Digital Modelers

[devastone]

The 1000 has new models, new "AIRD" models, the 500 series effects, etc... But yes, the same basic UI. I do major editing on the computer, or you can bluetooth with your phone.

The way I see it, programming is programming, gotta be done one way or another.

Good luck with it, I wasn't trying to talk you into it, just saying that it is in fact a step up from the 100. Of course, you already seem to have a lot of pre-determinations, so hope if works for you.

 

[Top-L]

The 1000 has new models, new "AIRD" models, the 500 series effects, etc... But yes, the same basic UI. I do major editing on the computer, or you can bluetooth with your phone.

The way I see it, programming is programming, gotta be done one way or another.

Good luck with it, I wasn't trying to talk you into it, just saying that it is in fact a step up from the 100. Of course, you already seem to have a lot of pre-determinations, so hope if works for you.

I've played it for a few hours now. I'm 90% certain I won't be keeping it, mostly because whatever marginal improvement in sound quality is not worth the extra headache imposed by the UI. When it comes down to it, all the icons and text on the screen are about 50% smaller than on the GT100. They crammed more information on the display, but made everything smaller to do so. Which means I can't read them unless I'm right on top of it. With the 100, you can see what everything is from a distance.

I haven't tried all the reverb/delays /acoustic sim, and I'm certain those are ALL BETTER than the GT100. It can switch a 3 channel amp (the GT100 can only switch two channels). It has FX spillover. It has many more EQ blocks and flex blocks. It has an extra set of dividers. This has enough power to build some really complicated effect chains. It can load IRs.

What I've been focusing on is the amp models and the underlying modeling tech. That is what is important to me. Everyone on TGP was raving about how they "dumped COSM" and how the amp modeling is so much better.

I am pretty sure I know what the "AIRD" technology is. In the GT100, buried in one of the flex blocks is a "Tone Modify" block. Within that block there are three resonance processors. Resonance1, Resonance2, Resonance3. They allow you to adjust overall resonance, low, and presence. (I always have this turned on in my patches.)

The GT1000 AIRD amp, they included a resonance control in the amps themselves. And when you play them, they have more low extension and thump than you get by default in the GT100.

There is a sag control, from what I can tell this is identical to the T-comp in the GT100.

I'm going to say it, the underlying amp modeling tech is COSM, its virtually identical to the amp models in the GT100. (Given that they dropped/renamed/shuffled models to obfuscate this.) The X-Mod amplifier, in fact all of the X amps sound like variations of the Powerdrive model with various resonance processors.

I'm not detecting any improved touch sensitivity or dynamics in the amp models themselves. I'm not saying they aren't marginally better, and I haven't played with them enough to know them inside out, but I'm not getting sounds that are better than what I have dialed in on the 100.

I would say that they are much easier to dial in for metal as they have a good degree of cabinet thump by default.

What they did was integrated the resonance processor into the amps themselves, and I presume that effect is also modified depending on what kind of playback medium you choose.

Anyway, for someone who wants to be a mad scientist and devise complicated chains, or who wants the 500 series effects, or a smaller footprint, this would be a great upgrade. For me, I care about the amp modeling and the user interface. The GT1000 is rebadged COSM modeling and the UI is very similar except everything on screen is much smaller.

 

[Top-L]

Gotcha. I haven't kept up with their evolution. Boss was never known for their UI over the years, even if they had some cool stuff now and then.

What do you mean? Prior to the Helix, the GT series had the best UI for a couple decades.

 

[Top-L]

Its already back in the box. Will be gone soon. I liked the G11 much more than this.

The reason the GT1000 interface is worse than the GT100, when you select an effect block for editing, the first page is the "select" page. If you want to edit the effects, you have to page over to the editing pages. On the 100, there are more decoders. The effect select is dedicated to decoders on the left, when you go to edit an effect, you have immediate access to the parameters. On the 1000, afaict, whenever you want to edit an effect, you dont get direct access to the parameters without using the "page" buttons.

This thing is a clunker.

 

[devastone]

Good luck with your search.

 

[Top-L]

Good luck with your search.

Its gone! I've never returned something so fast.

I'm not getting a Helix. Only one left is Fractal. I'll either keep what I have or get an FM3.

Or get another G11. It was brilliant being able to touch the IR block, get a scrolling menu and just touch the IR you want.

 

[devastone]

Yeah, I definitely wouldn't use the GT if I was going to do all the editing on the unit.

I wouldn't expect the Fractal to be any easier to edit, but I could be wrong, happens all the time.

 

[Bogner]

Its already back in the box. Will be gone soon. I liked the G11 much more than this.

The reason the GT1000 interface is worse than the GT100, when you select an effect block for editing, the first page is the "select" page. If you want to edit the effects, you have to page over to the editing pages. On the 100, there are more decoders. The effect select is dedicated to decoders on the left, when you go to edit an effect, you have immediate access to the parameters. On the 1000, afaict, whenever you want to edit an effect, you dont get direct access to the parameters without using the "page" buttons.

This thing is a clunker.

Sounds like the Boss stuff put you through the ringer. Tough trying to fit a square peg into a round hole sometimes although it can be done.

 

[Gtrjunior]

Are you interested at all in the Kemper or Quad Cortex?
Top-L

 

[Top-L]

Sounds like the Boss stuff put you through the ringer. Tough trying to fit a square peg into a round hole sometimes although it can be done.

Its like an old gf you found out was cheating on you so you called off the engagement.

Years later she tells you she has "changed" so you take her out to dinner and she's flirting with the waiter. No thanks.

The GT100 was rough around the edges, but the GT1000 packs even more stuff and the rough spots become pain points. No thanks. Life is too short to invest time in that.

 

[Top-L]

Are you interested at all in the Kemper or Quad Cortex?
Top-L

Not the Kemper. The QC yes, but only after its been in the wild and has all the bugs worked out. So maybe a couple years?

Also interested in the Headrush, but its too big to fit on the music stand.

At this point, I'm thinking another G11 to tide me over next couple years. Or maybe even a G6. It did sound good and was fun to use even though it was limited.

 

[Gtrjunior]

Not the Kemper. The QC yes, but only after its been in the wild and has all the bugs worked out. So maybe a couple years?

Also interested in the Headrush, but its too big to fit on the music stand.

At this point, I'm thinking another G11 to tide me over next couple years. Or maybe even a G6. It did sound good and was fun to use even though it was limited.

Why not the Kemper? Is it the lack of a touchscreen?
Are you a gigging player? For me the QC’s form is all wrong for gigging. It looks poorly thought out as far as trying to step on the switches. They are too close together.

But if you’re a home player/recorder I can see how the smaller footprint is appealing.
But essentially they do the same thing. The QC does have adore powerful processor but I’m not convinced that it’s THAT much better in terms of making guitar sounds.

 

[Top-L]

Why not the Kemper? Is it the lack of a touchscreen?
Are you a gigging player? For me the QC’s form is all wrong for gigging. It looks poorly thought out as far as trying to step on the switches. They are too close together.

But if you’re a home player/recorder I can see how the smaller footprint is appealing.
But essentially they do the same thing. The QC does have adore powerful processor but I’m not convinced that it’s THAT much better in terms of making guitar sounds.

From my perspective, the problem with the Kemper is that it is profile based. You collect profiles until you find what you are looking for. Thats not a game I want to be in when I know exactly how to get the sounds I want with parametric EQ and IRs.

The Kemper's ability to tweak EQ and apply a broad pallete of effects is limited compared to something like a Fractal. When you turn the EQ and gain knobs, what you end up with is very different than the real amp.

Let me give you an example which is a problem with the Kemper. Lets say you want a Cliffs of Dover sound. The Kemper is only able to profile the amp/speaker, but not any of the other effects used, which may drastically affect the tone. For instance, if a flanger was used, you can't profile with the flanger, yet it may have greatly changed the Eq curve. So even if you had EJs rig and were able to profile it, that doesnt get you any closer to the actual COD sound unless you have everything else of his (guitar, pedals, room, etc.) Which sadly in the Kemper, the other effects are rather limited compared to a Fractal or Boss.

So if someone creates a Cliffs profile, it will involve alot of manual programming after the capture, and because the Kemper's effects are limited compared to Fractal, the end result is not likely to be as good. If you are trying to recreate a signature studio sound, you want a large collection of detailed and accurate tools that interact properly. Modelers excel at this. Its not what profilers are made to do.

The Quad Cortex seems to have at least an equal emphasis on modeling as it does profiling. It has a touch screen. Its small enough to fit on my music stand on my desk. I play at home. The pedal spacing is not something that concerns me. While it is narrower than other processors, the switch spacing is nearly identical to the GT1000. The switches go all the way to the edge and there is no expression pedal.

The Kemper is also old tech. While EQ matching gets it very close, that is not to say the underlying modeling is as good as a more contemporary device. I would caution you against getting a Kemper. If the size of the QC is the main reason to disqualify it, then so be it, but it has a higher ceiling than the Kemper at this point.

 

[Demanic]

It seems like it would make more sense if someone were to design a system that basically worked as a conventional petal board with some basic local parameter controls. Then having any deeper editing available if you plug into or sync with a laptop, desktop, tablet or phone. That way if you are using the system live, you can tweak it in a limited, but intuitive way after you spend time setting up the more complicated signal paths.
Or is there something available that already does this?

Sent from my SM-A115A using Tapatalk

 

[Top-L]

It seems like it would make more sense if someone were to design a system that basically worked as a conventional petal board with some basic local parameter controls. Then having any deeper editing available if you plug into or sync with a laptop, desktop, tablet or phone. That way if you are using the system live, you can tweak it in a limited, but intuitive way after you spend time setting up the more complicated signal paths.
Or is there something available that already does this?

Sent from my SM-A115A using Tapatalk

That was kinda what the Zoom G11 does, although it doesnt have all the deep parameters and routing of a Helix or Fractal. Its perfectly easy to use, but if you want to (say) set the HPF for your plate reverb you are SOL.

The Katana does exactly what you describe.

 

[PFDarkside]

Are you interested at all in the Kemper or Quad Cortex?

Have you seen any of the Leon Todd Axe FX III demos? Holy crap, he makes it sound phenomenal. The cleanish Fenders and JTM45/Plexis sound like what I’ve always missed in modelers.

 

[Top-L]

Have you seen any of the Leon Todd Axe FX III demos? Holy crap, he makes it sound phenomenal. The cleanish Fenders and JTM45/Plexis sound like what I’ve always missed in modelers.

I spend alot of time watching his videos and using EQ to match how he sets up his tones.

I've found that to get that fat mid forward tone, I boost peaks at 800Hz 0.5q (quite a bit) and 2.5KHz 0.5q (a good bit). Then of course use a LPF to round off the highs.

 

[Mincer]

Have you seen any of the Leon Todd Axe FX III demos? Holy crap, he makes it sound phenomenal. The cleanish Fenders and JTM45/Plexis sound like what I’ve always missed in modelers.

He is a good teacher, and good video editor, too. His sounds aren't anything close to what I would use, but it is still interesting to watch- I always learn something.

 

[Gtrjunior]

From my perspective, the problem with the Kemper is that it is profile based. You collect profiles until you find what you are looking for. Thats not a game I want to be in when I know exactly how to get the sounds I want with parametric EQ and IRs.

The Kemper's ability to tweak EQ and apply a broad pallete of effects is limited compared to something like a Fractal. When you turn the EQ and gain knobs, what you end up with is very different than the real amp.

Let me give you an example which is a problem with the Kemper. Lets say you want a Cliffs of Dover sound. The Kemper is only able to profile the amp/speaker, but not any of the other effects used, which may drastically affect the tone. For instance, if a flanger was used, you can't profile with the flanger, yet it may have greatly changed the Eq curve. So even if you had EJs rig and were able to profile it, that doesnt get you any closer to the actual COD sound unless you have everything else of his (guitar, pedals, room, etc.) Which sadly in the Kemper, the other effects are rather limited compared to a Fractal or Boss.

So if someone creates a Cliffs profile, it will involve alot of manual programming after the capture, and because the Kemper's effects are limited compared to Fractal, the end result is not likely to be as good. If you are trying to recreate a signature studio sound, you want a large collection of detailed and accurate tools that interact properly. Modelers excel at this. Its not what profilers are made to do.

The Quad Cortex seems to have at least an equal emphasis on modeling as it does profiling. It has a touch screen. Its small enough to fit on my music stand on my desk. I play at home. The pedal spacing is not something that concerns me. While it is narrower than other processors, the switch spacing is nearly identical to the GT1000. The switches go all the way to the edge and there is no expression pedal.

The Kemper is also old tech. While EQ matching gets it very close, that is not to say the underlying modeling is as good as a more contemporary device. I would caution you against getting a Kemper. If the size of the QC is the main reason to disqualify it, then so be it, but it has a higher ceiling than the Kemper at this point.

I think the things that you don’t like in the Kemper are exactly what appeals to me with the unit.
So first off....the QC, Kemper and AxeFX ALL sound great, no doubt.
But I took the AxeFX off of my list because of the endless tweak-ability. Tbh, I don’t even know what half of those parameters mean or do. I sat down last night with the AA12 to review this weeks church songs and I spent an hour trying to dial in tones....I just can’t deal with that. That was just the AA12. The AxeFX is even deeper from what I can tell.
Also, I don’t like that as Fractal keeps putting out more and newer versions, the older ones are being left behind. They aren’t supported in terms of firmware updates or additions to what they offer.
While the Kemper, at 10 years old now is still their flagship unit.
I understand that the qc has more processing power but I am not convinced that, that necessarily means better guitar sounds at this point.
I’m typically not someone that will be running several rigs simultaneously or any type of unusual routing etc...so that’s not really a deal breaker with the Kemper for me.
The QC, hasn’t been released yet and as such (as you stated) hasn’t really been put through its paces in the real world. So it’s roadworthiness is an unknown at this point.

As far as the FX in these units I’m sure the AxeFX and probably the QC have deeper editing capabilities but of all the Kemper vids I’ve seen it’s not like the Kemper can’t make all of those sounds as well as the other 2. Again, for me I need reverb and delay. And on occasion chorus an possibly a few other mod effects once in a great while. And also, if I have to scroll through menus where I have no idea what the parameters mean, that’s a big turnoff for me.
I need a unit that can dial up great sounds fairly quickly and not bog me down with editing for an hour just to get a distorted rhythm guitar tone.

Just my thoughts on the top units

Edit:
Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t believe either the Kemper or the QC allows you to profile/capture a time based effect (reverb, delay or even mod fx)

 

[Gtrjunior]

Have you seen any of the Leon Todd Axe FX III demos? Holy crap, he makes it sound phenomenal. The cleanish Fenders and JTM45/Plexis sound like what I’ve always missed in modelers.

I’ve watched a lot of his videos, mostly about the AA12 but I have seen some others as well.
He really knows how to get around these parameters and I have followed along with him while tweaking some of my settings. I’ve even written some down as a reference “cheat sheet”.
I could watch Leon play for hours...that big smile he has when he’s playing is infectious.