Posts by drew_fx

I've never had a profile that didn't need refining.

Your issue sounds like there is something wrong with your routing setup. Could you post a breakdown of the full rig? Are you going through any digital gear when profiling? Any soundcards or pedals or anything that could introduce latency into the chain?

The refining process doesn't respond well when there is latency built into the system. So when making profiles, you should always strip the entire setup back to the most basic approach - guitar into kemper, direct send into the amp (a drive pedal can be put here too) and then amp into a loadbox or a speaker cab, and then a microphone feed or a loadbox feed into the return on the Kemper.

If you introduce mixers and other bits of gear, you're introducing more room for error.

Quote from Nightmare Circus

You're right it does lean to the right side a bit even at the same perceived loudness. Low-mids tend to do that which is why I boosted them on one side and cut them from the other after i volume matched them. But which one did I cut and which one did I boost?

Honestly wouldn't mind being send that profile, I can make you like it with a little tweaking.

If the left channel is nulling out then something happened on my end because they are definitely both EQ'd in the second clip. Let me open up the session

Left channel is definitely nulling. So I'm not really sure what the two clips prove now.

Nightmare Circus

I put both your clips into Reaper and polarity inverted one of them. Both of the left sides cancel out 100%. So I was able to identify that the left channel was the same in both clips. There is a big difference in the right channels, resulting in a -20dB peak level when doing this null test. So what did you do with the right channels?

And which was which? Left was Kemper and right was QC after all?? Or was I right in saying the left was QC and right was Kemper?

In both cases, the left channel dominates and leaves the clip sounding unbalanced.

I love nerding out about this stuff!

Quote from Awesome_Elvis

Another way of looking at this is where there has been accounts of the cortex needing to add gain after a capture and some instances where the kemper needed a little less gain after profiling.

Yeah, this is more or less how I perceive it when a/bing them too. I feel like I wanna mess with the gains.

Quote from Nightmare Circus

I'll admit that's a pretty surprising result to me. I expected the brighter and more controlled one to be the QC while the darker/boomy one to be the Kemper. Out of curiosity did you profile a boosted amp or add a boost to them?

Swear on my mothers soul I'm not lying

It was a Satriani JVM, on OD1 Red mode, with the noise gate completely disabled. QC and Kemper each taking a feed from my Suhr Loadbox, and then I loaded the same IR onto each unit to get the cab. I didn't boost the amp myself with anything. The amp *may* have some sort of pseudo-boost in the circuit, but I'm not too familiar with the schematic to be honest, so I don't know. They're pretty complicated amps, so it wouldn't surprise me if there was some sneaky transistors in the signal path acting as a kind of boost.

Quote from Nightmare Circus

Ah you listened to my fixed versions. I was hoping the names would trip you up: and they did. That's pretty funny to me. Now listen to the demo excerpt I did.

I wasn't paying attention to names. Go on then, what sneaky thing did you do?

Quote from Nightmare Circus

Yeah I wouldn't recommend taking a hairdryer to the Kemper personally. If it's making you happy then it sounds like it was a solid purchase for you this part doesn't make any sense at all to me. It sounds like with your drum samples you're willing to do whatever it takes to make them sound the way you want but with the kemper: you aren't willing to do anything. You'll do all that for some drums but won't even use a simple post EQ or adjust any of the settings to get the sound closer to the source? Um, ok.

That to me is just odd but what is even more odd though is that won't answer any of the questions that myself or ckemper have asked. Either way, like I said I'm glad it makes you happy. Also would be curious which was which in your previous example and if one wasn't a source then would like to hear the source.

I'll post more clips tomorrow. Line 5 == QC, Line 7 == Kemper. No source unfortunately. But you have actually spotted the exact things that I have an issue with, and given them rather similar terminology to what I would have as well. This is interesting.

It's not that I'm not willing to do anything, I just simply don't think post-EQ or pre-EQ are enough to close the gap. I've tried it many times. It doesn't work.

I'll post more clips tomorrow, along with a source track for proper reference. But it was interesting to see what you thought just based on the two.

So far as I can tell, I've answered ALL of your questions, and Christophe's. Please feel free to point out where I haven't, and I will do so. Maybe you're justt missing my posts.

Quote from Nightmare Circus

Now as for my example I linked: Can you hear a difference and tell me which side/half of the lead was kemper and which was the QC?

Yes I can when I throw them into a DAW and listen each channel in isolation.

Original QC Kemper Refined.wav - The left channel is the QC. The right channel is the Kemper.

Volume Matched 200hz Cut KPA - Same again. Left is QC. Right is Kemper - with a pretty severe scoop in the mids.

When I listen to them as stereo, for both files, they sound unbalanced to me. There is a slight lean towards one side. I wouldn't put that on a record. I'd rather track left and right with just the Kemper than mix and match those two specific tones.

And for what it's worth, my ears today listening to the non-EQ'd clips, are telling me that the QC sounds a little scratchier and the Kemper sounds fuller. So it isn't the case that the QC always sounds fuller and girthier than the Kemper.

And I'll just say it I guess - they don't sound anywhere near the same to me, particularly in your "fixed" clip. In fact they sound further apart to me.

I haven't forgotten anything. But it's quite clear that I've been talking about sound all along, not feel. So please don't misrepresent me.

When I make drum samples, if the source drum or drum skin are not pleasing to me, then I don't record them. I change the skin. I clean the bearing edges. I tighten up the lugs and other hardware. I change the hoops. I change the mic. I change the preamp. I reset the skin. I sometimes attack it with a hairdryer to get it to tighten. Whatever it takes to get the source right.

With guitar I do the same thing. Which is why I got the QC.

Attacking the Kemper with a hairdryer hasn't yielded positive results.

Quote from karlic

Is it actually blending IRs, or just changing to the next IR as you move. I agree it is a major benefit, but Kemper is not really focussed on IRs. I think the idea came from ML Soundlab and the MIKKO player.

Yes I believe it is blending IR's. You'd hear stepped changes when moving the mics around otherwise.

I use both IR's and captured cab's in my Kemper. I don't think it's true to say the Kemper isn't focused on IRs - they've added features over time to expand our tonal palettes. The focus of the Kemper is now guitar tone in it's entirety. Which is cool.

Quote from Mongillo19

Do you like tighter palm mutes? I found the QC to be quite sterile and lacking that thump

I don't know if I would describe it as tighter or not. What I'm looking for is a solidity to the resonance.

Quote from Nightmare Circus

It's more that the listener is never going know if it's accurate or not they just care if it sounds good. I think the real issue here is you're arguing for feel and I'm arguing for sound. I've heard that argument go both ways though, some people love the QC feel and others think it's sterile and unrealistic. Me? I'm an engineer and if it's metal I'm going to put a multiband compressor on it and get rid of the junk so the guitars and bass aren't in an eternal death match

Without getting all ego about it, I'm an engineer too. With 20 years experience. I record drums for a living, and I am the product owner for BFD Drums.

I'm not arguing for feel. I am arguing for sound. I am arguing for accuracy of profiling/capturing when compared to the original sound source. Because accuracy is the entire point of the technology.

But let's talk about sound. Let me know which clip you think sounds best.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/h1r…CskwGLPNGvHUWu6xjYva?dl=0

I do not test sound sources in a mix when I am trying to analyse the qualities of the sound source. That makes no sense to me. I am perfectly capable of telling if a bass guitar has too much mud without having a kick drum blasting away over the top. If I am trying to detect harshness in a guitar recording, why would I blindfold myself by slapping loads of cymbals over it? Again - that makes no sense given the actual discussion at hand.

No-one is arguing that either unit cannot be made to sound good in a mix. I've released music with good guitar tones using Amplitube 2 almost a decade ago, and no-one ever said to me that the guitars sounded bad. That isn't what this discussion is about.

Quote from Nightmare Circus

The audience will of course notice if its "bad" to the point it's over bearing but find me an audience member or even a musician who can tell the difference between a QC capture and a Kemper profile of the same thing in a full band setting with 100% accuracy.

I find it amusing you don't care about 100% accuracy when it comes to profiling the amp, but you do when it comes to audiences being able to tell the difference.

The overall point is, and I've been saying it the entire thread, it's all about subjective perceptions. I like both units. I really do. I've been using them side-by-side for nearly 2 months now, on a daily basis.

But I slightly prefer the QC even though the Kemper trounces it for features and current workflow capabilities, simply because I find the capturing to be more accurate to the real amp, particularly when it comes to palm mutes. As a high-gain guitarist, this is crucially important to me. It may not be for you, and I'm not judging you for that. But for me, I will give up all of the bells and whistles of the Kemper to have more accurate amp captures, because I know I can make up for bells and whistles with other pedal options on the board alongside the QC.

But if Kemper all of a sudden released a Profiling 2.0 update that fixed the issue, I'd then most likely flip back to primarily using the Kemper as my profiling/capturing platform.

And I've said multiple times now, I'm not after perfection. I'm just after the most accurate. Because I can't crank my real valve amps all of the time - much as I'd like to.

Quote from Nightmare Circus

You're free to use what you want but considering with minimal effort (just balancing the volume and removing a db or two of 200hz) I could make your QC capture sound pretty much identical to your Kemper one I don't really think the QC is that mind blowing. It's just less effort for the same result.

The devil is in the "pretty much"

Quote from Tritium

The single biggest “selling point” to me, for the Quad Cortex”, is the ability to virtually adjust the microphone(s) on the built-in QC modeled cabs so as to position the axial and radial distance.

If Kemper could somehow implement this feature on their next device (i.e KPA 2), that would be huge…particularly if we are talking about user profiles of mic’d cabinets.

I actually don't think that part of it sounds all that good. I think - but don't know for sure - that the blending between the different IR's introduces something that I don't like.... some sort of phase shift that feels wrong under the fingers. I always work with static Ownhammer IR's because of that.

The Kemper captures cabs better IMO.

Quote from Nightmare Circus

It's kind of funny to me how guitarists these days will spend 100x more time and energy trying to find subtle differences in a guitar sound that won't even be noticed by most people or disappear in a mix/full band concept.

Rather than just make music. I'm willing to bet your band would sound just fine with either unit.

I've been at shows where people were using PodXT's and HD500's and Axe FX Ultra's into little FRFR combos on stage and then micing them up, and the audience notices the poor tone, and even talks about it over beers in between sets. The bands are never told straight up that their tone sucked - they go off thinking it was another successful show.

The audience does notice. I've never really been on board with this "the audience doesn't care, so neither should you" attitude. It makes zero sense to me. If it were true, we should all be using Peavey Bandit's and Boss DD3's.

IMO.

Gotta remember, we're talking about nerdy subtle things here that I agree, most people won't hear.

But we've got to be happy with it as well. I've been doing some A/B'ing recently with Kemper and QC on my desk:

[Blocked Image: https://scontent-lcy1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/198640239_10158126079315777_5446358498008686520_n.jpg?_nc_cat=101&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=zXZmC-4ky0YAX-gAqRb&_nc_oc=AQnGMUSqtoWfKeLHkCiDHvOIEduWEG31lfh6SMKzUswTJgurUT9LkMHC4tL0VjG4B44&_nc_ht=scontent-lcy1-1.xx&oh=065f3046c8c2686eab3250b2d9b0c275&oe=60E6571B]

I've been taking a feed from my Suhr loadbox, doing the captures without any speaker-sim, and applying the same IR on each unit. They're close. I hear differences. But they're close.

Both units sound different to the source. Not massively, just a bit. Kemper still sounds good. I just slightly prefer the QC because of how the palm-mutes sound.

Quote from PrivateGuitar

Unpowered sound is more warm, natural. Powered is less natural, a little abrasive.

Can you check the "pure cabinet" setting on each unit and make sure they are the same? If they are not, then this will most likely be your issue.

If you're monitoring the audio from the *main* outputs, then the poweramp is not in the circuit. So has nothing to do with anything.

Can you describe the difference in tone in more objective terms??

Quote from PrivateGuitar

If it is, I hope I can find the difference in setup, because I would rather keep the powerhead for versatility.

But, it's not far fetched to assume the power section having an influence of the overall sound it produces.

I can certainly hear and feel it between the two at this point. Same exact settings as far as I can tell!

Try using the main outs into your Apollo on each unit, rather than the monitor outs???

For this kind of "monitor through speakers via an audio interfacee" scenario, the monitor out shouldn't really be used in either case IMO. The monitor out is for on-stage use, whether using an active monitor with an unpowered unit, or using a guitar cab with a powered unit.