone the KPA had that the QC did not. Now that was a fair test done with everything left the same for both (as far as I could tell) and the profiles were "refined". No one made the Kemper look unfairly worse and Bea took the same time for both from what I could tell. Now, that was just "one" comparison and maybe others would turn out the other way. If you have not seen the "redone" video it's here :


    BTW- I have "my" Kemper sitting 2 feet from me as I type this, so I'm not being biased either, just stating what my ears told me as well.

    I don’t know about you but when I create a profile I try to get it as close as possible. If I can hear a noticeable difference like that, to me that means that it needs more “refine”. Sometimes you have to refine a few times or even tweak a bit.


    In the video, that did not happen. Both devices seem to require different approaches to get the best possible results. I think Rabea tried to make the comparison as fair as possible by not refining/tweaking on the Kemper (1st video) since you don’t have that option on the QC but the problem is that the QC is actually doing it on its own without user input. Then a lot of people complained and he recorded a 2nd video using “refine” but in my opinion he still missed the point since you are supposed to use (and reuse) “refine” as a tool to get as close as possible not just to demonstrate that you used it on the new video.


    That’s why I believe it was not completely fair. I don’t believe that it was something planned or intentional to make the Kemper look worse but that was the result.

    How many profiles can you point me to that you think are perfectly accurate to the reference amp in a side by side comparison?


    I was referring to the differences in the results between the QC and the Kemper compared to the real amp in Rabea's video.


    I always thought that having the user as part of the equation to the final result opens the door to a not so accurate outcome as compared to having everything automated.


    The opposite is also possible though when the automated refinement process is not good enough vs an experienced user with good ears and knowledge.


    The QC fully automated process seems to be pretty good at least for amps, so if you compare both units, it is not going to be that difficult to make the Kemper results to look worse. Specially, if don't spend enough time refining/tweaking the results on the Kemper profile when this is needed.


    And just to be clear. I am not saying that anybody is making the Kemper to look worse intentionally.

    I think the main difference in the results are due to the user (refining and tweaking) which is something that Kemper could avoid by automating the whole refining process if that is possible.