Funktioniert hier alles Tip Top auf einem Mac Mini mit M1 Chip.
it’s the ability to “fill the room”, without losing low end which attracts me. I reckon a closed back cabinet will sound great for you but the other guys in the band may not be able to hear you. If that’s true, the imprints feature may be of lesser importance. Happy for someone to tell me that their band members can hear them fine without additional monitors (in-ears, floor wedges, etc).
Why don‘t you buy a Barefaced Reformer 112 instead and put a Kemper Kone inside? That should give you best of both worlds. I have one with a normal speaker and it is a really great sounding cab.
Atm i have two Suhr guitars. A Classic S Antique and a Classic T Antique. You can watch them here. I've picked the antique models, because I really prefer the feeling of lacquer. Both necks are not sticky at all. They play wonderful, stay in tune extremely well and sound awesome! The neck profile is a medium C, not too thin and not too thick, at least for me. Until some time ago i had a second Classic S Antique with a roasted maple neck and a SSH setup, but I didn't like the roasted neck, hence I sold it again. But anyway, what can I say, those are great instruments. I would always recommend instruments of this brand.
Kein Problem! Niemand zwingt dich dazu so etwas (nicht) zu tun. Ich habe die Optionen alle durchprobiert und bin jetzt da, wo es mir am besten gefällt. Damit macht genau das Sinn für mich. YMMV!
Was Ingolf schreibt ist faktisch gesehen sicherlich absolut richtig. Aber meiner Meinung nach ist es so ein wenig wie mit der FRFR Abhöre. Der eine mag sie, der andere nicht. Ich gehöre zu der letzteren Gruppe.
Ich habe eine ganze Zeit mit einer VHT 2/50/2 gespielt. Und zwar ausschließlich über Gitarrenboxen mit Gitarrenlautsprechern, 2x(1x12) und 1x(2x12), jeweils Stereo. Wie alle Röhrenenstufen färbt sie definitiv. Auch dann, wenn man den dafür vorgesehenen 'Contour' Schalter benutzt. Nichtsdestotrotz hat es mir persönlich immer gut gefallen. Was die Durchsetzungsfähigkeit angeht, liegen diese Endstufen auf jeden Fall immer vorn. Es ist einfach ein anderes Spielgefühl mit so einem Teil vor den Lautsprechern. Das lässt sich schwer beschreiben. Dabei geht es nicht nur um EQ basierte Dinge, auch in der dynamischen Reaktion ist so eine Röhrenendstufe anders als ein Transistor.
Jetzt habe ich im Kemper einen Camplifier. Aber eigentlich nur wegen der besseren Handhabbarkeit und wegen des geringeren Gewichts. Meine Meinung dazu: Wenn es gut klingt, dann ist es gut.
Ok another MacTry https://www.dropbox.com/s/c59awn5bpuyzi8i/Rigkeeper.dmg?dl=1 Mattes spotter ?
Installer and component work both on my intel mac. I will try it on the M1 later today. But you need to sign the Package. Otherwise some users won't know how to install anyway.
Could anyone check Mac OS X version? (spotter ?)
I've checked it. I couldn't get it installed by using the installer, but I could extract it and move it to the correct taget location. It works. Even on my M1 mac mini. But I needed to execute it the first time from finder by clicking on open in the context menu and confirming the start request.
No more constraints than Apple, Microsoft Office, Banks, etc put on us every day Mattes... Ever buy gasoline these days with cash? I can't remember the last time I did that. So you gonna walk cause you don't trust a digital gas pump? For example, we can't even post here without logging in. Is that a constraint too?
It's up to you to accept that business model. I don't in that particular case. Simple as that.
I don't think you need to be on-line to "use" the QC for a gig/session. Only to download new presets and captures and updates. By itself, it's a fully functional unit IIRC everything I read. Please correct where needed...
That's exactly what i mean with 'validating'. Sure, you can use it for a gig or session. I never doubted that. Even if it's not very likely, what will happen, if they go out of business? They do create unnecessary constraints. Why? To protect their ips? To protect others ips? I can't see other reasons. Therefore i only have access to my self created profiles through the cloud? There should be other means. Thanks, no!
I can't speak for others; however, for me it boils down to this:
- The QC may well capture amps more quickly and accurately than the KPA based SOLELY on the internet reviewers we have heard so far.
- The QC business model is highly suspect at this time and may well be vastly inferior to the KPA business model for many people
- The QC does not have a proven reliability track record where the KPA does
- The KPA is much more tweakable after the profile/capture stage.
- The KPA is a better gig rig than the QC.
Now, do these things matter?
I think you have to view this question from 2 different points of view. 1) Would an existing KPA owner REPLACE the KPA with this new technology vs. would a new customer pick the QC over the KPA.
Capture Accuracy: The only way that this would be of any serious interest would be IF the KPA profile was SO inaccurate to not sound good (which it is not). The lions share of KPA users never profile an amp. It therefore follows that many other features are influencing their decision to stay with the KPA. Depending on the new user's list of use cases, this COULD influence a buying decision.
Business Model: Practically everyone will be effected by this. At this time, this seems like the weakest part of the QC offering to me. This will keep KPA users from switching, and new users from picking the QC in the first place.
Reliability: While home recording jockies may well take a chance on the QC before there are many others out touring with it, most will not risk their gigs on new technology for some time. In other words, there may be some purchases of the QC from existing KPA (or Fractal) users, but they will likely not be giving up their existing proven solutions for some time.
Tweakability: Being able to separate the cab, use a rig with our without a cabinet, adjust the amp behaviors, etc, etc. Is how most people use the KPA. Most download (or buy) profiles, find ones that they like, and tweak them to their liking. In addition to this, the KPA really is setup in a way to make tub amp rig guys as comfortable as possible with its usage. The QC (and AxeIIIFx) are setup more like an amp plug-in on a DAW. I think that this one is a toss up. It depends on what you are trying to emulate.
Live Gigging: The Kemper in all its incarnations is better for live gigging. I would especially highlight the toaster and rack versions when used in concert with the FC and Kabinet make for an astonishingly good touring rig. I personally don't care for the stage or QC simply because of the cable mess it creates at my feet. In addition to this though, the KPA is simply more thought out for gigging than the QC is. Some have discussed the distance between buttons (good point), but the whole idea of having to bend over and use a touch screen live? I really do have to give this one heavily to the KPA and its ecosystem of support products.
So why are we here on a Kemper forum discussing this piece of equipment? Well, what all of us HERE have in common is that we have all spent premium dollars for our guitar rigs. No one in this forum is going around with a digital Carvin amp with rat fur covering and a $150 electric guitar. This is a forum filled with people who have serious tone, recording, and touring in mind.
I think it is only fitting that when a new piece of gear (or new major features are offered in one) that we discuss it.
If I had enough money, and no other competing need for that money (like putting kids through college, etc) I might buy one to fiddle with .... but not to gig with. .... at least not with the current form factor and feature set.
I think it is strange that >90% of the discussion on this thread has been limited to the capture accuracy. I haven't used a single profile I made myself in a live setting in nearly 10 years.
Those are all valid points! But there is one particular point, that makes all the other ones obsolet, at least for me. That is: 'business model'. As long as they do insist on 'validating' me by being logged on to their cloud in order to operate that device completely, it is unsuitable. That might look a little old fashioned, but that's how i see things. This is especially true for things in my guitar gear. Ymmv, but i assume i'm not the only one with this perspective.
As much as I like the unit and am rooting for it, not having the option to manage files locally is an absolute deal breaker. I'm sorry, but I don't want my shit completely micromanaged by NDSP or any other company.
So do i. To have the complete content locally and offline managed it is not an option. It is a must.
So no drama, everything works pretty much the same as in the Kemper world. But everything is focused in one place: in the Neural DSP Cloud service.
Seriously? How will you make an offline backup? How will you offline transfer your setup to a backup/spare/rented device? The constraint to be online in order to do such basic actions is a complete no go, at least for me. All my profiler data is stored locally on my disk(s) and on multiple backups.
If that's not an issue for you, that's fine for me, but if that's not possible anymore, that device is not suitable for me.
Regarding that 'matching' thing here my two workhorses:
Both play really smooth, have a great sound, are very silent because of the SSCII noise cancelling system and, like all guitars of Suhr, i've heard of, they are extremely tuning stable.
Got this baby last weekend. It is a from 79. All original.
I remember when i was 16 or 17 and saw this model the first time in a german music magazine 'Fachblatt Musikmagazin'. I was completely blown away and i couldn't imagine that someday in the future i would own one of those.
Those DiMarzios sound absolutely great.
No. I did it in the eq of the monitor out (globally). It was imprints only. No FRFR.