Appreciate you guys work. I think a better comparison is not trying to keep the settings the same, but seeing how good hey would sound tweaked as much as possible (tweaking modelers, drives, delays, & reverbs). Each technology works different for sure. I believe the amp would still sound better, but the Kemper and Quad would be a lot closer. Thanks again and keep up the great work.
There was something in the mids of the Kemper I could never get over. I used it for years, though. Nothing else could beat the convenience and consistency at the time. Now I’m on the QC and tone wise, it fixes most of the stuff I disliked about the Kemper. With the QC, I modeled my Bad Cat preamp and feed the preamp back to my Bad Cat with all of the pre and post effects on the QC. 4CM quality with one cable to the effects return.
In the Quad Cortex you can get the sound even closer if you mess with the input gain and the impedance, to get even closer to the amp. Also, the captures of the Quad Cortex are based on a specific algorithm (that's why after you do a capture it gives you a generic menu of bass, mids, treble, gain, and volume) , so it's better to do comparisons with the amps that were actually modeled by Neural DSP that are more accurate.
I’m gonna say, to my ears, the Quad sounded best in every category. I’m a sucker for openness and high end frequency clarity. I’m literally not bias towards any three of these. I’m a Helix guy and can’t wait to see the Tone Match comparison coming soon. I might be bias on that one lol
When we used the QC to capture my AC15 and my Kilt and Little Green Wonder the captures tended to be a little Bright, especially the Kilt one. But that was very easily mitigated with the controls on the QC. And we were getting truly amazing Sounds. Here the amp capture seemed always cleaner. In my Experience the QC gain knob on the capture works super well. IIRC the Kemper doesnt like the gains of the profiles adjusted much. Also teh Kemper had some pretty different midrange going on on a couple spots here.
Yeah we experience the same thing with the gain control in Kemper/QC. With Kemper, turning the gain up almost never sounds nice, but if you take a profile with the amp a bit more turned up and then lower the gain in the profile, it sounds really nice. So our rule is never turn the gain control up in Kemper, but turning it down to clean up the amp works really well. In QC you can go either way and it sounds great.
Thanks WT for the video! Ive been wanting to see this kind of side by side comparison video between these products. I understand why some like QC better than Kemper. It sounds really really good! But as WT guys mention many times in their videos, it depends on what works for you. i know i wont be able to tell the difference when my e.gtr tracks are mixed with all other instruments in a song, which is the most important thing to me personally. So id rather keep my kemper than selling it to buy a QC and spend few more hundred dollars in the process.. Great video! Thanks!
the QC with my InEars sounds sucks lol but the kemper sound like heaven in my ears! that’s why I sold the QC and I have my kemper back that I love! the kemper is more organic tone!
If you profile and capture the same amp at the same settings, they sound basically identical 🤷🏻♂️. In our experience the QC responds to effects more like the real amp than the Kemper does, but it’s a subtle difference. The QC amp models don’t sound as good as amp captures in our experience.
Great video fellas! Hell of a comparison job! Love how detailed oriented these were captured, also love the honest practical use cases for each being talked about. One thing i would like to mention and see what you guys think, is the whole voltage regulation/lack of volume when stacking or boosting pedals. I feel like it gets commonly overlooked when people think about these units. As someone who owns a Kemper, thats really my only issue with it. Nothing is worse than when you kick on a solo and its the same volume as an OD setting (maybe just more fuzzy haha). Not sure how the Quad Cortex does in this area, but if I had to guess it seems like this might just be a problem of all digital amps. Would love to know if you guys had any thoughts on them in this area?
once gain is added, especially w/ the delay, the QC starts sounding thin and the Kemper lacks depth. But in a mix, without the meticulous mic placement and eq of the live amp, the Kemper would fit just fine.
Awesome comparison! I got the QC in May '21 and have gone back and forth with what to use as my "amp tone". Since the Capture functionality is the "flagship of the unit" - and it allows you access to amps NDSP hasn't provided yet - it's the shiny light that draws you in. I've got some nice gain pedals that I've Captured - and I've found that you do have to gain the pedals up a decent bit when using an amp Capture to get the same levels of drive/gain that I've had on other units (at lower settings). I've also heard the high end clarity you mentioned. Both of those things have been good and bad for me. I agree with your comments around "I'd just set the KoT pedal differently and would be quite happy" or "... in the mix..." - but I've also found that I am love/hate with the QC and my iLoud Micro monitors - which are small and have a good bit of high end... so the QC articulation stacked on top of the iLouds can get excessive. ... enough virtual rambling - thank you for the video and your comments. It helped ease my mind some as I've heard similar things.
Thanks! So when you capture, try increasing the ‘Send’ level (or whatever the signal is called that is sent to the amp/device). By default that level is at 0 dB, but we find the gain staging of the capture is more accurate if you set it to +6 or up to +9 dB 👍🏻
@@wttone - that's good to know - I will try that! I've tried to keep those pretty neutral to avoid digital clipping - but your comments make sense. Do you also reduce the "return level" so that the Capture isn't far louder/hotter than the original device (more when Capturing gain pedals than amps)?
Great video. I've been a long time Kemper user and moved over to quad cortex a few months ago, never looked back. Kemper's are still killer units and but the QC just edges it on sound for me. Kemper's FX are better at the minute but that'll change with time/updates. You can definitely hear a thing goin on with the Kemper where it does a weird thing with the mids, still sounds good but its just not as accurate as the QC at capturing an amps sound.
Thanks for the video !!! that's a great way to showcase the A to B to C :) if you used the drives and delays on the Kemper vs QC that might be cool (you guys got time LOL :) Like you guys said, i like to get in, setup quick and get out of there fast so, i dont even bring a pedal board. So, it would be an onboard kinda comparison. Any rate, thanks for this video :)
At least with the RUclips compression and whatnot, the profiles/captures sounded . . . dryer? Lacking some of the harmonics, particularly with the gained up sounds. The Tyler sounds richer and more saturated. In fact, particularly with the QC, it almost sounded like the capture didn't know where the "edge" of breakup ought to be.
Yeah the QC capture came in with less gain than the amp had at the same settings. It's something we find is a struggle on QC sometimes - it can be really finicky with gain staging. And we agree - the amp sounded better in every scenario (although it was very close). We were listening to the raw recorded samples, though - so before it got exported out of Logic, and then uploaded/processed by RUclips.
Absolutely true! The difference are so minimal. One more point on QC regarding the gain thing... The captures react so close to the amp that you can easily compensate for the gain by either turning up the gain on the capture itself (although that wouldn't be my preference), or just turning up the output of an always on block like a compressor (which is what I do). Or you could take a higher gain capture and turn the gain knob down on the capture block. Every guitar has a little different output, anyway, so I'm constantly adjusting things a little here or there. Both options - KPA and QC - are excellent when using them with pedals. Hard to beat the ability to go with stereo captures in QC, though. Actually two guitarists could both use stereo captures in a single preset. Pretty awesome.
I love how you guys keep saying it's just opinions and not necessarily better or worse. For the Fuzz comparison, I couldn't disagree more. The amp sounds like there's a blanket over it, and the QC sounds like it's taken off. One is going to be completely buried in a mix, and the other isn't. But that's just my opinion :)
Nerding out here a bit, but I would definitely be down for a Tone Match comparison (AxeFX vs Helix stuff your doing). Also, because of this video, I am now curious how the AxeFX takes pedals versus a matching amp. Since you have said in the past that AxeFX has the best FX "overall", I am not sure that many would use real pedals in front, but now you have me wondering about this. Also, if you made that video you could compare how it takes a real KOT (for example) versus one that is in AxeFX and see if there is a difference. Anyway, Brian has me leaning towards AxeFX these days at least to try. My Sunday morning rig is stereo amps (HX stomp on one side w/your AC30 Fawn preset, and real AC15 on the other). The AC15 stays at the church so I don't have to tote it. 😁 Anyway, super great video! I have been wondering about Kemper vs QC.
Thanks! Quad Cortex and Kemper are the only units that can currently capture/profile an amp from scratch, so we feel like units that model amps (like Helix, Axe-FX, FM9, etc) are in a different category. Fractal does not have the HM30 modeled so it wouldn’t have been an even comparison. Axe-FX can tone match, though. It’s a different process but you end up with very similar results to capturing or profiling. We’ve tone matched quite a few of our amps with Axe-FX. Definitely a video for another day :)
I know it’s a bummer for you guys that there’s no Neural Marketplace in place at the moment, but have you considered selling presets and captures the way Alter Amp Works does? I know it’s a more labor intensive method, but I really think if you guys committed to it, you could OWN the “paid captures” market long before the marketplace comes along, and when it does you’ll have the market good and primed. It could be a huge advantage.
I think that here the amps sounds a bit better but it's miced with a ribbon mic on a studio environment. On a live situation probably the sound of both modelers would be better than the real amp sound,mixed with an SM57...
The QC seems to struggle at clean to low gain. The Kemper sounds much more realistic up until mid to high gain and then things start evening out. Incredible how the good the Kemper still is.
I'm only 11 mins in but the amp sounds more saturated, though the Kemper is full sounding as well. The differences are there to be picked apart by us guitar tone junkies, but the average congregant will never notice any difference. That's a good thing though so they can just focus on worship! My church is kicking the tires on purchasing modelers for the two electrics, we're currently running amps off stage. Not sure I'm ready to make the leap.
Awesome video! Really enjoyed this. Would be so curious to see/hear how a Simplifier would go vs a real amp - the Simplifier amp models aren’t based on any one specific amp model, but more in terms of how it responds with pedals. Does it respond ‘more like a real amp’ than a QC or Kemper?? Hmm…
In your screenshot of the QC setup, I was trying to get why it came in on line 2, then split in line 1 to Return 1 and then eventually to the 1/2 out. What is the Return 1?
I had to take a 2nd look at that to check, ha. We do that because when you capture, your guitar input goes into Return 1. So I built that little preset to just test out captures while we did the capturing process (so I don't have to unplug my guitar every time). Row 2 just continues Row 1, and all the stuff in Row 2 was not engaged - so the only thing on in QC was the capture of the Tyler.
You mean Kemper and Quad Cortex? With those, the initial profiles/captures are as close as they’ll sound to the amp. Once you adjust things from there they will start to sound/react differently.
We listened to the amp. But didn’t touch how the pedals were already setup. This board gets used for all 3 methods regularly but however it was when we plugged it in was how we used it.
To my ears, Kemper and real amp both break up more than QC. QC is cleaner and brighter than BOTH the real amp and the Kemper. I bet if you mixed the QC and the Kemper together, you’d have something VERY close to the real amp in these recordings! One thing to keep in mind if you switched from Kemper to QC…you won’t have NEARLY as many great commercially available profiles (e.g., MBritt etc.) nor will you have nearly as many free profiles uploaded by Kemper’s vast user base. Food for thought…🤔 🤷🏻♂️
The fact that the QC is being compared to a >10 year old product and it sounds practically the same says something. Like @Tone Junkies said recently, amp modeling has “peaked”.
True. The new unit, however, si much smaller and much more flexible. It accepts panthom powered mics and it also allows to use more than one profiles at the same time. So, there are improvements on many aspects.
This comparison makes no sense to me. That's not the way profilers are designed. You can't take an XX profile then put analog pedals in front of it and hope they respond like the real amp! Profiling is a static photograph of the amp. Putting pedals in front of it causes the real amp to behave differently according to the rules of physics. Kemper & QC cannot "predict" the behavior of the amp if the type of input stress changes. The algorithm can let's say "try to guess" but it doesn't have certain and measurable elements to work with, they should probably equip the profilers with artificial intelligence for this purpose (QC is probably later on this). In other words, if pedals are used, the profile of the Kemper must surely be redone to take into account the dynamic behavior triggered by the real amp as a result of a variation in the input signal. From this point of view, the modeler is the solution which, unlike a profiler, is made with mathematical models that represent the response of the modeled amp to any type of solicitation. This also makes us understand how much more complex it is to create a truly realistic modeler than a profiler who only takes static photos. Also for this reason, with today's technology, it seems that the modeler always behaves differently from the real amp. The technology is not yet evolved enough.
Thanks for watching! Actually - that is exactly what the Kemper and Quad Cortex are trying to do. When you capture and profile an amp, those units send a huge range of signals through the amp at all different volumes/amplitudes in an effort to understand how the amp will respond to almost anything that you throw into it. It's why the captures/profiles react almost exactly like the amp does when you hit them with gain and other types of pedals. The point of the profiling/capturing process is not only to make something that sounds just like the amp at the given settings you've dialed in, but also something that reacts, responds, and feels just like the amp when you use it with your rig.
@@wttone I agree, but up to a point. OK the profiling process sends quite a few signals to understand the behavior of the amp, but it's impossible to predict them all. I mean it's one thing to enter with a guitar that in the end gives a clean signal that can vary in volume and equalization at least in 90% of the cases. Quite the opposite is to enter with a booster that raises the signal to excess, or worse a fuzz that produces infinite and unpredictable harmonics and moreover therefore in a non-linear regime. It works, maybe better or worse but not the same, that's what I say. If you want to make sure that a profile responds as realistically as possible to the real amp, then profile the amp with the tube screamer already connected to the amp during the profiling. I'm sure it will be more difficult to tell them apart at that point.
@@wttone If that's the point, then it's no wonder there are differences. I'm just saying that if we really want to try to get the same result with stomps, the profile must be redone with stomps in chain during profiling...
Axe-FX III cannot create a capture/profile of an amp from scratch like QC and Kemper can, so we would put it in a different category. The Tyler HM30 and the Tyler 10-12 cabinet doesn't exist in Axe-FX, so this comparison wouldn't have worked. It can, however, do Tone Match, and we are planning to do a Line 6/Fractal Tone Match preset vs amp video similar to this one in the future.
Not really the point of this one. QC and Kemper are, to us, more similar in that they have a very specific tech meant for capturing an amp. While Fractal does have Tone Match it's pretty different.
Love the cork sniffing nerdery 🎧🤓. Everyone knows the angels in heaven only play real botique amps. Digital is a 2nd rate quality trap from the enemy to degrade our worship to God 😳. Joking aside I use/have digital gear (iridium, Kemper) I use but only when I have to. It’s good enough that probably not noticeable in a mix but I can tell a big difference in playing. Enough of one to personally pay 💰 for it…
Appreciate you guys work. I think a better comparison is not trying to keep the settings the same, but seeing how good hey would sound tweaked as much as possible (tweaking modelers, drives, delays, & reverbs). Each technology works different for sure. I believe the amp would still sound better, but the Kemper and Quad would be a lot closer. Thanks again and keep up the great work.
Love the video, guys! Can't wait for Neural to open up the QC Marketplace so we can buy your captures
There was something in the mids of the Kemper I could never get over. I used it for years, though. Nothing else could beat the convenience and consistency at the time. Now I’m on the QC and tone wise, it fixes most of the stuff I disliked about the Kemper.
With the QC, I modeled my Bad Cat preamp and feed the preamp back to my Bad Cat with all of the pre and post effects on the QC. 4CM quality with one cable to the effects return.
The Kemper sounds a bit darker and the QC sounds a bit brighter than the amp to my ears.
this is literally the perfect video
THAT'S HIGH PRAISE
In the Quad Cortex you can get the sound even closer if you mess with the input gain and the impedance, to get even closer to the amp. Also, the captures of the Quad Cortex are based on a specific algorithm (that's why after you do a capture it gives you a generic menu of bass, mids, treble, gain, and volume) , so it's better to do comparisons with the amps that were actually modeled by Neural DSP that are more accurate.
I’m gonna say, to my ears, the Quad sounded best in every category. I’m a sucker for openness and high end frequency clarity. I’m literally not bias towards any three of these. I’m a Helix guy and can’t wait to see the Tone Match comparison coming soon. I might be bias on that one lol
I love all the disclaimers. You can't make everyone happy, but at least you tried! Lol. Good video, guys!
*QC is the way.
Ha thanks! The more we use QC, the more we love it.
People get annoying on the internet 😂
When we used the QC to capture my AC15 and my Kilt and Little Green Wonder the captures tended to be a little Bright, especially the Kilt one. But that was very easily mitigated with the controls on the QC. And we were getting truly amazing Sounds.
Here the amp capture seemed always cleaner. In my Experience the QC gain knob on the capture works super well. IIRC the Kemper doesnt like the gains of the profiles adjusted much.
Also teh Kemper had some pretty different midrange going on on a couple spots here.
Yeah we experience the same thing with the gain control in Kemper/QC. With Kemper, turning the gain up almost never sounds nice, but if you take a profile with the amp a bit more turned up and then lower the gain in the profile, it sounds really nice. So our rule is never turn the gain control up in Kemper, but turning it down to clean up the amp works really well.
In QC you can go either way and it sounds great.
Thanks WT for the video! Ive been wanting to see this kind of side by side comparison video between these products. I understand why some like QC better than Kemper. It sounds really really good!
But as WT guys mention many times in their videos, it depends on what works for you. i know i wont be able to tell the difference when my e.gtr tracks are mixed with all other instruments in a song, which is the most important thing to me personally. So id rather keep my kemper than selling it to buy a QC and spend few more hundred dollars in the process.. Great video! Thanks!
the QC with my InEars sounds sucks lol but the kemper sound like heaven in my ears! that’s why I sold the QC and I have my kemper back that I love! the kemper is more organic tone!
If you profile and capture the same amp at the same settings, they sound basically identical 🤷🏻♂️.
In our experience the QC responds to effects more like the real amp than the Kemper does, but it’s a subtle difference.
The QC amp models don’t sound as good as amp captures in our experience.
Great video fellas! Hell of a comparison job! Love how detailed oriented these were captured, also love the honest practical use cases for each being talked about.
One thing i would like to mention and see what you guys think, is the whole voltage regulation/lack of volume when stacking or boosting pedals. I feel like it gets commonly overlooked when people think about these units. As someone who owns a Kemper, thats really my only issue with it. Nothing is worse than when you kick on a solo and its the same volume as an OD setting (maybe just more fuzzy haha). Not sure how the Quad Cortex does in this area, but if I had to guess it seems like this might just be a problem of all digital amps. Would love to know if you guys had any thoughts on them in this area?
once gain is added, especially w/ the delay, the QC starts sounding thin and the Kemper lacks depth. But in a mix, without the meticulous mic placement and eq of the live amp, the Kemper would fit just fine.
Awesome comparison!
I got the QC in May '21 and have gone back and forth with what to use as my "amp tone". Since the Capture functionality is the "flagship of the unit" - and it allows you access to amps NDSP hasn't provided yet - it's the shiny light that draws you in. I've got some nice gain pedals that I've Captured - and I've found that you do have to gain the pedals up a decent bit when using an amp Capture to get the same levels of drive/gain that I've had on other units (at lower settings). I've also heard the high end clarity you mentioned.
Both of those things have been good and bad for me. I agree with your comments around "I'd just set the KoT pedal differently and would be quite happy" or "... in the mix..." - but I've also found that I am love/hate with the QC and my iLoud Micro monitors - which are small and have a good bit of high end... so the QC articulation stacked on top of the iLouds can get excessive.
... enough virtual rambling - thank you for the video and your comments. It helped ease my mind some as I've heard similar things.
Thanks! So when you capture, try increasing the ‘Send’ level (or whatever the signal is called that is sent to the amp/device). By default that level is at 0 dB, but we find the gain staging of the capture is more accurate if you set it to +6 or up to +9 dB 👍🏻
@@wttone - that's good to know - I will try that! I've tried to keep those pretty neutral to avoid digital clipping - but your comments make sense. Do you also reduce the "return level" so that the Capture isn't far louder/hotter than the original device (more when Capturing gain pedals than amps)?
Great video. I've been a long time Kemper user and moved over to quad cortex a few months ago, never looked back. Kemper's are still killer units and but the QC just edges it on sound for me. Kemper's FX are better at the minute but that'll change with time/updates. You can definitely hear a thing goin on with the Kemper where it does a weird thing with the mids, still sounds good but its just not as accurate as the QC at capturing an amps sound.
Please make one including axe fx!
Thanks for the video !!! that's a great way to showcase the A to B to C :) if you used the drives and delays on the Kemper vs QC that might be cool (you guys got time LOL :) Like you guys said, i like to get in, setup quick and get out of there fast so, i dont even bring a pedal board. So, it would be an onboard kinda comparison. Any rate, thanks for this video :)
At least with the RUclips compression and whatnot, the profiles/captures sounded . . . dryer? Lacking some of the harmonics, particularly with the gained up sounds. The Tyler sounds richer and more saturated. In fact, particularly with the QC, it almost sounded like the capture didn't know where the "edge" of breakup ought to be.
Yeah the QC capture came in with less gain than the amp had at the same settings. It's something we find is a struggle on QC sometimes - it can be really finicky with gain staging.
And we agree - the amp sounded better in every scenario (although it was very close). We were listening to the raw recorded samples, though - so before it got exported out of Logic, and then uploaded/processed by RUclips.
@@wttone Totes. But to Bradford's point, in a mix? Who cares. They all sound amazing! Thanks for the content, gents!
Absolutely true! The difference are so minimal. One more point on QC regarding the gain thing...
The captures react so close to the amp that you can easily compensate for the gain by either turning up the gain on the capture itself (although that wouldn't be my preference), or just turning up the output of an always on block like a compressor (which is what I do). Or you could take a higher gain capture and turn the gain knob down on the capture block.
Every guitar has a little different output, anyway, so I'm constantly adjusting things a little here or there. Both options - KPA and QC - are excellent when using them with pedals. Hard to beat the ability to go with stereo captures in QC, though. Actually two guitarists could both use stereo captures in a single preset. Pretty awesome.
Y'all should do this again with the UAFX amp sims.
I actually just bought a mid 60’s Vox AC30 Top Boost (‘64), and we have a Deluxe Reverb. Would be an interesting experiment for sure.
I love how you guys keep saying it's just opinions and not necessarily better or worse. For the Fuzz comparison, I couldn't disagree more. The amp sounds like there's a blanket over it, and the QC sounds like it's taken off. One is going to be completely buried in a mix, and the other isn't. But that's just my opinion :)
That’s just how fuzz is tho. So the QC isn’t actually doing what the amp does.
Nerding out here a bit, but I would definitely be down for a Tone Match comparison (AxeFX vs Helix stuff your doing). Also, because of this video, I am now curious how the AxeFX takes pedals versus a matching amp. Since you have said in the past that AxeFX has the best FX "overall", I am not sure that many would use real pedals in front, but now you have me wondering about this. Also, if you made that video you could compare how it takes a real KOT (for example) versus one that is in AxeFX and see if there is a difference. Anyway, Brian has me leaning towards AxeFX these days at least to try. My Sunday morning rig is stereo amps (HX stomp on one side w/your AC30 Fawn preset, and real AC15 on the other). The AC15 stays at the church so I don't have to tote it. 😁
Anyway, super great video! I have been wondering about Kemper vs QC.
I had the kemper and moved onto the Quad Cortex.
I’m trying out the fractal. Not too sure yet if it’s better than the QC
Excellent vid - but the Fractal Audio FM9 OUGHT to be in here, too!
Thanks! Quad Cortex and Kemper are the only units that can currently capture/profile an amp from scratch, so we feel like units that model amps (like Helix, Axe-FX, FM9, etc) are in a different category. Fractal does not have the HM30 modeled so it wouldn’t have been an even comparison.
Axe-FX can tone match, though. It’s a different process but you end up with very similar results to capturing or profiling.
We’ve tone matched quite a few of our amps with Axe-FX. Definitely a video for another day :)
I know it’s a bummer for you guys that there’s no Neural Marketplace in place at the moment, but have you considered selling presets and captures the way Alter Amp Works does? I know it’s a more labor intensive method, but I really think if you guys committed to it, you could OWN the “paid captures” market long before the marketplace comes along, and when it does you’ll have the market good and primed. It could be a huge advantage.
Sharing presets for a friend even is a pain. In takes several minutes. Not worth it 😂
I think that here the amps sounds a bit better but it's miced with a ribbon mic on a studio environment. On a live situation probably the sound of both modelers would be better than the real amp sound,mixed with an SM57...
That’s true - something that probably doesn’t get talked about much. Plus you’re not going to run through a Neve 1073 live very often either, ha.
The QC seems to struggle at clean to low gain. The Kemper sounds much more realistic up until mid to high gain and then things start evening out. Incredible how the good the Kemper still is.
Yeah it really still holds its own.
I'm only 11 mins in but the amp sounds more saturated, though the Kemper is full sounding as well. The differences are there to be picked apart by us guitar tone junkies, but the average congregant will never notice any difference. That's a good thing though so they can just focus on worship! My church is kicking the tires on purchasing modelers for the two electrics, we're currently running amps off stage. Not sure I'm ready to make the leap.
Awesome video! Really enjoyed this. Would be so curious to see/hear how a Simplifier would go vs a real amp - the Simplifier amp models aren’t based on any one specific amp model, but more in terms of how it responds with pedals. Does it respond ‘more like a real amp’ than a QC or Kemper?? Hmm…
In your screenshot of the QC setup, I was trying to get why it came in on line 2, then split in line 1 to Return 1 and then eventually to the 1/2 out. What is the Return 1?
I had to take a 2nd look at that to check, ha. We do that because when you capture, your guitar input goes into Return 1. So I built that little preset to just test out captures while we did the capturing process (so I don't have to unplug my guitar every time).
Row 2 just continues Row 1, and all the stuff in Row 2 was not engaged - so the only thing on in QC was the capture of the Tyler.
Out of interest, are you sure Pure Cabinet is completely OFF on the Kemper?
Could you make a video showing how you’d adjust in the units to sound more like the amp? I think that’d be cool.
You mean Kemper and Quad Cortex? With those, the initial profiles/captures are as close as they’ll sound to the amp. Once you adjust things from there they will start to sound/react differently.
@@wttone oh I just meant when you were talking about tweaking the profiles post capture.
24:52 Alot of people just say they work out. But I didn’t need Bradford to tell me in order for me to know.
Ignoring accuracy, Kemper sounded better than the QC for most cases..
Prob QC for me. But I run full pedal board into a modded blues Jr. into two notes cam m into two notes captor 8.
The real question is: which one did you use for monitoring when playing? That’s going to dictate how you set up the pedals.
We listened to the amp. But didn’t touch how the pedals were already setup. This board gets used for all 3 methods regularly but however it was when we plugged it in was how we used it.
To my ears, Kemper and real amp both break up more than QC. QC is cleaner and brighter than BOTH the real amp and the Kemper.
I bet if you mixed the QC and the Kemper together, you’d have something VERY close to the real amp in these recordings!
One thing to keep in mind if you switched from Kemper to QC…you won’t have NEARLY as many great commercially available profiles (e.g., MBritt etc.) nor will you have nearly as many free profiles uploaded by Kemper’s vast user base.
Food for thought…🤔
🤷🏻♂️
7:01 Amp
7:08 Kemper
7:15 QC
7:22 Amp
9:17 Amp
9:23 Kemper
9:31 QC
9:38 Amp
9:43 Kemper
9:50 QC
9:56 Amp
10:07 Amp
10:17 Kemper
10:26 QC
10:36 Amp
10:45 Kemper
10:55 QC
FUZZ:
14:18 Amp
14:30 Kemper
14:43 QC
14:55 Amp
Clean WET:
16:23 Amp
16:37 Kemper
16:51 QC
Dirty WET:
17:18 Amp
17:28 Kemper
17:37 QC
17:46 Amp
17:55 Kemper
18:04 QC
1:14 Amp
1:40 QC
1:27 Kemper
2:03 Amp
2:15 Kemper
2:28 QC
2:42 Amp
Where Tyler buys caps please!!!!!!!
Clean tones hard to tell. Drive tones: Amp wins both Kemper and QC sound less driven. QC sounds nearer Eq wise.
The fact that the QC is being compared to a >10 year old product and it sounds practically the same says something. Like @Tone Junkies said recently, amp modeling has “peaked”.
Definitely some truth to that!
For sure. Also, very interesting that there’s not another unit that does something similar.
True. The new unit, however, si much smaller and much more flexible. It accepts panthom powered mics and it also allows to use more than one profiles at the same time. So, there are improvements on many aspects.
The QC feels better, sounds better. Way better interface etc etc. Amps will always be first but QC is really good.
@Daniel Beyer : that 10 year old product still costs nearly as much as the QC, so it better sound nearly as good...
Question, what kind of bear is best?
That question is irrelevant
Black bear
Any presets for the quad yet?
Yes we have some free presets and captures available in the app. There's a link in the description.
Some places here on the more gainy stuff the Kemper does not sound good at all.
FIRST!
I guess I’m second 🤷🏻♂️
If you ain’t first, you’re last!
Yes
I used Quard Cortex and now its sound. It sounds boring.
I am going to pick the Fractal Audio product every time.
Brian here - yeah I’m a pretty die hard Fractal user myself.
This comparison makes no sense to me. That's not the way profilers are designed. You can't take an XX profile then put analog pedals in front of it and hope they respond like the real amp! Profiling is a static photograph of the amp. Putting pedals in front of it causes the real amp to behave differently according to the rules of physics. Kemper & QC cannot "predict" the behavior of the amp if the type of input stress changes. The algorithm can let's say "try to guess" but it doesn't have certain and measurable elements to work with, they should probably equip the profilers with artificial intelligence for this purpose (QC is probably later on this). In other words, if pedals are used, the profile of the Kemper must surely be redone to take into account the dynamic behavior triggered by the real amp as a result of a variation in the input signal. From this point of view, the modeler is the solution which, unlike a profiler, is made with mathematical models that represent the response of the modeled amp to any type of solicitation. This also makes us understand how much more complex it is to create a truly realistic modeler than a profiler who only takes static photos. Also for this reason, with today's technology, it seems that the modeler always behaves differently from the real amp. The technology is not yet evolved enough.
Thanks for watching! Actually - that is exactly what the Kemper and Quad Cortex are trying to do. When you capture and profile an amp, those units send a huge range of signals through the amp at all different volumes/amplitudes in an effort to understand how the amp will respond to almost anything that you throw into it. It's why the captures/profiles react almost exactly like the amp does when you hit them with gain and other types of pedals.
The point of the profiling/capturing process is not only to make something that sounds just like the amp at the given settings you've dialed in, but also something that reacts, responds, and feels just like the amp when you use it with your rig.
@@wttone I agree, but up to a point. OK the profiling process sends quite a few signals to understand the behavior of the amp, but it's impossible to predict them all. I mean it's one thing to enter with a guitar that in the end gives a clean signal that can vary in volume and equalization at least in 90% of the cases. Quite the opposite is to enter with a booster that raises the signal to excess, or worse a fuzz that produces infinite and unpredictable harmonics and moreover therefore in a non-linear regime. It works, maybe better or worse but not the same, that's what I say. If you want to make sure that a profile responds as realistically as possible to the real amp, then profile the amp with the tube screamer already connected to the amp during the profiling. I'm sure it will be more difficult to tell them apart at that point.
@@wttone If that's the point, then it's no wonder there are differences. I'm just saying that if we really want to try to get the same result with stomps, the profile must be redone with stomps in chain during profiling...
No AxeFx? The disrespect...
Axe-FX III cannot create a capture/profile of an amp from scratch like QC and Kemper can, so we would put it in a different category. The Tyler HM30 and the Tyler 10-12 cabinet doesn't exist in Axe-FX, so this comparison wouldn't have worked.
It can, however, do Tone Match, and we are planning to do a Line 6/Fractal Tone Match preset vs amp video similar to this one in the future.
Not really the point of this one. QC and Kemper are, to us, more similar in that they have a very specific tech meant for capturing an amp. While Fractal does have Tone Match it's pretty different.
Fair
Third!
I'll make this simple:
Tube Amp > Profiler > 0's and 1's
Love the cork sniffing nerdery 🎧🤓. Everyone knows the angels in heaven only play real botique amps. Digital is a 2nd rate quality trap from the enemy to degrade our worship to God 😳.
Joking aside I use/have digital gear (iridium, Kemper) I use but only when I have to. It’s good enough that probably not noticeable in a mix but I can tell a big difference in playing. Enough of one to personally pay 💰 for it…