Posts by Dimi84

    Thing is...


    Though there are no profiles of axe/helix I like in the RE (which honestly surprises me) this is not the same with the neural profiles we have on the RE.Some of these are quite good.I like them.So..I have an eye on this quad cortex.But it has to be really,really outstanding to make me think "further"..there is only a 1% chance I could change my mind on spending over 1500€ for a floorboard.

    You could download free trials of neural dsp vsts and try them out, as well. I myself have been split recently about whether to get a cortex or an fm3, actually. Currently more on the fm3 side largely due to thinking the amp sims are quite spectacular.


    With axe fx 3 I've nailed just about any profile I've liked best. FM3 is a bit different, due to lacking tone matching, but I've had good results nonetheless (not with fm3 but using axe fx 3 as I would fm3).


    Also, I wouldn't rely too too much on what I find on RE personally. I had a helix recently and compared the friedman amp to the analog equivalent. They were quite close, closer for some settings, worse for others. I've had the same experience with axe fx amp sims over and over -- even thinking some amp sims tested were closer to the amp than my own direct profiles shot of the same rig. The profiles I had found on RE were quite lacking for me, for many reasons.


    I've seen other cases as well. I'd say my experiences vary a lot at this point. But if I wasn't convinced fm3 has great amp modelling -- like really really good -- i wouldn't consider fm3 at all, certainly... Especially with all the comedic hiccups involved with that product lunch. Even now too many people are having issues that shouldn't be there at lunch even imo.

    Don't remember what discussion in particular.


    I don't know whether the cortex has discernible gaps when flipping between captures. It's been said that to generate captures the cortex requires "more processing power than other units" (or something of that sort). It's also claimed to have advantages, due to how it works, in having no issues with multiple distorting stages.


    I guess it's possible that they also require too much processing power to run with no discernible switching gaps.. or maybe not. I haven't seen Neural Dsp clarify that.

    Also worth noting is that the last video capture video didn't include refining at all, per neural dsp guys. And they consider refining to be essential.


    Not sure why would they produce a whole video, or have one produced, after all this time, and not refine.. but oh well. Just weird considering people will flock to the video and you -- somehow -- do not include a rather basic and essential function for your capture process.. which supposedly takes the captures considerably closer to the source.

    Yes.But I guess most lads just want to change between amps.And switch fx on/off.


    Just a step on a freakin' button and this thing changes from rig A to rig B..no drama..I dont want to make a two hours movie.I just want to play a song.Or two..

    I would certainly prefer no discernible gaps at all, without having to think about other categories aimed at saving processing power. But thing is the kemper way presupposes using profiles and accomplishes no discernable gaps due to that.


    If I want profiles, that's great. I often certainly do. But if I want amp sims (I often do prefer this workflow, as well; it has saved me time in many cases where finding the right profile for a guitar or profiling amp all over again was an issue) I'm out of luck... Scenes, snapshots, ECT ECT, are a useful workaround to preset gaps.


    Would I prefer just not having to think about discernible gaps? Yes. Is this a bit of a different ballgame considering what is being accomplished? Yea, also, it seems to me... And while not necessarily "better", big numbers of users generally prefer the amp sim approach.


    That surely comes with some limitations, considering this hardware tech.

    Depending on how big your feet are, it seems that you can push all the switches at once.

    If one is a giant duck, I can see how that's possible, facing the unit up front :D (Ok, i think you meant stepping on the unit with both feet at once. Seems like these would still be some massive feet tho).

    I think it is quite interesting to realize that we today still talk about gaps between changing presets on high priced guitar modelers..this is funny at least..

    Well, they work differently than kemper, with different demands on the hardware; and many people don't use presets, but scenes, other categories, pla pla. I certainly prefer the kemper preset way.


    I wonder if switching between presets based on captures, considering they are much more "lightweight" could be quite fast on cortex too though. Don't know if they've addressed this.

    Well, fractal will have their own version of capturing source tones (other than tone matching alone) in the future. Before, they said they didn't do so "not to get sued". Apparently now they have a distinct enough method; as I believe does neural dsp anyway with machine learning.

    When the KPA was new (I picked mine up very shortly after performance mode was released), there was a lag of around 250mSec between rigs and everyone immediately jumped on this as being impossibly long. 2 Seconds is an eternity.


    FYI, the last time I measured the KPA switch time in performance mode, I believe it was around 40mSec which I feel is pretty darned close to "instant"

    2 seconds would be substantial, but I have not been able to find neural dsp giving out such info anywhere, and the poster isn't sure (it seems) about the 2 second figure anyway (to poster: feel free to post the video as can't find it). About to email them to ask about the gap time. But sure -- if this is about any perceptible gap, that's not something I didn't expect. No surprise there considering how cortex works.

    If one were to say that there is a "right or wrong" way to use a device, that's an evaluative statement. Meaning: there's an epistemic standard at play.


    This can be "what the creator of the device intended". It can also be many other things: for example what one's music requires. It can surely be said that a certain use is "wrong", given the original intention of the creator, but "right" when the evaluative standards changes.


    I don't think the poster would disagree with that. The issue with such discussions seems to typically arise from people presenting one epistemic framework as the only one that can and ought to matter compared to all the rest (possible for this to be true, but imo rare).


    Personally, I've been using the kemper drive to try and get something close to the green scream but with a bit less of a mid hump. I did compare against different "tone" green scream settings and eventually seemed to preffer the kemper drive results for the intended purpose.

    Neural cortex will supposedly allow "captures" of pedals, to be used in one's chain. The axe fx models plenty of pedals to great detail, with an expanding list... Positive grid introduced the ability to put together digital pedals years ago... And the helix has a few drive sims I much prefered to anything in the kemper.


    Which is to say: there's a lot in the digital drive realm.. Much of it imo done very well. Kemper had not really been in that conversation till now.


    But testing the new drives against other devices right here, put against a variety of analog and digital units, I definitely think they really did a great job. I wouldn't present this as an innovation out of this world -- not quite -- but results so far have been spectacular for me... And I like the unique elements in this approach.


    I have a couple of analog pedals I've been using with the kemper to drive profiles further. With the fulltone sim and kemper drive, I'm not sure I'll feel much of a need for these anymore; they'll probably be delegated to tube amps full-time.

    Yes.... all of the above. I find that MOST people who have used both consider the KPA easier to obtain a specific tone for a specific song on...... or to get a specific tone they have thought up in their head. Again, not saying the Axe doesn't let you get there, just takes more work and time.


    Just another point ......


    The Fractal editor is indeed very easy to route and use modules for those who understand routing and modules well. The KPA lends itself to people who spent a lifetime running tube amp rigs and pedal boards.

    Creating a specific tone via profiling requires having analog (or digital, ok) gear to use. Fractal includes a lot of amp sims. I'm not sure it's easier for the average user to profile an amp compared to tweaking in axe fx... Unless maybe we compare some very complex tweaks vs the most simple profiling scenario perhaps, assuming gear is present?

    The way I see it with patents is what happened with Overloud and their profiling tech. They may have got around it by not giving the customer the means to profile and selling them profile packs instead. I wonder if Neural have something similar? I envision issues if they pack the tech into the Cortex unit... could be wrong though.

    Users will certainly be able to use the capture function themselves. About copyright, their approach is different enough, it seems to me.

    Watched the capture video. Hard (for me) to say much with a high level of certainty considering the quick switching, playing variations, ect, ect...


    .. But I'm a little skeptical about how close this is to the source tones. Can be wrong, but I think I'm hearing something that may translate to a difference in so-called "feel" for quite a few. I'll need a unit here to test properly. May do a cortex vs kemper vs amp video at some point.


    I'll likely sell the kemper if I feel cortex is more accurate (even for non multiple distorting stage tones) in the low mids, some bass frequencies, without exhibiting something that may potentially be more problematic for me.


    Not sure what conclusions I'll walk away with though.

    In my experience, there's cases where a pedal in front profiles similarly to a non-OD set up; and there's others where it doesn't. It's difficult to predict what happens.


    Typically so-called "multiple distortion stages" can cause problems. But it's not a given. I've had cases where there's significant distortion across multiple stages and the results were comparable to profiling the set up with a single distorting stage, whether from pedal or preamp.


    I've also seen people profile set ups with OD pedals in the chain, get less accurate results than otherwise, and call it "close enough". The results would certainly not have been acceptable to me. I'd instead use the pedal in front of Kemper + non-OD profile, in some such cases.


    In other words: there a "personal" element that comes into play. Considering this, if I were you, I'd experiment profiling this set up.


    If I felt the results are as accurate as profiling without the OD, I'd use the OD profiles. If I felt there was a sacrifice in accuracy, I'd pin the 2 profiles (screamer + profile of amp vs profile of OD plus amp) against each other to evaluate which approach is best.


    The reason for this is simply that it's possible to have a less accurate profile but nonetheless prefer it to the screamer plus profile solution (and that's happened to me in some instances as well). One way to found out what works best for you :)