Kemper Versus Axe FX II - My opinion

  • So preface this: it's all entirely my opinion. You may disagree and that's cool, would actually welcome differing opinions. But lets keep it friendly, don't want it all going The Gear Page over here! :)


    A lot of this will be cribbed from my posts elsewhere, but I think there are some worthwhile insights.


    I have a Diezel D-Moll valve amp, an Egnater Tourmaster 4x12 with V30's, an ENGL Vertical 2x12 with V30's, a range of pedals also. I have been comparing the Axe FX II and the Kemper for the past few days. I jumped straight to the 2.6 beta and the Axe is running the latest 15.07 firmware. So here are some of my thoughts:


    The Kemper tends to sound more bassy and full than the Axe FX, with a more pleasing resonant character. To me it feels closer to the experience of having a cab mic'd up in a live room, where you're monitoring it from the control room. The Axe FX has this rather abrasive nastiness on palm-mutes that is really difficult to dial out, and with my setup is most noticable on open notes and a low power-chord at the 10th fret. It doesn't quite resemble the control room monitoring experience as well as the Kemper. It doesn't sound bad, but... just different, and from a subjective experience, I prefer the Kemper.


    By default the Axe models generally seem treble heavy and kind of distant, even when using impulse responses taken where the microphone was only an inch away from the speaker cone. So it takes a fair amount of work to dial them in. Some of the default presence and resonance settings are not very good, and (having had this wish before I got the Kemper) it often makes me wish I could save default setups for each amp model, so that any time I switch to it I get the sound that I want.


    Now... I've said before that I got the Axe FX to sound almost indistinguishable to my real Diezel amp through a real guitar cab. This is still true. If you take just an amp block, route the Axe into the FX return of the Diezel and then dial the EQ, presence, and depth (resonance) in... you get something very close to a real amp experience.


    If you do this with the Kemper, it sounds like a modeller but louder. It doesn't really sound like a real tube amp... you lose something when you disable the Kempers cabinet section. Even when you use direct profiles (I got some off the rig exchange).


    So ... all of this leads me to a few things: I strongly suspect I don't bond well with impulse responses. In actual fact, I think I really dislike them. They make every amp sound distant and unrefined. Even the IR's I've taken of my own cabs suffer from this. The stock Axe FX cabs especially suffer from this. The only IR's I've used that I liked were the GuitarHack ones... but they too suffer from it.


    The Kemper is doing something different when it comes to the cabinet modelling. I don't know what exactly, but it sounds much much more realistic to me. If you have a friend play some low tuned power chord palm muted chugs through a real amp and you then move your ear over the speaker cone... you'll hear a massive world of tones available to you, and you'll hear the characteristic low-end thump that the Kemper is producing quite nicely actually. The Axe FX does not do this.


    The Axe has really good amplifier models; preamp and poweramp. But I do not like the cabs. Not when compared to the real thing and not when compared to the Kemper.


    The Kemper has really nice amplifier profiling capabilities, and whilst it isn't always 100% you can get to 90% of the original tone quite easily. The cab modelling just sounds more realistic to me. It has that trouser flap quality that the Axe is lacking.


    So here is where I stand at the moment:


    Overall I prefer a real valve amp into a real cab. That is (and probably always will be) the benchmark.
    The Kemper I prefer for direct recording.
    The Axe FX II I prefer for running into a poweramp and cab, and using as an amp head in its own right.



    This could all be honeymoon period stuff of course. My intention is to keep all three solutions for the foreseeable future. We are most likely moving house before the end of the year, and I will not be able to crank a valve amp in our new flat. So Axe FX II and Kemper are going to be lifesavers in that respect.


    I do want to figure out if I can get closer to the real amp with the Kemper. That's kind of the next thing here, but right now it's more than usable. It's very enjoyable to play, and requires almost no tweaking at all.


    I have a feeling that impulse responses may be the bane of all my woes when it comes to the Axe. As you say... they're static and movement is simulated. Essentially the Axe FX is faking speaker movement and resonance by changing the outgoing EQ curve and poweramp dynamics... the IR is then just acting as a filter. I think the Kemper is actually changing it's built in cabinet model. It will have some internal filtering parameters and dynamic parameters, and they will be set and the min-max curves will be changed based on the information being picked up by the microphone. Okay... that's totally a guess, but seems logical. So what you end up with is a set of parameters given values that correspond to the real world observations the Kemper is making, and then the rest of it is picked up by the dynamic speaker models built within the box. Again.... guessing.


    One thing I can say is that when downloading Axe FX II presets, I always
    felt like they weren't really usable and required lots of reverse
    engineering in order to get them to sound good with my guitar and
    playing style. I don't feel that way with the Kemper. I've downloaded
    probably about 80 profiles so far and the "transferability" is really
    consistently high.


    There is a user called 'r.u.sirius' who has
    profiled the Diezel VH4, Herbert, and Einstein and his profiles are
    really really good.


    There is still potential in the future for me to move over to the Axe FX for live performance. But I've never quite managed to get the simplicity that I'm after. My rig is really damn simple with the D-Moll and a few pedals. Plus I would need a poweramp of some kind still, and that is a rabbit hole that I'm rather keen to avoid right now. I need to stop fucking around with gear and crack on with writing music for a change!


    Clips:


    https://www.dropbox.com/s/azdecwhzkgofgql/D-Moll_A.wav?dl=0 (Kemper)
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/i1i225wq1oiwqey/D-Moll_B.wav?dl=0 (Real D-Moll + cab + microphone)


    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.…os/PreampComparison/1.wav (Kemper)
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.…os/PreampComparison/2.wav (Axe FX II)


    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/630473/GearDemos/PreampComparison/Track 1(2).wav (Kemper)
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/630473/GearDemos/PreampComparison/Track 2(2).wav (Axe FX II)


    ---


    If anyone has any tips on the best way to use the Kemper into the return of a valve amp, I'd be interested to hear. Also after-market poweramps, as my model is not a powerhead.

    Edited once, last by drew_fx ().

  • Good review. So you haven't tried either the AxeFX or the KPA through a stage monitor?


    No mate, I don't really like playing through monitors. I like the trouser-flapping-head-thumping wallop that you get from a 4x12 cab. I always ask the soundman at gigs to kill my guitar in the monitors completely, and to just give me some kick drum.

  • Yes, I also think that IRs are the weakness of amp modeling technologie vs profiling. But if you use your modeler in a power amp and a guitar cab you defeat this weakness and you get superb result even with a Pod HD. As I always use FRFR the Kemper is a clear winner for me, it was a revelation since the first time I tried a KPA.


    BTW, well balanced review, not in the mood of TGP at all... ;)


  • No mate, I don't really like playing through monitors. I like the trouser-flapping-head-thumping wallop that you get from a 4x12 cab. I always ask the soundman at gigs to kill my guitar in the monitors completely, and to just give me some kick drum.


    Now that you let your monitor sound kill on stage because you don't like it, you don't care too much what the sound is that your audience is presented from the PA. I am afraight that it was that sound that you didn't like .... :)

  • That's it. That's what guitar player refuse to accept.
    I had an experience what made me aware of this fact. During a tour years ago I took the time to control my own guitar sound coming through the PA system. Till than I just trusted the sound man. What else could I do? I used a wireless system so I was able to walk around. When I left my sonic comfort zone on stage I really got a shock how different (crappy) it sounded. It is like with your own voice. You hear your own voice as reflections but also through your cranial bones. That's why your voice sounds so strange to you when you hear it recorded or when speaking through a microphone. Same happens with your guitar sound. In your environment on stage it has a certain sound and in the audience there is another sound. This is not a copy from the sound you hear on stage. It is more a copy of the sound right there where the micro is set. And this is something very different from what you hear in your comfort zone.
    Adjusting your tone it is to decide who comes first. You or the audience. By listening to what they hear you can find a good compromise. After a while you accept that an electric guitar does not sound like you used to think it sounds. I don't know if you understand what I am trying to say.

  • OP: you'll never know how the two units "sound" until you try them both with a really linear and transparent cab.


    Also, when using direct profiles with a guitar cab, leave cab sims on: it's the only way to get the full profiled sound into your cab.


    HTH

  • Now that you let your monitor sound kill on stage because you don't like it, you don't care too much what the sound is that your audience is presented from the PA. I am afraight that it was that sound that you didn't like .... :)


    Hmmm... I wouldn't say it was a sound I don't like ;)
    oytbTc8FMw4


    But you're right to an extent. I don't care about the sound the audience gets - that isn't my job. It's the soundman's job in my honest opinion. I need the best sound for me, so that my performance is not impaired or held back in anyway.

  • OP: you'll never know how the two units "sound" until you try them both with a really linear and transparent cab.


    Also, when using direct profiles with a guitar cab, leave cab sims on: it's the only way to get the full profiled sound into your cab.


    HTH

    Just to clarify, I am comparing the two units through monitors - Tannoy Reveals, not through the guitar cabs solely. I also did leave the cab sims on when going into the FX return of my Diezel; actually I tried it with and without.

  • OT: just thought I'd mention that a while ago I bought a couple of albums from Drew's band (Tacoma Narrows Bridge Disaster) and still really enjoy regularly listenening to them. Great music if you like that sort of atmospheric heavy guitar music. Nice production, too.

  • OT: just thought I'd mention that a while ago I bought a couple of albums from Drew's band (Tacoma Narrows Bridge Disaster) and still really enjoy regularly listenening to them. Great music if you like that sort of atmospheric heavy guitar music. Nice production, too.


    Cheers matey! :)

  • I always make sure that the sound I want to hear for myself and the sound the audience gets to hear are in the same ballpark at least. The closer the better.

    Well yeah, I dial in my amp to be settings that are more suitable for live performance, versus studio performance. I obviously give the PA+venue+soundman a fighting chance!

  • Just to clarify, I am comparing the two units through monitors - Tannoy Reveals, not through the guitar cabs solely. I also did leave the cab sims on when going into the FX return of my Diezel; actually I tried it with and without.


    OK, that was not clear to me :)


    Not sure how much the Tannoy are linear and transparent, I don't know them and never had the opportunity to hear a pair. Do not underestimate the contribution any cab gives the sound. I've owned/own four monitoring systems at various degrees of price and quality, and pretty sure they sound in four completely different ways.


    :)

  • Good comparison. Funny, they all sound pretty close to each other in your samples (I only have a semi-decent headphones at work, will listen at home on my studio monitors). Real amp always wins tho :)

  • I agree with the OP on many points. I used to own an Axe II as well.


    To me, the cab section was always its downfall. I always had to spend a lot of time EQing with the Axe in order to get things to sit right in a mix. IME, many of the factory cabs had an abundance of low mids and a lot of third-party IRs seemed overly bright and fizzy. Unfortunately, I spent a lot of money on third-party IRs, but never was fully satisfied. I think the magic of the Kemper lies in its ability to reflect the true nature of the interaction between the cab and amp. When I first got the KPA, I did some recordings to compare Axe and Kemper and immediately noticed the Kemper sounded more alive...more like a real mic'd amp in the mix.


    The flip side of that is that IMO separating the cab from the amp in the Kemper doesn't always end up with good results. I, too, have tried running the Axe and Kemper into the effects loop of a real amp. I achieved the best results with the Axe but I still felt that it sounded a bit too one-dimensional. It just didn't quite have as much character as the real thing.


    Like the OP, I felt that IRs just weren't for me since I was never satisfied using them with the Axe and various software sims. I blamed it all on the IR until just recently. Last week, I picked up a Torpedo Reload, which is basically an attenuator/load box/reamp box all-in-one. To use it in a recording situation, you generally run a real amp through it and then into a DAW and use cab simulation (IRs). IRs, of course, vary in terms of quality, but with good IRs I'm achieving incredible results using the Reload. Does it sound as good as the Kemper? Possibly...though that's entirely subjective and I'm still in the evaluation phase. Does it sound and feel as "alive", as "real" as a Kemper or a real cab mic'd up? First impressions are an overwhelming "yes!". I know...this is slightly off subject but the point is that IRs may not be entirely to blame here. I'm starting to think what matters the most is what equipment the IRs are used with.


    I also agree on the points made about the Axe presets. I found very few usable. I learned a lot from them in terms of effects and routing, but most would require extensive tweaking. Same thing with user presets on the "Axe-Change". Most of these were just downright horrible. I think a lot of that has to do with the equipment the creator was using when the preset was created. Who knows, it could have been dialed in with Apple earbuds. With the Kemper it's been different for me. Once you find a profile creator or seller that you seem to "bond" with, tonally speaking, you're in for a high success rate. For me, that's been Sinmix and Stymphalian for high gain profiles and TAF for cleans through mid-gain profiles. I do think, however, that people who have the ability to profile their own amps will get the absolute most out of the Kemper. Unfortunately, I don't really have this option. Therefore, I have to depend on others to create my tones, which generally works fine for me. Occasionally, though, I have a desire for something different and sometimes it's difficult or impossible to find. Tweaking of profiles only goes so far before it begins to sound unnatural.

  • Thanks for the very informative review! :)
    Personally I'm always struggling with making the KPA sound like a real amp in the room (flame suit on) :p


    With fw 2.6 the low end got a lot closer IMHO, but I still have a hard time dialing the top end. I've tried lots of things but still haven't got it the way I want; if I take some of the top end off the profile loses its "bite" or "edge", whatever you wanna call it. Tried lowering the cab high shift, doesn't sound natural to my ears plus it affects the mids/bottom end as well. Tried boosting high frequencies below the high shelf cut point in a variety of ways, with limited success. Raising the bias in the amp block or using a booster/distortion pedal before the amp helps, but does not solve the top end problem by itself. Some times lowering the definition helps, but at the cost of... well, definition :)


    Anyway, it's not that I don't like the KPA - I love it - it's just that I'm a perfectionist and invest a lot of time and sweat trying to marry stage and PA sounds so the audience hears what I hear, and I feel inspired enough by what I hear so I'll be able to play better.