Kemper Amps Forum

if you are using the kemper in a reamping situation, you can prerecord the part abnd always play the same sample for refinement. Theres no "one way" for the refinement to get the best results. Its all player dependent. But for those who dont have a guitar handy, i can see the benefit of having a prerecorded sample would be great for refinement. Not really a big deal to prerecord yourself though.

Have some of you guys noticed whether the refining phase gives different results with different guitars?
IOW, if you refined a profile with one guitar and then switched to a second guitar, did you feel that refining again betters the sound? This seems to be the case, since even changing the refining technique (different chords, positions etc.) appears to lead to different results.

Quoted from "viabcroce"

Have some of you guys noticed whether the refining phase gives different results with different guitars?
IOW, if you refined a profile with one guitar and then switched to a second guitar, did you feel that refining again betters the sound? This seems to be the case, since even changing the refining technique (different chords, positions etc.) appears to lead to different results.

My guess is that people will tweak their amps for the tone they like, of which the particular guitar is integral. So when profiling, the tone would be tied to the characteristics of the guitar to some degree. In particular, I think the difference between single coils and humbuckers plays into this, with the resulting profile working better using the same type as the original. Just a guess though ...

Zappledan,

I couldn't agree more. Since the beginning I realized that people finding a certain profile more or less pleasant was due (apart for bad/good mic placement of course) also to the fact that the profile maker had set the amp to their liking.
The first thing I notice when I try an amp with some friends, even using the owner's instrument, is that we all tend, after some minute, to tweak the tonestack.

But I guess I'm asking something different... you may or not like the way a profile sounds with a specific guitar, but the question probably is whether a certain guitar will refine a profile in a peculiar way. I ask this because refining doesn't necessarily affect the EQ curve of the profile response, but has also influence over the dynamics, the consistence across the fretboard... and so on.

On a side note, it would probably be a good idea if those who make profiles made "by default" a further "neutral profile" with the tone controls all in the middle position. This would somehow detach the amp tone from the used instrument... and from the owner's tastes.
I know many already set their amps like this when profiling anyway, but if it became a habit it would probably help, on the long distance, to get more consistent profiles and a more standardized way to evaluate (and appreciate) them.
When I'm ready to profile amps I'll certainly follow this rule. This, as long as Kemper deliver their promise of supplying original tonestacks modelling for the different amps.

I have a personal idea on how the profiling can be improved and less influenced by that specific settings.
I think to a "deep profile", with more interaction between the player and the KPA while profiling.
This is my idea:

The KPA asks for a gain knob sweep from 0 to 10, press ok and then sweep while the KPA sends the waves to "read" the gain sweep.Maybe this won't lead to a 100% gain knob profiling, but in this way we can know where everything starts and where the gain ends, leaving just compression.

Then bass knob sweep, and so on, until we have a tone stack profiling. Again, not 100% accurate (maybe because it cannot catch the interactions between controls), but i think it can be 80-90% the same.
It would be cool to have an option to locate the tonestack pre or post gain before profiling it, so a better matching with the real thing can be achieved.

I think that more infos the KPA can get, the more accurate profiling we can have. Then just refine on the favorite setting, or with the tone knobs at noon and the gain adjusted to taste on the amp.

Anyway, don't get me wrong: i love the way the KPA sounds (apart the bugs that must be solved, like the bending one), but i think that a natural development of this exciting piece of equipment should be in this direction.

Quoted from "Jimmyno"

I think that more infos the KPA can get, the more accurate profiling we can have. Then just refine on the favorite setting, or with the tone knobs at noon and the gain adjusted to taste on the amp.

Some interesting ideas here! But, everything is dependant on the way the algorithm has been conceived. I, if I can, would modify your statement as follows: more infos we supply among those the KPA can manage, the more accurate profiling we can have.

You'll realize that, in order for the KPA to take advantage of more information such as gain and tone swap, the whole algorithm (and the "reference neutral profiles") should be rewritten. Not something I'd expect for a minor FW update for sure. But, this might be KPA's future.
OTOH, Eng. Kemper has always said his main aim was to create something as easy as possible to use. Have you noticed the way he comments any suggestion that would make the machine even just a bit more complex to use? Even when the suggestion is a real improvement. User-friendliness seems to be priority to him.
I personally don't care about complexity, as long as my workflow is smooth; but I see his point.
We have to admit that the Axe-Fx, for example, is way complex if you want to take advantage of all its possibilities. KPA's easiness of use is for sure a winning point, and in the time will certainly be able to let more and more "amp-only" guys to be fascinated by the world of digital simulation

Yes, i understand what you are saying Gianfranco.
Indeed what i suggested is to give the option to do that. So a standard profiling and a deep one. I know that this would make all the profiles done until now obsolete, and this cannot be underrated.

I wrote those things even in another thread, because CK asked me which ideas i had about the profiling development, but i don't know if he read what i wrote.

More complexity doesn't scare me too. Of course i'd like it to be an option, so people who want to keep it simple can be happy anyway.

Sounds definitely correct to me! I'm very curious about how the KPA concept will evolve in the future... let's see!

I remember Eng. Kemper considering as "complex" even "switchable" options though... :/

Again, I see two roads here: or the basic concept is the best that could be achieved with the current hardware, so we're not going to see any spectacular improvement over the years; or, there's room for improvement and, if Kemper see a motivation (success, profit...), they'll be working on it as soon as the idea show some success.

...I'm sure about the success! ;D