Rough bounce of two originals I'm working on and the profile used was a modified Reampzone profile from their 5150 pack (I believe #10? in the pack). Sorry they aren't soundcloud links... I don't like what soundcloud does to the audio (I think it converts them to a 64kbps MP3?).
Posts by Nightmare Circus
-
-
I am just kind of mystified at the amount of attention minute differences in tone gets in this discussion. It is like the never-ending discussion between Axe III Fx and KPA IMO.
To be fair based on my limited use with unit, watching youtube comparisions, and listening to what people have posted online the differences have ranged from very tiny to very extreme. It seems to be really hit and miss depending on the amp and the person making it. It's not perfect but a good visual reference of one of the "very extreme" examples. All I did was EQ matching between the two
-
Meanwhile, I wonder if CK& Co are resistant to altering the special sauce in the profiling algorithm because it would result in an alteration of a decade worth of beloved profiles, because it’s not so much the test tones themselves as the fundamental tones that make up the core internal baselines that get altered per reference amp with each profile made.
It's not about sides really. Always remember the thermionic valve was invented in the early 1900s (1905?) while the transistor was invented in the late 1940s and yet everyone still swears by tube amps even though tonally... solid states are more consistent. So "better technology" isn't always "better" subjectively. It's going to vary person by person.
Things like the QC and the Kemper are kind of bridging both worlds by giving you a tonally consistent tube amp sound. It certainty isn't exact but it's good enough for most people. My argument from the beginning has been too many people are honing in on being 1% "better" rather than just focusing on what's actually important. It's just a tool. I don't think they want to alter the Kemper because they don't really need to. Would you alter a 59 Bassman to make it sound like a reissue even if you thought the reissue sounded better? Probably not. There will always be a "next best thing" but love it or hate it the Kemper does add it's own unique flavor to the sound (as does the QC) so why mess with it when it's been just fine for all these years.
-
That's it. Thanks for putting up with me everyone!
Honestly I would stick around plenty of people tend to be enjoying your examples and learning from them. Don't let an old man picking on you scare you away.
I care about being able to replace a valve amp fully.
I'm curious if you would humor me and I won't give you a rebuttal or be snarky don't worry: Do you think drum samples/drum programs replace drums fully? If not: will they ever?
-
I've spent years trying to dial out what you yourself have acknowledged as a displeasing distortion character.
You found a way to dial it out in the first examples, I only had a real problem with it in the second examples you posted (the line ones). To me even those were closer than your first ones and even opposite of them in some ways. For example the QC in the first examples was the bright/tight sound while the Kemper was the darker one. Either way I'm still confident you could get both of them close to the source if you wanted to but you made up your mind long before you ever started posting examples. It's the gear for you, enjoy it. Who cares what I or anyone else thinks. Like OneEng said far more eloquently than I did: No one is going to know if its a tube amp, qc, or a kemper because 1) they don't know the source sound and 2) the differences in the captures are not that obvious enough to pick up in a venue or a mixed record.
I'll be the first to say I've played some through some really bad kemper profiles (we've all played around on the rig exchange) and I've played through some really amazing ones as well. I'm sure there will be really bad QC captures on the cloud. I'm really excited to see where the tech goes but if I honestly really cared about 100% accuracy I'd mic up the real thing.
That's a pretty strange thing for an audio engineer to say.
An audio engineer would know that nothing on a record sounds like the source anymore. None of the guitar tones or drum sounds you idolize sounded like that at the board input. It's important to have a good source yes however as an audio engineer you should know by the very nature of putting a microphone in front of something: it no longer sounds like the source. The tiny differences between a valve amp and how the QC and Kemper capture them differently becomes irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. If i spent 5 hours screwing with a microphone on an amp to get it 1% better while the client was paying union rate for session players: I would have been fired decades ago.
An engineer knows when it's good enough. How you've gone 20 years without learning that is beyond me.
-
I am still of the opinion that the QC work-flow is its biggest problem for live use, not the quality of the tone it gets.
That's really the only real negative I've heard about the unit but then again I doubt very many people have even attempted to use on live yet. It will certainty be interesting to see how that turns out though, I only messed with one for a fairly short amount of time but my experience with it in a studio environment was pretty solid. It sounds like it should sound to me
The only real advantage the Kemper has over the QC to me is 1) Proven touring record and 2) 10 years of people Profiling rigs with the thing. I find the whole "well this one profiles closer to the source!" argument to be such a tiny and ultimately meaningless thing to get caught up on.
It's still fun to pick on people for it though
-
So I'm not exactly sure what I got wrong or what "gotcha" I fell for?? I seem to be 100% correct ????
You are 100% correct.
Right QC unaltered in both of those clips. Kemper is altered. Now to be fair, the rendering on by-pass was a mistake but I rolled with it.
Nothing because the kemper track had the fx by-passed and you know what: that's on me.
I was hoping you'd call this out as the lie it was but it seems like you didn't need to, you did the null test anyway.
You will go to all these lengths to prove the QC is better but the one thing you won't do.... edit the parameters of your Kemper profile.
-
Left channel is definitely nulling. So I'm not really sure what the two clips prove now.
Nothing because the kemper track had the fx by-passed and you know what: that's on me. You can hear the tell even in the messed up track which is which though and I'll give you a hint: listen to the end when you stop playing.
Honestly I'm surprised no one said anything about how messed up that is. That's why you play it back before uploading right there
-
I wasn't paying attention to names. Go on then, what sneaky thing did you do?
You're right it does lean to the right side a bit even at the same perceived loudness. Low-mids tend to do that which is why I boosted them on one side and cut them from the other after i volume matched them. But which one did I cut and which one did I boost?
Honestly wouldn't mind being send that profile, I can make you like it with a little tweaking.
If the left channel is nulling out then something happened on my end because they are definitely both EQ'd in the second clip. Let me open up the session
-
Line 5 == QC, Line 7 == Kemper.
I'll admit that's a pretty surprising result to me. I expected the brighter and more controlled one to be the QC while the darker/boomy one to be the Kemper. Out of curiosity did you profile a boosted amp or add a boost to them?
-
With guitar I do the same thing. Which is why I got the QC.
Yeah I wouldn't recommend taking a hairdryer to the Kemper personally. If it's making you happy then it sounds like it was a solid purchase for you this part doesn't make any sense at all to me. It sounds like with your drum samples you're willing to do whatever it takes to make them sound the way you want but with the kemper: you aren't willing to do anything. You'll do all that for some drums but won't even use a simple post EQ or adjust any of the settings to get the sound closer to the source? Um, ok.
That to me is just odd but what is even more odd though is that won't answer any of the questions that myself or ckemper have asked. Either way, like I said I'm glad it makes you happy. Also would be curious which was which in your previous example and if one wasn't a source then would like to hear the source.
Ah you listened to my fixed versions. I was hoping the names would trip you up: and they did.
That's pretty funny to me. Now listen to the demo excerpt I did. -
But let's talk about sound. Let me know which clip you think sounds best.
You seem to have forgotten where I mentioned several posts ago that if the argument is a raw QC capture is closer than a raw Kemper capture I already agreed with that assessment. It's true, to my ears its not earth shattering, but it's true. It really just boils down to the Kemper needs a post EQ in the fx block to get it that extra 5% and maybe some tweaking to the Sag where as the QC just comes out the gate as close as it can get it. Both machines are capable of the same thing one just requires less work if you want to argue accuracy to the original source actually use all the tools available on the unit to achieve that goal. I know when you make your drum samples you don't just slap a mic on there and call it day now do you?
As for your examples:
Miss matched volume again but Line 5 definitely has some more girth and rumble in it, especially during the palm mutes. Line 7 has a bit more bite to it and the low end is more controlled but it's also giving me a distortion quality I'm not really too fond of compared to the first. It almost sounds like what a boost pedal would do to an amp to me but the mid range is identical to my ears. As to what sounds better to me personally? The engineer in me says go with the darker tone as high end is easier to add than get rid of but just jamming around at low volume I'd probably go with the brighter one. Same thing applies as last time though with a modest EQ I can make them the same and I'm happy to do it again if you'd like.
Now as for my example I linked: Can you hear a difference and tell me which side/half of the lead was kemper and which was the QC?
-
Display More
Agreed.
There are 3 people you have to please with your sound
1) Audience
2) You
3) sound engineer
I think we are all arguing the same point. Some people take very analytical approach to their sound, others more relaxed - both are equally valid,
Personally I'm useless at sound analysis....I could never work out how to use Mid on a regular amp, let alone, IR's, power sag, definition etc. My point is, I can hear the difference but actually my views changes on what I like by the minute. I don't have the perfect sound in my head nor do I instantly like or dislike unless its really bad. I also have to spend time with a sound to adjust to it. I don;t think I'm alone in this.
The point here is I do think I should care more and perhaps some people should care just a little less.
The audience will of course know a really bad sound - would they be able to tell the difference between the QC and Kemper when set up in a similar way? Nope.
Does it matter? if it does to you then it does.
But note there will be a much bigger difference in the fingers, technique, whether the singer is in tune :). To debate over 5% difference is only important to "you".
Like I've said I don't care which one you use it's ultimately down to preference but I always approach "guitar tone" from a full band context and never from a solo mono tone. That's really the only thing I'm arguing for: if you take a QC capture and a well made Kemper profile of the same thing and throw some drums/bass behind it they really sound the same to me. The characteristics that vary from the "real deal" in both units are masked in a mix because guitar is a mid ranged instrument and as such that's primarily what you hear from the guitar in a mix. The "sparkly highs" or "slighty off low end" doesn't really matter in that scenario.
I honestly wouldn't complain if you showed up with either one as long as you didn't dial in a "bedroom tone" and fall prey to our good friend the fletcher munson curve
People are testing isolated mono tones, this is how I test: https://drive.google.com/file/…qcrqvx0P/view?usp=sharing
-
Display More
I find it amusing you don't care about 100% accuracy when it comes to profiling the amp, but you do when it comes to audiences being able to tell the difference.
The overall point is, and I've been saying it the entire thread, it's all about subjective perceptions. I like both units. I really do. I've been using them side-by-side for nearly 2 months now, on a daily basis.
But I slightly prefer the QC even though the Kemper trounces it for features and current workflow capabilities, simply because I find the capturing to be more accurate to the real amp, particularly when it comes to palm mutes. As a high-gain guitarist, this is crucially important to me. It may not be for you, and I'm not judging you for that. But for me, I will give up all of the bells and whistles of the Kemper to have more accurate amp captures, because I know I can make up for bells and whistles with other pedal options on the board alongside the QC.
But if Kemper all of a sudden released a Profiling 2.0 update that fixed the issue, I'd then most likely flip back to primarily using the Kemper as my profiling/capturing platform.
And I've said multiple times now, I'm not after perfection. I'm just after the most accurate. Because I can't crank my real valve amps all of the time - much as I'd like to.
It's more that the listener is never going know if it's accurate or not they just care if it sounds good. I think the real issue here is you're arguing for feel and I'm arguing for sound. I've heard that argument go both ways though, some people love the QC feel and others think it's sterile and unrealistic. Me? I'm an engineer and if it's metal I'm going to put a multiband compressor on it and get rid of the junk so the guitars and bass aren't in an eternal death match
-
The devil is in the "pretty much"
Well I can't argue with that, you've made up your mind and if all you care about is accuracy go with what you think gives you the most accuracy. They're so close though that with a single EQ and 30 seconds of work I can make them indistinguishable in a mix so I'd be happy if someone brought either to the studio. Outside of the capture feature the QC was pretty lack-luster to me but we'll see where it goes with updates.
"Perfect is the enemy of good" - François-Marie Arouet
-
I've been at shows where people were using PodXT's and HD500's and Axe FX Ultra's into little FRFR combos on stage and then micing them up, and the audience notices the poor tone, and even talks about it over beers in between sets. The bands are never told straight up that their tone sucked - they go off thinking it was another successful show.
The audience does notice. I've never really been on board with this "the audience doesn't care, so neither should you" attitude. It makes zero sense to me. If it were true, we should all be using Peavey Bandit's and Boss DD3's.
IMO.
Why would you mic up a FRFR speaker rather than just send a direct feed to the board? That's pretty much a direct failure of the FOH engineer. I imagine that did sound pretty bad, bonus points if you can tell me why. The audience will of course notice if its "bad" to the point it's over bearing but find me an audience member or even a musician who can tell the difference between a QC capture and a Kemper profile of the same thing in a full band setting with 100% accuracy.
I doubt you can. I'm pretty skeptical of the Axe Ultra in this scenario but the old Pod stuff I definitely understand especially if it was a high gain setting. Can you not make a Peavey Bandit sound good? It's honestly a pretty decent amp. I've even seen artists hide one of these or one of the little line 6 spider amps behind backline (i assume to not be embarrassed) and no one was the wiser. You're free to use what you want but considering with minimal effort (just balancing the volume and removing a db or two of 200hz) I could make your QC capture sound pretty much identical to your Kemper one I don't really think the QC is that mind blowing. It's just less effort for the same result.
-
It's kind of funny to me how guitarists these days will spend 100x more time and energy trying to find subtle differences in a guitar sound that won't even be noticed by most people or disappear in a mix/full band concept.
Rather than just make music. I'm willing to bet your band would sound just fine with either unit.
-
On TGP doug said that the same engeeners who worked on the plugins worked on the models.
He later said on the SLO model that it was the same technology that was used in the plugins.
Also he said the the cab models were the same as in the plugins.
I read so many different reviews on the quad cortex, I can't wait to try it by myself...
I have no doubt it may be the same underlying code/technology but as far as human beings working on it, it's different teams based on my understanding of what was said by Dan and a tool is only as good as the person using it.
-
Easier or not, I'd miss definition, power sagging, pick, compressor, clarity, tube shape/bias parameters. I'm not a totally endless tweaker, but this stuff does come in to play, often after the profiling process, even years after, when those controls are used for a particular guitar, mix, etc. I'm surprised that NDSP didn't include a suite of post-capture shaping options. Their easy-peasy plug-ins sound good too, but besides being dsp hogs, you're basically stuck with what you get. I guess it's a sort of curated mindset, versus putting more aspects of sound design in user hands. (But kind of like Garageband vs Logic, iMovie vs Premiere, working around those oversimplified interfaces is often a bigger obstacle than simply learning the deeper tools, even if you only use a fraction of their functionality.)
It's almost like everyone has different tastes and plays differently so having the ability to shape the profile to match your style is more beneficial than just a "better raw capture" . You'd be hard pressed to find a professional guitarist that hasn't modded or paid someone to mod their go to amp in some way to better fit their playing style or tone.
Either way you can't ultimately go wrong with either unit they both sound good and play well. There is no "better or worse" just what works for you and gives you the sound you want. I can make them sound identical in a mix so bring either!
-
On the other hand you don't have that much parameters to go over the top with the sound if accuracy is not the only goal you have. Perhaps it's easier from the overall 1-click-fits-all-process but as I read it takes about 4-5 minutes which is also quite a long time measuring around. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that.
The capture process does take a bit longer but realistically its faster than a Kemper when you account for refining and polish. The best way I know how to explain: It's basically just automating what you would do to a Kemper profile after capture. Again as I've stated the "accuracy" isn't going to really matter to the vast majority of end-users because they aren't profiling their own stuff anyway. They're buying it or downloading it of the exchange/cloud.
