Posts by Hurricane

    Kann mir vielleicht nochmal jemand erklären, wie man (möglichst einfach) bei einem Rig, das mit Morphing-Funktionen belegt ist, das Morphing komplett abschalten kann.

    Ich werde hier noch wahnsinnig, da ich scheinbar Morphing-Parameter beim Kopieren von Slots in einer Performance übernommen zu haben scheine und jetzt diesen Slot nicht mehr mit einfachem Druck auf der Remote in den gewünschten "Anfangszustand" kriege, wenn ich eingeschaltete Effekte mit nochmaligem Druck auf den Slot-Knopf abschalten will.

    (Ich hoffe, ihr wisst was ich meine)||:S8|

    Unterm Strich habe ich genau das getan. Ich hatte die DXR10 viele Jahre im Einsatz, aber die Imprints machen das Spielgefühl einfach so viel besser.

    Ja, ich nutze das Power Kabinet.

    Sehe ich genauso, allerdings wird die Bühne wieder lauter, unser Tech sieht's mit gemischten Gefühlen :saint:

    Das finde ich auch !!! Es ist erstaunlich, wie gross das Kemper Kabinet klingt wenn man die Konstruktion und das Gewicht berücksichtigt. Darum möchte ich auch gerne mal zwei kombinierte Kabinets direkt mit der grösseren und schwereren Marshall 2x12 Box die mit Kones bestückt ist vergleichen. Ich könnte mir sogar vorstellen, dass da die zwei Kabinets mindestens gleichgut sind, bzw gleichviel Druck machen. Dann würde ich dann aus praktischen Gründen mit zwei Kabinets arbeiten. Einfach zu transportieren und die schauen auch noch gut aus ;-)

    ….. hätte auch den Vorteil, dass Du die Kabinetts so positionieren kannst, dass die Interferenzen im Bassbereich optimal ausgeglichen werden.

    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.

    This is implemented for the use of an imprint in combination with the Kabinett within the Output-section. Here the "directivity"-function helps to tailure the stage Sound by radial distance-simulation.

    For the FoH-Sound the Features of the cab-section can do the Job.


    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

    I'd keep the profiling in a smaller version. I think there are a lot of kemper users and potential kemper users who would use the profiler as a dedicated amp and cab profiler and nothing else. Kind of like the market for the Strymon Iridium for players who want to use the KPA just for it's amp and cabs with their traditional pedal boards. Having the ins and outs so you can have stereo mains, monitors, headphones, and a post amp stereo effects loop.


    To me, the Quad is designed to do everything, so why make it so needlessly small with cramped switches?They could have added a few inches to the length and the thing would still fit inside a backpack, as it's currently inches smaller than a MacBook Pro. The small size is a bonus if you plan on using more than a couple dedicated pedals with it on a normal sized pedal board. But if you're using more than two mono external pedals, you're going to need more effect loops than the Quad comes with, otherwise manually having to tap dance on external effect pedals defeats the whole point of using a preset/snapshot system.

    That's the only reason to use a Floor-unit at all (QC or KPA) when it is necessary to use external pedals.

    For me - as a KPA-user since 2014 the nowaday's profiler-effects are so excellent, that I have no Need of external pedals. (though I still own three effect-boards in different sizes - just my reminiscent mood, thinkin of the good ol' Amp-times ;-)

    Now I'm using a KPA-Rack-Version with remote for live-gigs and I'm VERY happy that I just have ONE CABLE (Remote -> KPA) lying (and trapping me) on the Floor. That's also my main reason against a Kemper-Stage or a QC (too much cable salad on stage).

    Soundwise reasons for changing to the QC also don't exist for my requirements. I can easily realize EVERY sound-idea with my KPAs (studio and live) due to the excellent and multiple effects an the Parameters of the amp-section (took a bit of time to get them known and using Right). Currently (and as I'd suppose for the next years) I cannot imagine a necessary System Change from the Profiler to a different Unit for me.

    As a hobby-guitarist, I love playing live for now 40 years (up to 40 gigs per year). Our last rehearsal was end of october last year (now 6 months ago !!), I miss it so bad.

    Though since last year I'm in my home-studio with my Toaster and having fun in making new songs and sounds.


    Some gigs (in autumn) are still booked, but many venues we formerly played had to give up.

    Still bad times.....

    I am mostly concerned with live performance (although I acknowledge that others have different use models than I).


    Currently, an audience can't tell the difference between the original tube amp and the KPA in a live setting. It is therefore easy to say that the same audience could not tell the difference between the KPA and the NQC either.


    My point is that it isn't the accuracy of a capture that is going to make or break the NQC. It is a plethora of other things like usability, reliability, library of sounds available for free and for pay, and the business model of the NQC that will make the biggest difference in its uptake.

    …. and I'm pretty sceptic, if the NQC will have the sustainability to gain this huge success and acceptance, as the profiler had

    Der einzige Anlass meine beiden Profiler abzugeben und etwas Neues zu kaufen wäre für mich, wenn es ein Gerät gäbe, das den gesamten "Real-Amp" über seinen gesamten Regelweg hinweg abbilden und in einem einzigen Profil genauso abspeichern könnte.

    Es würde mir ersparen, verschiedene Profile für die verschiedenen Gain- und Lautstärke-Stufen anfertigen und situationsbedingt immer als spezielles Profil abrufen zu müssen.


    Das ist m.E. wenn es überhaupt jemals möglich würde, auf jeden Fall noch in weiter Ferne.


    Meine Soundvorstellungen jedenfalls kann ich mit den bestehenden Möglichkeiten des Profilers (Effekte, Profile, Tone-Imprints, etc.) zu 100% verwirklichen. Ick freu' mir !!

    Für mich ist der Profiler ein Arbeitsmittel, um den Sound, den ich im Kopf habe und das Gefühl, das ich beim Live-Spielen brauche, umzusetzen. Das macht der seit 7 Jahren höchst prächtig für mich. Die vielen Parameter, die er bietet brauche ich gar nicht alle dafür. Professionelle Profile gibt's für "nen Appel und ein Ei" bei etlichen Anbietern bis zum Abwinken. Der Support von Kemper ist vorbildlich -wenn nicht sogar einzigartig- , das Forum hervorragend und äußerst hilfreich.

    Ich wüsste im Augenblick gar nichts, was mich überzeugen könnte eine Alternative (oder gar einen Ersatz) zu suchen.

    Though I know, that in real guitar Cabinets the Cab itself matters a lot, I didn't notice this Impact when I compared a standard Kemper-Cab to a Kone, which I installed in a 1x12"-Thiele-Cab.

    Due to it's Efficiency the Thiele-Cab sounded a bit louder but the Sound itself was identical for me.


    So -soundwise- I wouldn't spend too much thoughts on the cab. (at least with 1x12" cabs)

    I know were off topic so I’ll keep this reply short.


    i actually prefer the sound of the Kemper over my valve amps in most cases.

    That's what I've also learned, when I used my TwoRock in a rehearsal after months of continous Profiler-Use (live and during rehearsals)

    As a live-Player the only thing I'm interested in with the QC is it's behavior when cranking a given profile/rig/sound (or what it's called) to gig-level.

    If it will "compensate" the Fletcher-Munson-Effect "automatically" (so that no tweaks have to be made, which btw. I don't expect ) I probably would buy it without hesitation.


    The profiler is able to sound awesome even on gig-level (don't get me wrong), but it needs a lot of time-consuming tweaks. This is the only aspect of improvement I see for the Profiler.


    For just studio-work the QC never would be an option for me. The profiler with it's corresponding giant "profile-market" doesn't leave any wishes open for me.