Just curious. What words would be considered "soundy"?
[chuckles] ....
Hi Frequency, Phase coherent, Low Frequency, clipped, etc.
The problem is that there are just not enough English words in the sound related arsenal to describe sounds:
"Sharp attack", "Grainy", "Dull", "Muddy". Seems like sound is most frequently described with words that describe non-sound related physical characteristics (mostly touch and sight I think).
Ambivalence..I told you..
We guitar players look for the "cleanest dirty sound" and for the "most defined distortion"..
There are no other instrumentalists which such permanent schizophrenia on their gear..it is inherently in electric guitar.A total mess.But sometimes it sounds great.
LOL. Yes, and we describe guitar tone in terms of anything BUT sound:
"Glassey", "Wet", "Brown", etc.
Hi JC,
I felt the same way the first month I was gigging with my brandy new KPA in 2013! Loved my VHT rig, but MAN was it heavy!
Glad you have got the grove on with your Kemper 
Everybody has different needs. That’s all there is to understand, really.
I don’t need my Kemper to sound better. I think it sounds great, for the most part. What I do need is a smaller form factor with a more modern UI.
I think Kemper missed the mark on the Kemper Stage in relation to my needs. But of course that’s only my opinion and nobody should be upset by it. It’s a great unit I’m sure.
Had they made it smaller, with a more modern interface, I would probably have purchased one.
But I have a feeling that given the direct competition from the QC (the only real competition they’ve ever had) they will be bringing something to the market at some point in the not-too-distant future that will be amazing.
100% I agree with this; however, I believe that the stage was a compromise that achieved the following:
I have always thought that there should be a throw and go KPA that was in the size range of the Kemper foot controller, but could not profile (although with the release of the QC, it may need this to be competitive), and used a bluetooth interface to a tablet app for all configurations and interfacing with the exception of live controls.
I think that the KPA will never move to a QC / Fractal / etc like interface. As some have mentioned, for old tube amp converts, the simplicity and familiarity of pre amp fx chains, amp settings/eq, and post amp fx is just intuitive.
From a marketing perspective, there are LOTS more traditional amp potential customers than there are Helix/Fractal/DAW converts to be had. It is just a matter of understanding your market IMO.
... and Stratocaster since 1954
Well now that's good. I have 2 of those ;).
Hearing somebody else's recording, maybe (but then again the same probably holds also for cleans and edge-of-breakup).
But I've now had the QC for over 3 weeks and, I'm sorry, but the KPA wins hands down. It just sounds and feels much better. To be honest, so far the only thing I found to be better on the QC is the delays.
Really, this is the kind of information I find the most useful.
When I was lugging around my VHT tube amp rig with a pedal board and decided to start looking into what digital had come up with, the reviews that sold me were OTHER boutique tube amp users that switched to a KPA. I knew those amps and the kinds of guitar players that put out the kind of cash such a tube amp rig costs. If those people were convinced, that was the most important thing in my book.
I will withhold judgement on the QC until they are widely available in the wild and many KPA, Axe III Fx, and high end tube amp users have given their opinions.
Nothing like "the wild" to put a product to the test.
Most guitarists tune and intonate the guitar and the guitar is 100% ready. Wrong! A good setup is a must and most new guitars come with a too high guitar nut. That means the first few frets will go sharp. The nut needs to be filed down a bit. That way the guitar will be more comfortably to play too. Many guitarists tune lightly and then hammer hard on the strings. You need to tune the guitar how you play. If your a light picker, tune light. If your'e a heavy picker, tune heavy. The same is true too for intonation. There is a reason why so many producers don't allow the guitarists to tune their guitars and do the job for them instead and if it needs to to be intonated, they might do it too. Or hand them one of their own well setup guitars to save time and money. The truth is most guitarsists should spend more time to learn how to setup their guitars properly and tune properly instead of talking about e.g. different pedals.
Yep. My nut is a little bit high on my main Axe, but after about 5 small sandings to get it lower, I felt it was good enough. Sadly, as a result, if I get even a little strong on fingering a C cord near the nut, you can hear the intonation. Plays very smoothly once you are away.
Now that we are having this conversation, I can see another round of sanding in my future
3-6. I generally like to be within 1 to 2 cents when I tune; however, really this is kind of silly because:
1) Picking loud will make notes go sharp by 2-4 cents easily.
2) Unless your strings are buzzing over the frets in an open strum, just pressing the note makes the note a little sharp. Pressing it a little harder, even more sharp. I suspect this is good for 2 cents as well
3) Most people don't have their guitar setup well to begin with. The intonation is likely off more than 2-4 cents lower in the neck on the majority of guitars (maybe not we super picky Kemper users ).
4) If you don't have a roller nut (or at least a good bone nut), there is usually a bit of "stick" in the tuning anyway. As soon as you start playing, you will likely move the tuning 1-2 cents.
I didn't realize that my PRS does not benefit from a String Butler. I guess PRS got this part of the design right where others were off from the get go ;).
Fine. But as I keep saying, it's all about workflow. The assign midi CC's to everything workflow isn't what I want either. I've been pretty clear about why I subjectively prefer the way the Helix works over the Kemper. It's complex enough to offer me a lot of choices, without requiring me to remember a ton of midi CC's and set up complex mappings. I can just grab a knob and twist it on the Helix, and get the variety I need.
I like the Kemper + Remote combination, because they're easy to use. They're just not as flexible as the Helix. Going into midi land is going too far the other way. I think the Helix is the Goldilocks of the three approaches.
QC is closer to the Helix experience too.
I see your point of view and understand. For live applications, the Kemper just seems to have thought through how a real gig would need to be controlled. Having morph change multiple parameters at different rates through a single foot controller input as well as having a timed transition via a single button press simply "works" in a live setting where "reaching down to turn a knob or knobs" does not.
Clearly there are 2 different usage models (live vs bedroom) that require different work-flows for optimal user experiences.
The processing power is not a good metric at all IMO. If it were then the AxeIII Fx would be the UNDISPUTED leader in the digital amp business .... and it is far from it.
Tone, Functionality (appropriate to the use case), speed, and reliability are all that matters.
A maritime diesel has way more HP than the engine in a Vette. Which one is more fun to drive? 
#11: Volume matching. I for one am always fidgeting with the gain settings. On the QC (presumably) and every other preset based multi effects/all in one product in the history of guitar, if you adjust the gain, you have to adjust to volume to compensate. If you don't do it correctly, you will have volume jumps when you switch from preset to preset. KPA is the only product that I'm aware of that you can play with the gain on individual rigs to your heart's content and never have a change in volume (assuming you've set the clean sens correctly for your guitar pickups) This feature is convenient in any situation, but particularly in live situations.
Ahh yes. Thanks for the edit! You are right, this is a very nice feature for live.
I don't quite understand the live use comments. Barely anyone has tried it in a live situation yet, and these devices nearly always have some sort of learning curve. At the very least it has a bigger screen for reading patch names easier, as well as an easier to read tuner. Those are two huge things right there. I'm concerned about the proximity of the footswitches across the two rows though. That could destroy a live show. The Helix and Kemper footswitch both leave a bit more room, but require more floor real estate because of it.
I don't think it's accurate at all to describe my latest JVM profile as being spot on - there are significant differences in not only the low end frequency response, but also the mid-range where the profile has this extra layer of quackiness that the real amp didn't have. It's not just about the process or the experience.
Hi Drew,
My comments on the live use come from the following:
Anyway, that is my take on this. These are my reasons for saying that the KPA is a better tool for live use. While all of the KPA members are better than the QC IMO, the Rack and Toaster are particularly more suited.
Lets assume for a moment that the QC gets you a better capture with less work than the KPA. For those that this is the most important feature, I would say the QC is the product for you. I must say that this seems to be a strange one for me to understand. Even for people who have enough amps to want to profile a significant amount (and I can't imagine that this is a very big demographic. Most people I know have exactly 1 to 2 valve amps with the lions share having 1), how much of your time is spent profiling vs playing? Who cares if it takes the KPA 15 min to get as close to the original as the QC did in 5? Seems a bit like a nit-pick to me. To each his own.
For recording, I agree that having a USB feed is very appealing. Assuming that all the tones and efx that you want or need are in the QC, then it could also get the nod for the recording crowd.
For those that are bedroom bandits, I would say it is a toss up. Since the QC doesn't have a PC editor yet, the Kemper is likely a better fit. Sure, the on-device GUI is very nice on the QC, but is that really how a bedroom bandit would want to setup and modify their tone? I doubt it seriously. It is much more likely that they will want a nice PC interface. Perhaps when the QC editor comes out this category will change. The QC does allow 4 parallel paths which is superior to KPA's 2. If you are a tweaker, this might be for you .... but then again, if you are a tweaker, I would suggest the AxeIII Fx is by far the superior machine.
For live, I am just not seeing it at all. The KPA is simply a superior live gig machine IMO.
For those that want the greatest number of great tones and efx setups available to them, the KPA again wins handily. It simply has almost a decade of profiles to pick from in addition to numerous commercial profiles.
Finally, for those who just have GAS in a bad way every year, the QC is seriously a "must have". It is a very cool little box. If I didn't have to worry about putting kids through college, I might well have one just .... because!
The ergonomics of the QC for live use is far inferior to the KPA IMO. The idea that the reviewer had QC and KPA tied in this area seemed to be just wrong to me.
The other points were valid for the most part; however, the QC doesn't seem like a great live tool to me.
Compared to the KPA Rack version with a FC the value of live shifts even further into the KPA column IMO. Of course, this is also a more expensive setup compared to the QC so it isn't as fair a comparison.
I still think the QC is going to be a nice tool, just not for my purposes .... although I would have really liked the USB audio interface recently as I just did my very first ever in my life recording for someone (had to do something since I still can't gig!).
I feel like the glossing over of the live features of the KPA (looper, ergonomics, performance mode, more buttons, better button placement, etc) were really not given the proper scrutiny in this review. The unproven mechanical track record should also be a warning flag for ANY new piece of gear for those of us that gig (and especially those that tour). That was also glossed over. I know the reviewer waved a hand over the buttons on the QC because they "felt solid". These buttons are new, and no other product has had them (ie buttons that are also control knobs). Personally, I would like to see a couple of years of use "in anger" out in the field before I would be convinced that this design is NOT going to be an issue. Good Lord knows those of us that have been playing for a few decades know how long it took to get simple mechanical switches to the point were they are today.
I am hearing pretty consistently that the QC capture is better than the KPA even though similar results can be eventually obtained by the KPA. This is impressive considering the relative immaturity of the QC.
Loved the sound of my VHT 4x12 slant top with a 2x12 VHT fat bottom cab. HATED moving it ..... every ...... single ...... gig!
I think I am in the "just say no" crowd on a 4x12 now
For me, the more important thing was that the amp respond to my playing and attack. Soft or muted playing should result in less gainey output, and spiking a note or notes should make it sizzle more and give it more grit.
KPA absolutely does this perfectly.
As for tube amps, I agree with those above. My tube amps were not perfect with respect to this. Some behave better than others under widely different inputs (as do various profiles).
Interesting thread though.
Maybe just me, but I find that profiles with some gain on them clean up and sound good clean with just the volume input while you can't get a clean profile to dirty up as nicely.
Of course, I don't really do this myself. I greatly prefer to punch a button to go from a heavy to a clean or vice-versa. It would never occur to me to use my volume knob live to go from one extreme to the other. Maybe from a clean to some dirt and back, but it seems like most of the big changes (for cover songs) require more than just a change in gain. Generally need another rig and processing chain completely.
Now I need to go watch some GNR and see how they work their guitars on stage
I would love this!!!!
Count me a big +1
You said no one can feel latency at 3 ms.
Quite the generalization ...
And against what? Latency?
Well, to be more specific....
In blind studies, 5 mSec was the lowest latency any person could hear using headphones. In open air..... No way.
Count me a disbeliever 🙄
Yea, I think it is those of us that don't have a performance per song setup that desire this feature. For those that just have a hand full of performances that are a general bank of tones, this would be nice. Not the end of the world mind you, you can always just copy the performance and make a variation, but then you are moving more toward the one performance per song thing. I can't speak for others, but for me, it is easier to remember fewer performance and just know "Oh yea, this song uses a compressed clean and then a Mesa heavy".
This method also makes it easier to sit in for another band. You just need to know the basic kinds of tones in the song and pick the performance that best meets that need from your small library of performances.
I do admire those of you that have your KPA setup for a performance per song. It's just too much work for me to keep straight with the ever changing setlist
