Right. So you agree with me. Good.
No I don’t agree with what you call “unprofessional” gear.
But you agree with me that whether something is professional or not, is a subjective value judgement - as I have pointed out several times in my critique.
“If you suffer from moderate to severe unit spots…”If I spot a digital unit on a stage of significance…the majority of times its a Kemper or a QC… not exactly the most praised brands in this corner of the internetMaybe the takeaway is that they are at least fit for purpose in the major leagues.
Before I get lynched, plenty of other brands are also, just my personal count of “digital unit spots”.
“Not professional to me” is a weird turn of phrase - inherently objective and subjective all in one go. But I take your point about the noise floor. I think “not effective for all applications” covers it - and admittedly that is somewhat damning for a $1600 (or whatever it costs now) modeler.Simple - 4-cable-method.
It is super super super non-performant in any scenario where you're connecting it up to other gear. It is just far too noisy:
Here's a few noise-floor recordings. I boosted them all by 10dB just to make the waveform higher, but the relative differences are still maintained.
In the room, the last one (the 4cm one) was way more noticeable than the others. The ones where it is just the amp have the lowest noise floor, as you'd expect. As soon as you put the QC into the signal path once, you get a higher noise floor because the DAC conversion noise of the unit is amplified by the gain of the amplifier. It is a lot worse in 4-cable-method.
The last one is the QC. The noise floor is twice as loud as the other two.
Same amp. Same cables. Same amp levels. Same everything. Just switching the units.
The base level of noise from the QC is twice as high as other modellers.
People are very handy at choosing one way of using the QC, and using that to represent it as a professional device. But nearly all of the exampled offered, are people using it straight into the PA and IEM's simultaneously, without any (or at least very few) bits of gear in tandem with it.
Even in the Rabea valve amp rig that I posted before, you can hear the same issue.
If you don't give a shit. That is fine. But I do give a shit. It isn't a professional device. TO ME. Which is all I've ever said.
Now I've offered objective measurements and a reasoned position. What have you got that isn't one of the three categories of fallaciousness that I listed?
“Professional” just means someone - not everyone - can do professional work with it. That’s proven out empirically for QC and nearly everything else. (I can’t think of any piece of gear that would suit every professional’s needs.)
The green ones are specificly itchy!
I wonder why this is all over this thread, and I have never done the observation that it is myself.
No you’ve not been clear on that. It’s quite obvious when you say that because of some higher than what it should be noise floor…. that isn’t something a pro would tolerate therefore not use a QC in a pro situation. I’ve seen the opposite so I call BS. Sure that’s your subjective opinion but it’s clearly not true.
It does a little and I agree it shouldn’t be higher than it is but it’s not by a long shot something that makes it “non pro”. Excessive noise has always been a fight with guitar rigs no matter the perceived quality of the gear.
I've been extremely clear. Go back through the thread. You are either misremembering, or willfully misrepresenting.
It isn't a little. It is twice as high as other units I've compared it against. That is an extreme difference.
Nope. You even observe it when using clean tones. I just demonstrated with gain tones in my images to make it obvious. But even with a clean channel, the QC in 4-cable-method adds an extreme amount of hiss to the overall system, in a way that the Helix and Axe FX III (and VP4!) do not.
It is a perfectly acceptable turn of phrase.
Yep. But also the thing has two effects loops. So you could fill any gaps using the 2nd FX loop.
