Posts by Atlantic

Quote from G String

even more clues? c'mon you can do better than that And I won't start talking about reindeer swimsuits fashion ...

ok, ok... I guess you're talking about the HiDPI and that's about it.

I was just guessing about something bigger, when you talked about Christmas coming. After all blurry text is an inconvenience but not a major problem. Not that the Kemper has any major problems currently but who knows...

There hasn't been a big software update in some time and there might be something big in the works that we don't know.

But crisp text is good.

Quote from G String

Christmas might come around early this year

@G String you have something to tell us? Any clues?

Quote from Nikos

But the neural plug ins do rock and everyone I know loves them specially the SLO.I know quite a bunch of folks who did very serious recordings with it.

At this point there is no doubt that the plugins are here to stay and they are not "toys" anymore . Just recently an upcoming metal band that some of you might know, called Spiritbox, released they debut album. Completely recorded using the Archetype Nolly for the dirty sounds and Plini for some cleans.

The album has gone to number 13 in Billboard 200, so I think that can be called very serious recording too.

Mike Stringer, the guitar player, was previously using a Kemper live and now he uses the Quad Cortex.

Quote from drew_fx

Did anyone else get a QC and end up not bonding with it?

I preordered a QC as soon as it was available in Thomann. This was still at the end of 2020. It took several months to come and then I tried it for several weeks. At that point I already had my Diezel VHX and my Kemper, and several distortion and overdrive pedals. So I made some extensive testing with all my gear.

In the end, all devices where very good, but the QC was not better in any way to the others. But it was worse in some basic aspects still deppending on future updates. So my decision was clear. Sell it while it was very scarce in the market, and save my money for maybe 3 years from now and see if it is offering something better. I think it will, but I am not going to be waiting while I can enjoy the Kemper with a lot more capabilities as it is now a very well rounded product.

While I tried it, the price went up 250 euros on Thomann, so in the end, by selling it at current retail price I covered the difference in price (it feels like having earned my preorder rights, so in the future if I buy it again I will not be spending more than I preordered it for).

Long story short, I think the QC will be a very good product in the future. Now it is nice but limited and of course at release it fell short to the expectations of "the most powerful device on earth that can run a complete band thru it". Maybe a VERY basic band.

I haven't seen this request and I am probably not alone here.

I do have an iPad but it is an older one and I am not planning on buying another one.

So because I think it is technically possible and even CK told about it in the interview... I decided to just leave here the feature request for people to show support to it.

We know they are reading.

not here to discuss anything. I understand why Kemper wouldn't want to enter the Android jungle.

But +1

Quote from Alfahdj

Good luck having these kind of support from any other company on the industry

Hey, I have to say that I have even closer and personal attention from the Diezel people. It is true that Diezel is an smaller company with less people and smaller numbers, but hey it´s not only Kemper doing things right.

I mean... I had a small problem with my amp and Peter Diezel called me, to my phone, to solve the problem ASAP.

Quote from Mongillo19

Essentially everyone claims the QC to be heads and shoulders above the kemper

Everyone? That's not true.

Just stop reading what others write and be more confident in what you hear and feel. If something sounds better to you, it sounds better. That's it.

Enjoy.

Quote from Greggles

I’m curious to know in what way you see the QC having the upper hand?

Owning both, I would say the main difference is the multi amps in the QC and that it is easier to get a good capture (harder to get a great one). Other than that, I think the Kemper is much better.

Not wanting a fight. Genuinely interested. I bought the QC and want to like it, but it feels like a toy to me. I keep thinking I must be missing something.

- Multi amps

- Simple way of capture

-Size and form factor

- UI and touch screen

- Wi-Fi

- Flexibility on chain path

- Pedal Captures

- USB audio

I agree with you that the current state of the QC is like a toy. I also don't want any fight and think that the Kemper is globally a lot better. But there's no doubt that the QC has several features that are not present on the Kemper. All I said is that because the QC is behind in many other aspects, Kemper has time to catch up and still be always better. I would like that. I love Kemper as a product but also the company and it's business philosophy.

If I had to express my current state of mind on the Kemper vs QC issue it would be:

Kemper is in front by a lot as a global solution. But QC will catch up eventually. And Kemper should and probably will try to compensate in the several subjects that the QC has already the upper hand. They have time to do it.

Quote from Greggles

My QC arrived 2 days ago. I’ve had a number of guys using my Kemper profiles as their go to and suggesting I offer them for sale. It was then suggested, if I’m gearing up to do that, I might as well do captures for the QC at the same time. I looked to see who was offering captures for Quad Cortex and couldn’t find any, but found people wanting better than currently available. Ok, I’ll buy one.

Feeling a bit guilty seeing all the people that have been waiting for months for their QCs.... I bought it on Sunday afternoon and it arrived Tuesday morning......

I must confess to knowing very little about it, other than people saying it will be a Kemper killer, game changer, much more accurate captures/profiles etc.

I’ve only skimmed this thread, so excuse me if I’m repeating anything.

There are clearly a lot of interesting things you can do with the QC routing, but as far as being a game changer and having more accurate captures, it isn’t and they aren’t. Not yet anyway. It’s only been a couple of days, but this just feels and sounds like a glorified modeller. Obviously it’s early days for the QC and it will presumably improve, with time, as the Kemper has.

The QC is fairly intuitive, but that’s because it’s mainly surface. It doesn’t have the depth of the KPA. First thing I did was capture an amp I was already setup to profile with the Kemper. I didn’t read the manual, as I wanted to see if it was as intuitive as claimed. Just swapped the leads across and after finding where the menu was, captured the amp. Easy to do and sounds good. It doesn’t sound the same as the signal from the mic’d amp though. The QC capture is cleaner than the Kemper (which was truly indistinguishable from the original mic’d amp) and hasn’t captured the same depth and dimension. It sounds and feels more like a really good amp modeller.

I re-tried capturing the amp 3 more times with the QC, changing guitar and mic input levels, as all reports are that it is better than the KPA. Each capture was very slightly different, but still not the same as the reference signal.

At this point I thought I’d better check the manual, as I was obviously missing some hidden settings that would allow me to refine the capture. No, that was it. Nothing more. As I say, it’s easier to use, because there are no hidden parameters to tweak.

Now the QC capture doesn’t sound bad by any stretch, but it isn’t the “unprecedented accuracy” they advertise. For people used to using modellers; using the captures will be a huge step up and probably feel like a game changer. Compared to their modelled amps, the capture is significantly better. I was profiling/capturing a custom made Deluxe Reverb and their model isn’t anywhere near as good.

For those of us used to using great amps and expecting the QC to deliver those sounds in the same way the Kemper does, it will probably be disappointing. Obviously the standard of Kemper profiles varies widely, due to its accuracy. It will reproduce whatever you feed it (after refining). It sounds and feels like the QC has been designed so you don’t need the skills of a great engineer in the same way you do with the KPA. It’s like they’ve used the amp as a starting point, but still process it in their own way. It’s probably harder to get a bad capture with it, but then also harder to get something truly great. They seem to have homogenised the capture process.

I think the Kemper is a long way from being out of date. If the sound of the raw amp is important to you, it still can’t be beaten.

Display More

Very interesting post.

Here is the "learning curve" of the profiling on the Kemper that I mentioned. I am not an expert making profiles, and I am also not a musical engineer. I´m a dentist.

So if I want to get my Diezel captured/profiled to be able to take my sounds on an easier package... which one of both devices you think gets ME the best results?

I was using Diezel profiles before I bought my own Diezel. But my Diezel sounds better than the best Diezel profiles I was using. That is why I found the need to get my own profiles. But the QC, in my hands, got it closer.

There is no doubt that the Kemper has some amazing tweaking parameters but there is also a skill involved.

Asking this because I really think that most Kemper/QC users are not musical engineers or even have very accurate studio monitors and rooms to be able to make great profiles.

Quote from musicmad

I'm pretty sure that during the refining process the Kemper compares the profile with the real amp continuously, so it has to happen right there and then, when the amp is still connected and dialed in. So likely not possible "whenever he chooses to do it".

Please bear in mind that English is not my first language so I might phrase things a bit odd.

What I meant is that we could have 2 options:

- Make the Kemper auto refine the profile (updated method QC style)

- Do the refine ourselves using our own guitar (classic method)

Is it more clear like that?

Quote from Grooguit

it’s kind of a strange concern of some. Aside from commercial profile makers, how often does one profile or capture anyway; even pros only get there hands on just so many amps? And when doing so, how much time is first spent setting everything up, tweaking, moving the mic or mics around, listening to the result in another room on monitors to the mic’d sound for perfection. These time consuming steps prior to starting the simple profiling or capturing processes make whatever 15 seconds is spent on refining meaningless. It’s kind of like when my wife spends an hour rearranging a hard to reach shelf in the kitchen in order to save 10 seconds accessing a plate she uses once every year or two.

Have you ever done a profile? It seems you haven't.

Refining is not a problem if it always got you better and more accurate results. But it doesn't. There is a learning curve to it and this makes the Kemper just more difficult to use if for instance you just have your amps with your tones and want to have them in a more portable system.

I love the Kemper, I think I left this clear. There is so much more to it than the accuracy of profiling.

But I really feel that at this point having an option of having an accurate profile without the uncertainty of the refining method would appeal to many people.

It is clear that que Quad Cortex can, on some circumstances, better and most accurate results.

ckemper you are most likely more intelligent and knowledgeable than most of us. I am sure that it would be relatively easy for you to just add an option for users to choose, to just "refine" the profile automatically or leave the refining to the user whenever he chooses to do it.

Quote from Navar

I don't think that there can be a profiling with the Kemper algorithm without refining and to be honest I don't get what people find complicated about that, it's a really simple process.

It's not complicated. It's just difficult to get consistent results and there is a learning curve to it. Most professional profilers end having a particular guitar or guitars that gets them the best and most consistent results, and they also tend to repeat the same pattern of things they play while refining.

But for someone trying to get their first profiles it is not easy to know if you should play chords, some single notes, do palm mutes because that is the style you play...

In the end the Quad Cortex might get better or worse results, but it will certainly appeal to those looking for a simple capturing process.

Quote from drew_fx

I play in a post-rock/prog-metal band, and my patches are complex.

That style is what QC is more oriented to. By the people that use it and the people it is marketed to.

I already told that some of the models where very good and others don't. The more metal/prog oriented models where nice for my taste and that is what I usually tend to use. But sometimes I want to practice something different and when I tried to dial in a Fender tone or a kind of Dumble tone (trying to match a tone from a youtube guitar lead tone) it was impossible. Tried all the Fender models in the QC, and even tried using an EQ module in the chain.

It might be a problem with my lack of ability to tweak tones, but it really sounded awful all the time, too bassy even with bass at 0 on any of the models. Just bad.

So for me it is a mixed review for the moment.

Quote from whippinpost91850

I would love to try a Diezel VHX. The VH4 is my favorite amp

I think it is the future of tube amps. At least modern tube amps. And there's a market for them. There's a generation of players already spoiled because of the use of plugins and modelers. They want to have presets, onboard effects, be able to use with headphones, not need a cabinet, load IRs... But some might not like the modeling and want real tubes both on the preamp and power amp...

Lets not forget that this is a Kemper forum. The opinions would be radicaly different if this was a Neural DSP forum.

I have been using a Kemper for 5 years and had all possible form factors Head, Rack, Stage, powered unpowered.

I also use several high quality plugins, including Neural DSP ones and Helix Native (the plugin version that has the same features as the hardware units).

I also own and have used several tube amps (the most recent, a Diezel VHX that really covers both the traditional real tube and the modern apponitments like presets, effects, IRs...etc).

And I have also a Quad Cortex.

My opinion on it is that it will be a great unit, but it is currently lacking in some vital features to really go against the best digital units.

For live use the output options are going to be updated but right now it is not possible to have several outputs selected at one time, which for instance makes it impossible to have a separate output for monitoring and another one for FOH.

Other important thing for live use is that there is a cut in sound between presets (this is normal in all modelers) so you have to use just one preset per song if you don't want the sound to be cut. That leaves you with the SCENE mode (like the snapshots in Helix) that works good but the amount of things you can load into a preset has some limits. Actually more limits that what they marketed(they told you could run a complete band thru it), but this will hopefully improve with firmware updates.

The current effects are ok, but all the other units are way, way better in terms of variety and in some cases quality.

But it all depends on what effects you like and use. For instance, the Pitch Shifter for single notes (not poly) in the Quad Cortex is the best I have tried yet. Way, way better than the Kemper transpose. It has almost no latency and keeps the real tone quite well.

Flanger on the other side is kind of... terrible.

The form factor is great. This is possible because the foot switches are pots and also you have the touch screen. Probably one of the best things of the unit. It is very portable, but also very powerful for it's size. At the same time the touch screen is far from being as responsive as any android phone or iPhone.

USB audio is a nice feature, but not for serious musicians that will likely already have an audio interface working on their system and with monitors connected to it.

In the end it's just easier to connect to the audio interface.

On the other hand, lack of SPDIF is quite bad.

Sound quality of the modeled amps depends on the model. Some are very good, some are mediocre. Not outstanding.

I have not used the factory captures. No opinion.

I have made some captures myself. I captured my Diezel VHX both with an IR and also DI. The complete amp+speaker sim sounds GREAT. Impossible to tell appart and very easy to make. A lot easier than creating a Kemper profile in my experience. The DI capture, without an IR is completely disappointing and sounds completely different from the amp. Unusable.

I also made a capture of a Klon clon pedal I have. It did capture the tonal characteristics of the pedal. But failed to get the gain and the volume of the setting on the pedal, making the capture unusable (gain and volume on an overdrive are the key to get the amp react the way you want).

The best thing about the capturing is that it has almost no variables, just input volume, and no tweaking. So it is very consistent. Profiling with the Kemper is not as consistent and can get great results or terrible results.

I feel that with the QC there is going to be a lot of cooking in the captures world, the same way as in Kemper. And with time there will be great captures for sure.

But currently the sharing software cloud system is TERRIBLE and the amount of available content is small and difficult to find.

So, is the QC better than the Kemper? Currently a very easy NO. But if you need a small unit that can do a lot of things and you want dual amps, that the Kemper can't do... then you might think it si better.

Over time I see that Neural DSP has a lot of room for improvement and I really see how it will be a real force on the model world. And it already is a market success with all the units sold out on any retailer.

What could do Kemper to improve their current devices and match what the QC offers?

-The touch screen they already have it covered with iPad app.

-They would need to create a simplified profiling method. Maybe have two methods, traditional one and simple one without refining and consistent.

-Release a smaller form factor unit.

-More flexibility on the number of stomps or effect before or after the amp.

-Dual/triple/cuadruple amps in paralel. Some people like to do this and the Kemper is not able to do it.

-USB audio

-etc

There's probably more to all this but, there you go. I tried to be the most objective possible.

By the way I am currently using more and more the Diezel VHX than any of the modelers or plugins including the Kemper.

Quote from OneEng1

My guess is that these guys buy in quantities of thousands, not even tens of thousands initially ..... making it even harder to get your stuff built (pretty small orders)

And you are probably right.

The first tier preorder to mothership was of 1000, and the second one of another 1000. Thomann and Sweetwater where sent 500 units each for the first batch to retailers after the preorder.

AAAaaaaaaaand we have a price rise of 250€!!!

Some people predicted it. It's just supply and demand.

The time now on Thomann is several months.

Interesting.

With all the love that many users might have for their Kempers, there is no doubt that the Quad Cortex is a competitor. Probably the first serious one in a long time as it comes with the captures feature but also other modern appointments and modeling at the same time. It clicks a lot of boxes.

So in this state of things, of course that it is an intelligent marketing decision for Kemper to tease things like: "hey if you really want a touch screen, please know that we are going to have one, and a better one also".

And at the same time they send the message to every one of us that they have not stopped developing. They are not "done". They are not "old technology that is dying" but state of the art tech that keeps evolving and adapting to new times.

Quote from chu

I understand that it's a welcome addition but it's not going to help me do anything I can't already. But each to their own!

It's all about workflow.

You have a very nice workflow and you even have a wired tablet that you could be using already but you opt not to use it out of home.

But for people that might already have an iPad but not a Windows tablet they would get some of that convenience you already have.

In my case we pay the rehearsal room per month. Most of the music we write is done in that room, not at home. Sometimes we might come with a riff or an idea but we mainly compose our songs together. So in my case it would be a lot easier to just have an iPad to tweak that delay, that reverb or that chorus perfect for the part. I have to do it anyways but have to bend, look the small screen and go through menus to have all the parameters.

I could buy a Windows tablet also... but I already own an iPad, so...