@@martingerrardxguitar DSP in general, it sounds sort of ok with youtube compression but as soon as you do a comparison in person, DSP never holds up. Even if you had perfect conversion and zero latency, both of which are impossible, the DSP itself is limited by the programmer and the sample rate, which is always too low because it would be too expensive to have more processing power. Even Kempers have this issue. Distortion hides the failures of DSP, which is why so many heavy bands use stuff like this.
@@D1570R73D Thank you very much for this detailed answer. I regard 48 kHz with a nyquist of 24 kHz as quite sufficient samplerate because I can't hear supersonic frequencies. The fear of "a sample rate not high enough" stems from the times when different converter tech was used, there is no need for 96/192/384 kHz ever since DeltaSigma conversion was introduced. I owned & played a Kemper for a while, from a processing point, it's pretty much outdated. Zero latency does not even exist on a "real amp" (measured). I do agree that a "real tube amp" "lives" more because of tube imperfections and analog component tolerances. From all things I played and owned (Helix, Kemper, AxeFX III), the Quad Cortex gives me the best impression of a "real tube amp" so far.
@@martingerrardxguitar No amount of conversion math can make up for a bad sample rate, it can only smooth over what was lost. The result might have high-resolution detail, but inadequate fidelity. I only brought up zero latency because so many DSP manufacturers advertise it as such. It's not about an amp "living", that's not a real metric. Digital processing just can't reproduce the real thing. It's good enough to hide in a mix which is why it's popular, but the guitarists known for having good tone all use traditional amps. Even people casually trying out gear like the guys at Andertons pick out the differences all the time.
@@D1570R73DI just saw this. Really the Anderton’s guys picked out the real amp? Not. They were wrong most of the time. Only after many tries and several video attempts did they start to get a few right. It’s amps first for me but the quad is closest feeling and sounding to an amp. It’s not an amp so it will never be an actual amp. But the digital train has started and it’s doubtful it can be stopped. I still use my amps and pedals 95% or more of the time but you never played the quad so your account of at least how it feels and Utube doesn’t come across accurately re sound your opinion doesn’t mean much does it?!!!! The quad does do captures pretty dam good.
sounds great, have you shared it?
Oh god when will youtube stop recommending DSP crap to me.
Neural DSP crap or DSP crap in general? ;)
@@martingerrardxguitar DSP in general, it sounds sort of ok with youtube compression but as soon as you do a comparison in person, DSP never holds up.
Even if you had perfect conversion and zero latency, both of which are impossible, the DSP itself is limited by the programmer and the sample rate, which is always too low because it would be too expensive to have more processing power. Even Kempers have this issue.
Distortion hides the failures of DSP, which is why so many heavy bands use stuff like this.
@@D1570R73D Thank you very much for this detailed answer. I regard 48 kHz with a nyquist of 24 kHz as quite sufficient samplerate because I can't hear supersonic frequencies. The fear of "a sample rate not high enough" stems from the times when different converter tech was used, there is no need for 96/192/384 kHz ever since DeltaSigma conversion was introduced.
I owned & played a Kemper for a while, from a processing point, it's pretty much outdated.
Zero latency does not even exist on a "real amp" (measured). I do agree that a "real tube amp" "lives" more because of tube imperfections and analog component tolerances.
From all things I played and owned (Helix, Kemper, AxeFX III), the Quad Cortex gives me the best impression of a "real tube amp" so far.
@@martingerrardxguitar No amount of conversion math can make up for a bad sample rate, it can only smooth over what was lost. The result might have high-resolution detail, but inadequate fidelity.
I only brought up zero latency because so many DSP manufacturers advertise it as such.
It's not about an amp "living", that's not a real metric. Digital processing just can't reproduce the real thing. It's good enough to hide in a mix which is why it's popular, but the guitarists known for having good tone all use traditional amps.
Even people casually trying out gear like the guys at Andertons pick out the differences all the time.
@@D1570R73DI just saw this. Really the Anderton’s guys picked out the real amp? Not. They were wrong most of the time. Only after many tries and several video attempts did they start to get a few right. It’s amps first for me but the quad is closest feeling and sounding to an amp. It’s not an amp so it will never be an actual amp. But the digital train has started and it’s doubtful it can be stopped. I still use my amps and pedals 95% or more of the time but you never played the quad so your account of at least how it feels and Utube doesn’t come across accurately re sound your opinion doesn’t mean much does it?!!!! The quad does do captures pretty dam good.