The level of pedantry we have reached is concerning. If one randomly switched between these four in a song, 99.999999% of people would never notice. We should all pick one and then just do two things: practice hard and then live life so that we have real things to express with our skills and crazy good gear.
It’s because of this level of scrutiny that we have the luxury of such high quality tools. So be grateful people didn’t just say “okay, the pod is good enough”
ToneX is the winner of all. This week at the store we tested 78 amps and amps+cabs and compared with kemper captures made in exact same conditions. We had the QC for only 2 hours so we could only make 3 amps (we had to wait for ToneX to do its own advanced training captures between each one :( In ALL amps cases and cabs ToneX was the clear winner. We also liked the QC more than my own previous experience, but with less good results on low gains complex rigs (when using fuzz vintage pedals I front of Vox AC30) So my new ranking is ToneX>Quad Cortex>>Kemper We don’t know about the rigs of Thu but had some thoughts from a famous RU-vidr who told me he lost all the bottom end and had harsh highs compared to real amp.
At the end of the day, I guess the ToneX avantage compared to floor units must be access to GPUs for the training part? If you use the advanced of course
@@Fanafranky yes after asking to many dudes who studied ai and neural networks the quality of the neural network is essential (that’s what ToneX is very good at!) AND the training of course. So big advantage to use Apple M1/2 processors (have dedicated power for that) and the best are cuda from nvidia
@@notalkguitarampplug-insrev784 which is why I was ultimately disapointed in Ola Englund's review, who just ran the basic training and called it a day 😅
Everyone claiming they can hear differences over RU-vid audio, which will definitely not be the same as the source. Reality is if this were a blind test in person no one would be able to pick out the Tonex or the Kemper or the QC and probably not the real amp. Everyone can hear a difference when they know which one is which, but when playing blind back to back to back, it’s all down to guessing. There’s no discernible difference between these recorded tones. Pick the device that works best for you and go with it. All of these devices are excellent as is the Fractal stuff and Helix and even some of the more affordable modelers. It’s a great time for guitarists! Thanks for doing the video! This was an excellent comparison, probably the best one I’ve seen to date.
What you describe is the industry standard, “blind” test and it can be noticeably improved even further when the switcher doesn’t even know which is which without looking. That is called “double blind”. I’ve been involved in many shootouts for Grammy Academy members. I would tend to disagree with you about a listener’s ability to hear minute differences. As Grammy winners, all those involved have well trained ears. Some could never be fooled, some could, in tests a layman would wonder what we were even talking about. Your inability to hear these minuscule changes is no putdown of your abilities at all. After all, the brain does the actual hearing, not the ears, and you may not be predisposed to this sort of testing. But I’d suggest you refrain from calling BS on the whole test. Many can hear such things with 100% success. I am one of those.
@@artysanmobile Show us one blind test with the modern modelers where someone is getting even as good as 50/50. Ive not seen one and I dont think we will ever see the "experts" on video in blind tests because they cant hocus pocus and baffle you with BS.
I have tried all modelers. The Tonex is the one for me so far. It gets the feel right, which is most important to me. In a busy metal mix, most sounds work, but for playing, feel is everything. Now we just need a physical box we can put tonex into and real amps are gone for me atleast.
@@johnosstreeter not rugged? You would barely find any life performance of any band where there is no Mac involved. I'd even go so far as to say that tonex on a decent ios device with an interface like the xtone (no pun intended) is the way to go.
A Physical box would be severely underpowered and ridiculously expensive considering you can buy 16 threaded RYZEN laptops with 16gb RAM these days for less than $900. Heck you can even buy 12 threaded ACER Ryzen for $500 that's more than sufficient to run Tonex. I don't know if IK Multimedia can pull a physical box without sacrificing performance, they will start from scratch incorporating these chips and transistors, in my experience youll need at least 8 threads and 12 gigs RAM to run it smoothly
@@nethbt It would not be about power or price for me, more about trowing it in my bag like a helix stomp og quad cortex. A laptop is a bit more vulnerable. These boxes exist for a reason.
The “null test” is routinely used with audio hardware and software. Time aligned speaker crossovers can be set accurately using this. It is simple and highly functional. A great tool we all have.
Excellent comparison and use of the Null Test. This shows how the fast technology of Tone Matching/Profiling has already advanced, and each of these companies have made important contributions in this field. Congrats ToneX for getting so impressively close to the original Amp. 👍
Excellent? The null test has no sense on the Kemper and it's like comparing apples and oranges. I have very precise, concrete and physical reasons to say this.
@@picksalot1 when you ace a null test, it's absolutely good: it means that your profiler's behavior exactly matches what you're trying to profile. But NOT acing the null test though doesn't mean necessarily a bad profiling; you can have two sounds with a perfectly identical timbre, yet with a completely different phase relationship. Subtracting those two signals will not yield a zero sum, yet it is not an indication of a bad profile.
@@Cranio76 I've seen the Null Test primarily used to determine the "precision" of the captured single as compared to another. By doing that, the discrepancies indicate where one could hear tonal differences. Whether or not the profile is good or bad is a different matter. Thanks for your comments.
@@picksalot1 but not really: acing a null test means a lot of "precision", yes, but this also translates easily to the fact that the modeling is exceptionally good. What I am pointing out is that a bad null test doesn't necessarily mean that the profile isn't faithful. And with Kemper in particular, it should not be used to assess how well Kemper profiles.
They may just have to. ToneX isn't the only challenger: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-9WFmDx-EM4k.html and GuitarML are slowly gaining traction
intresting test. your null test is a good idea. I think your align is not correct because hear too much diffrence. maybe best is do with all sims shift the phase with delay so get fewest diffrence hearable. your test are very detailed. if you have a real cabinet there is even more diffrence because real cabinet itself do lots distortion at low notes and at high freq. this can not capture with an IR . at 70 hz get around 5% and at 60 hz 12% . this let sound real cabinet fuller even when you reduce low freq to sit in mix. with the ozone multiband exciter can fake such distortion . then i think nobody can hear diffrence
@@user-lw9py read in a previous comment how he shows what software he used to this. It's all correct, the kemper just lacks in the mids so that's why the difference is more noticeable
Now we need the T-racks version of ToneX so we can model analog EQ's and compressors so I can use more than 2 channels of my Studer 900 EQs or more than 1 of some of the very ancient gear I have!!
Since I had ToneX I don’t use anymore my kemper. I also have the AxefxIII Turbo but I play it a lot because of stellar effects. ToneX is the first one that could give me the exact feel of my SLO and my MesaJP. It has the balls and natural feels of those. But I mostly use my own captures, all in advanced mode. It also is a way better for the amp+cab+mic. The way it react is just perfect. You should try! BTW maybe kemper will make an update with Neural engine machine learning magic, but I doubt the very old DSP of the kemper could handle it… kemper has already tremendous amounts of aliasing with high gains amps :(
The Kemper is stll an awesome piece of gear. It has been polished by over a decade of development. It sounds good. It has way more versatility live and has great effects. Id bet that you could easily tweak the kemper capture a little to match the amp better too but Most people couldnt tell you the difference between any of them in a mix. I have a kemper , QC, and an fm9 . They all have advantages and disadvantages.
@bobdillon1138 sounds like your describing a tube amp...ancient tech... As far as Kemper goes, mine has never broke in over a decade.. Those that I've heard of having a problem were repaired for very little
It's interesting how different the Tonex waveform looks. Could that be caused by the signal to noise ratio? It looks to be less compressed, but the null test results prove how similar they are... Just something I noticed. Also, I laughed during the pause after the Tonex null test. I love the math video effect. Good stuff!
The null test is very cool. I've done that with tracks of my own historically but had not thought to use it for this purpose. It would have been cool (still would be) for you to demo the complete silence when comparing the actual amp to itself.. just so folks could hear that it completely cancels when the match is perfect.
Strong work with the video. Tonex the clear winner for a lot less money. Choice is a no brainer. Always noticed the things you said about the kemper live and in a mix. Never owned a quad cortex. Might have to get the Tonex to capture my arsenal of amps.
But when you factor in the costs for a new PC (unless you already have a heavy hitter PC) the costs for making captures (as quick as QC) is substantially higher IMO but Tonex is a phenomenal piece of software that will only get more efficient with capture times etc.
@@AndGuitar I mean, you can get more than serious bang for your buck nowadays. A pc laptop that is record capable plus Tonex is WAY cheaper, and it’s not even close.
Great test! Thank you!! For phase cancelation reference it would be interesting to add a comparison with a second reamp of the real amp for the null test. :) Love your ToneX captures by the way, it sounds absolutely crushing! 🤘🤘
Great video! Thanks for doing the work. I’ve had my Tonex for a couple days and I’m impressed. BTW, when doing a null test, I suggest fine tuning the levels for best nulling. With the quad and Kemper, you could hear mostly weird artifacts, but with the Tonex, I heard more of a weak version of the track. I bet if you adjusted the levels by tenths of a db, some of that might have gone away and you would hear something different at the closest level match.
Fantastic video Mendel, thanks so much for taking the time to make it! I have to say, you’ve made me consider selling my Kemper! Do you think the results would be similar with clean tones (like a Fender Twin or Vox AC30 for example)? Great work man! Cheers, Dom
I bet they well, I'm def selling my Kemper: Just keeping the Quad Cortex for outside gear and have a lot of special tones on it: So Kemper can say goodbye. I def think the clean tones would work as well since the advanced mode (which takes 1,3 hrs to make with the Neural Engine) is mainly for High Gain tones. So clean tones are " easier" to get right.
How come the sound file image in Cubase is so different for the Tonex and all the other tracks they look similar ? Yes they all sounded extremely similar but the image representation in Cubase for the Tonex was drastically different. I'm not saying you did anything wrong but it sure makes me unsure of what's going on.
I did something similar (without the phase flip--caleld it the "mono test". I hard-panned the source & model L/R; if they're close, you hear mono.) But honestly, I like this video's null test better and I'll probably use it in the future. Here's the mono test comparing TONEX to NAM, an open-sourced modeler I made (which is even more accurate than TONEX): ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-AcTtsNlXnJ0.html
4:21 Try to bring up the lack of low-mids in the official Kemper forums. I was a member and brought this problem up again and again, and dear lawrd, the other members defended the thing to death. I profiled many amps, and they blamed ME for "bad profiling". I will re-join the forums and laugh in their face once the Kemper 2 with better profiling comes out.
LOL I know exactly how that Kemper forum works, it's fanboi central The 'cocked wah' mid problem is denied even when it's a thing on other sites I'm only using the Kemper for fx now, amalgam audio caps ftw
Quanto a opinião dele e o som, vou pelo som. E tá tudo igual embora tenha um gráfico ali. basicamente não percebi nada no monitor de áudio para diferencia los. Seria impossível dizer quem é quem, em um texte as cegas. TONEX chegou para fazer os outros repensarem seus produtos e preços. Espero ter a oportunidade de compra lo um dia. Vídeo excelente!
Realmente mudou o jogo. Superior ao Kemper e Fractal à um preço imbatível, sem falar no tamanho. Alguns podem até argumentar que o ToneX chegou nos 99,5% de proximidade com valvulados, mas tenham em mente que daqui pra frente a tendência é chegar cada vez mais e mais próximo dos 100% e em tamanho PEQUENO e preço justo. Agora é só investir em ótimos monitores de áudio e tá resolvida essa briga pra sempre. Que época boa para os músicos! E que ruim para os gatekeepers haha
Nice video, man. You convinced me to buy ToneX. By the way, I think it's funny that people are finally coming around to the idea that the Kemper has something slightly off in the mids. It ALWAYS sounded like this to me. The way you described it nailed it, IMO. Lacking low mids and an emphasis on the high mids. Feels a little more dry than the real thing. I pointed this out way back in the day on the Andy Sneap forum when the Kemper first came out and Sneap started using it. Everyone was saying it sounds exactly the same and didn't want to hear it. lol. That said, I do still own the Kemper and you can great sounds out of it if you compensate for the differences. Also, a lot of the low mids/high mids quirks of it aren't all that noticeable in a full mix. It's more noticeable to the player and in isolation. So, I'm definitely not saying the Kemper sounds bad. It's cool that it has more competition nowadays! However, the best of the best experience, IMO, is running into your real amp with something like a Suhr Reactive Load, and then running into cab IRs. You get the convenience and flexibility of using IRs with the glorious feel of a real amp. I did buy the ToneX though. Maybe, I'll change my mind after I get a chance to make some profiles with it.
I tried talking abut the lowmids issue on the Kemper forums when I owned one. You will be chased out with torches and pitchforks. The Kemper fanboys are just comically zealous about their product.
If they put Tonex into an enclosure and started charging 2000 euros for it I think the guitar world would eat it up. As it stands now Tonex simply lacks the saturation in the price tag. Tonex even comes with a free demo, disgusting.
I found Tonex SE for $49 on Thomann, I feel like I robbed someone. I was watching when Buster Douglas beat Mike Tyson, and now I am here for this lol Really cool test.
That was fantastic. As a player who never plays out and has a gaming rig already, I think the Tonex is my choice. It's less expensive and I don't need a physical device that I can take to gigs with my amps on it. This was great. Cheers.
Tonex sounds remarkable. I wish I had amps to capture....currently its very difficult for me to navigate the user profiles as there is no search function. I also really like Tonehub by STL Tones and wish they made their own unit and capturing software.
I mean we’re talking real nerdy stuff here, any of these sound pretty good. The Kemper sounded too tight in the lower mids for me so that low mid girth got lost unfortunately On the quad cortex I agree that there is a lack of low end, but then I thought… the sublows und most of the lows get filtered out in a mix, so does it really matter that it’s missing? Nice video as always dude!
Am I the only one hearing the volume drop with the QC capture vs. the real amp? You need to spend a little more time fine tuning the volume matching. I feel like the QC would sound closer in every part of that guitar performance, if the volume was matched. Louder always sounds better.
Great video! Curious as to what OS version was on your Kemper? I have found that different OS versions sound pretty different. The ones from the last 12 months or so seem to sound a bit darker when creating profiles.
I've seen you around RU-vid before, happy to have stumpled upon your channel just now. Really well done comparison, thank you for instant switching. Even with trained ears it's kinda hard to remember the sound with breaks in between. Did not expect the ToneX to be so good, nice surprise!
the real amp has the right compression, I dont know why every software solution has an issue with that. they sound very close, but lack that depth of the real poweramp sag/compression which is what makes the real amps worth using in my opinion. the sims are nice but sound noticeably flatter and smaller consequently. I know its an unpopular opinion, but the hw really sits better in the mix, its present yet natural and nothing is oddly poking out
@mendel bij de Leij, First of all almost every amp simulator are great simulating high gain even the cheap ones so this a bad comparison because it doesn't cover the full spectrum of amps. where simulator usually fail is at recreating fuzz or tweed like amp and like fender, Silverstone, vox, supro, sunn or ampeg. How about testing those type of amps and pedals.
How would the Fractal FM3 rank? I have a QC that won't power on so I got a FM3 which I think is nowhere near the QC. The feel is off. Seems like ToneX is best? The QC kills the FM3 in my opinion. What do you all think about the FM3 vs. QC and ToneX?
I own a Kemper and foot switch and exp pedal but its had so many hires lately from the local backline company I am gonna buy a ToneX for at home and he can hold onto my Kemper during the busy season, haha
Always(!!!) remember, when comparing against the Kemper, you're 99.999% comparing against a (snapshop) profile. What does this mean here?... --> if you don't like 'The Kemper', it's NOT the Kemper - get another profile !!!
So many testers out there making shootouts of profilers... And forgetting to include Mooer's GE Labs and multifx units that allow to profile for free and use that profiles on iPhones or pedals from 150€ (Preamp X2) to 600€ (GE300). A little suspicious... Isn't it?
I think it's very crucial that the levels of the signals are matched as close as possible. I think the variation in loudness makes it harder to tell the differences. Great video though, much appreciated!
I’ve tried to love the QC, and I while I do love gui and it’s capability, the sound quality IS not close on a quality monitor setup. Just add gt1000 core or nux mg fir effects and your set. It’s not close
The main reason I use a Kemper Stage is that it has the right buttons, switching options, and I/O. I have a Quad Cortex and I'd love to use it live, but it's switching is an absolute fucking _joke._ They're so proud of their big, color touch screen, but they ended up making the Fisher-Price of guitar modellers.
Shoulda titled this video “The Definition of Diminishing Returns”. Honestly, y’all get WAY to carried away with micro-analysing gear that is soooo close to the real thing that OCD is becoming an epidemic in this modelling space. I skipped through the video and it would have honestly been the most valuable to watch just the two minutes of the Null Test - that’s where the gold is. But even then, listening to the original tracks without the phase reversed it’s still quite hard telling the difference. So what we have available to us today is light years ahead of what there was 15 years ago or more… Seeing the comparison videos lately has made me more committed to using my time better, avoiding watching much RU-vid at the moment until the Tone X release hype dies down, and I’ll spend my time being more productive actually playing my guitar and making music. I mean, seriously!
Considering guitarists are 80% psychology and 20% reality. Don't look at the screen and don't listen to the commentary, just listen to the audio...and you won't know what the hell you're listening to and what's what!
You need to add the price for a powerful computer to the toneX if you are honest ,and also calculate the extra time profiling costs you. Kemper is fast and if it gets me there 99% I’m totally happy. Also Kemper has the complete package with fx etc. If you spend all the time spent on comparing and profiling with tonex and practice playing instead you will be better off
great great video mendel!!! i really would like to hear a comparison between stl tonehub, tonex, kemper, quad cortex and the real amp (using the same signal chain). unfortunately you cant make your own profiles/captures with stl tonehub if i'm right. having another null test with stl tonehub and all of these contenders would be really nice though. what are your thoughts on ml sound lab plugins? neural dsp etc? btw missing you in aborted. can you pls make a guitar lesson video on how to play Cadaverous Banquet? including the solo(s)? i love this song.
Drop me a mail regarding Cadeverous, regarding amp sims: Yeah indeed wouldn’t make sense since you can’t make profiles with Tonehub so not sure what to Null.
The Tonex sounds like it retains the dynamics better than the others. Yeah, it sounds more dynamic than the amp. Perhaps it's purposely programed to do that to trick people into thinking it's better? Ah, the Kemper and QC sound more "grainy" than the real amp, like the high end is less focused, and more static.
I am Kemper user. Tonex has better,, profiling" I tried make profiles Tonex and result is excellent. I dont need to buy Tonex pedal I can use free version of Tonex. 😂😂😂
For me, on every profile I’ve tried on my ToneX it sounds a bit thin and harsh. I just can’t get on with it. I hated everything I tried on it. I’ve never tried the QC. I quite liked Top Jimi profiles when I had the Kemper - maybe there was something off with the mids, slight cocked way sound. But I liked it. I have the FM3 for years but I am tempted to try the Kemper again. Accurate or not it sounds good. Less harsh and clangy. I also like to have onboard FX. My ToneX One is going on eBay.
People who have paid for a Kemper or the others are going to claim there machines are better. The Kemper is ten year old tech. The null test was fascinating but it's not going to convince who has parted with 2K for hardware. I don't care. I knew the moment I tried it, it was better. It not only sounded better it felt better. IK is a company I do not have a lot of love for based on past products but I had no problem giving them my money 2 hours into the test of the free version.
i work on live gigs and the kemper totally disappears in a dense mix, the lack of presence and definition is shown in the money time, the solos. for gigs nothing beats an amp.
Really good and thorough comparison. I thought the Kemper and QC would have an advantage, being more expensive hardware, but I actually like the Tonex best in these, it did sound a bit more open and "real" in a way than even the real amp sometimes! The null tests just proved that further. I've only tried the free version of Tonex, and wasn't so blown away as to delve deeper into it, so I'm not biased in favor of it haha. In a mix, I think most all the differences would be pretty small and maybe not really important, but it's always good to see improvements being made.
Keep in mind the Kemper is over a decade old at this point. It came out when IK was on what, Amplitube 3? That's three entire generations of software before TONEX, so old in fact that TONEX came out a year after Kemper's profiling patent expired. You'd have to expect that with a full decade of extra development experience and free access to Kemper's patented processes, someone could come out with something that could match it for cheaper.
Yes I totally agree… I was running a plugin amp RU-vid channel before going back to my kempers (had many of them, huge huge fan!) and AxefxIII (mainly for effects and tone shaping) Now after 3 weeks of extensive comparisons (400+ captures vs profiles made in same exact amp+cab+mics) I now 100 sure ToneX is doing a much more accurate in tone and feel than kemper does… it’s very disappointing as I did accept those 5% kemper profiles inaccuracy as something that could never been solved by any newer tech. I was wrong. The worse is that the 5% of inaccuracy were my favorite part of my real amp feel (low end and push feel without artificial compression added) Also the note envelopes and all the nuances of picks attack are a lot better in ToneX captures. Palm muting, chugging, funk clean riffs… more amp like. To me ToneX is the best guitar product of 2022 and probably this decade. Artificial intelligence and neural network training finally got mind blowing results. I’m also very sad for neural DSP who introduced the neural network tech in guitar amp profiling. But they don’t have enough DSP compared to a recent computer to train models and to build the neural network with enough ram memory. Also IK multimedia has completely written the neural engine while neural DSP took a open source model.
Hello Mendel. Great job overall. Let me just ask you if you plan to make a comparison among the same different devices with clean and crunch sounds, first. I do use Amplitube and now ToneX while I use also a Kemper profiler, being satisfied in both cases (and, by the way, I also use Cubase, as well). Second question is just about the wave forms I see in your Cubase tracks of this video: by considering that you rightly used the same spacing height among all the Cubase tracks - why is the ToneX track appearing so different about the wave form compared to all the other tracks, including thr real amp one? I'm asking just for my knowledge: I do not want to underrate your job, any way, be sure. Great job in any case! I'll follow your Channels, from now on. Ciao !
Yep. That is Kemper for you. Kemper does what Kemper does. Sounds like a cooked wah in there engaged. Thats what Kemper does. ToneX sounds great. Quad Cortex adds brightness somehow. Kemper’s High Gain are not its forte. Thank you for the detailed video!!
I bought a Kemper because I needed an all in one solution. The Helix was NOT cutting it for me; incredible UI, but the FEEL of the modeler amps wasn’t there. The Kemper blew it away (at least for the tones I like.) I WISH the Kemper had the accuracy of the Tonex! However, since it’s NOT an all in one solution, I’m gonna stay with Kemper for now. Fingers crossed the Kemper can improve their profiling through software updating. If they release a totally new product, it would suck for me, as I just dropped $1,700 on it. Sigh….
Have no fear, Kemper will be releasing a major update coming soon. One of the big changes in it is the Liquid Profiling that I believe will bridge the gap! :D
Great test! here's my thoughts: Riff 1 ToneX is really close but it doesnt have the same attack, its slightly softer and less percussive. Quad Cortex sounds like it has less gain. Kemper has that different low mid thing going on. Riff 2 is surprisingly different with ToneX, maybe has a little more gain? Kemper sounds thinner. QC also sounds a little thinner and less gain than the original. Riff 3 Tone X sounds a little softer attack wise and more congensted than the real amp. Kemper is softer and more low mids, more compressed, Quad Cortex sounded a little flat and almost bandpassed compared to the real amp. Riff 4 Tonex sounds a little nasal compared to the real amp, also again less attack than the original amp tone. Kemper sounds more compressed, mids also sound a bit different. QC sounds slightly more compressed, less attack, less low end. I love digital stuff and its getting so good now, but if you have the real amp then you'd be mad not to use it. They're still the benchmark.
Disagree. The tonex has more dynamics and actually has slightly more punch. Not sure what your listening with but I’d listen again with different speakers and hopefully not headphones. The real amp has more compression and is slightly muddier. I bet you could add some compression on the tonex and get it near exact. This plug-in is so good there’s no reason to use the real amp except for the psychological belief in “real” and fun of turning knobs. Which is real and can trick your brain into thinking it sounds better. Trust me, I know lol. I actually kind of prefer the tonex to the amp, but it’s damn close
@@pyratellamarecordingstudio1062 Listening in a treated studio with 3 pairs of monitors. IMO is a common trait for ToneX to have slightly less transient information, this isn’t the first example of it that I’ve heard. Also, a very strong argument in favour of the real amp is you can adjust settings freely. The process of using profiles or modellers isn’t as fun. IMO they work best when you already own the amp and you want to preserve your tones for another time
