Why «mix ready» is a problem

Well, there are certainly raw as well as mix ready profiles out there, and there's a demand for both, so you choose...

Good idea!

Quote from Ingolf

Well, there are certainly raw as well as mix ready profiles out there, and there's a demand for both, so you choose...

I am new to all of this and I have only purchased a few profiles - a bunch of amps from Top Jimi and the Gilmour Hiwatt from TAF. I think they all sound fantastic but I haven't yet used them in a live situation.

I want to purchase some more and I think I want the more "raw" profiles so that I can choose how to use and shape them in any given situation. Is there some label I should be looking for if I want to make sure I get the "raw" profiles? Is there some language that the commercial profile vendors use to help us distinguish?

I'm only asking so that I know what to look for when the time comes to purchase.

Quote from little_harry

So here is my try to extend the vocabulary:
Studio profiles - made for studio use, the amp is shaped to «cut thru the mix» and it’s a plug and play profile for studio use.
Raw profiles - made to capture the amps nature in an authentic way and full frequency range. You can shape it to get into your own sound, like a normal amp.

this is a good idea

Imo there is no right or wrong. It simply works for you or it does not. A guitar in a mix requires more high cut than played solo. A guitar in a very dense metal mix requires way more high cut than in a slow blues mix.

Also the approach to keep a recorded signal as universal as possible to not loose any frequency that you need to bring back later is very good, but also very tricky. It is way easier to bring to back mid and bass frquencies from a signal than bringing back high frequencies. Once high frequencies are lost there is almost nothing you can do. Trying to boost high freuencies that simply were not recorded mostly results in a very nasty sound. So the correct approach would be to always record (or profile) more high frequencies than you possible would need. This will make Les Paul players get a more transparent sound but Strat players will most likely find those profiles awfully trebly. Since lowering unwanted frequencies always sounds better than boosting lost frequencies, reducing high frequencies from a bright profile should sound better the other way round.

This is basically also the way that most recording engineers works. Very often they will only use high pass and low pass filters to remove unwanted frequencies rather then boosting something.

I kind of agree with the OP. Mostly because you make blind decisions in the studio with EQs etc. If you don't know the song, how can you make a profile "mix ready"? I realize microphone placement already is a decision in this process. But I think I'd rather do the EQing myself after the fact, when I know the kind of song I'm working with.

I agree with the OP on some points, especially when it comes to buying commercial profiles. Sometimes, you just don't know what to expect.

I generally have 2 uses for profiles: for use in a recorded mix or for use when practicing/jamming. For studio profiles, I prefer them to be pre-shaped or "mix-ready" (though, nothing's truly mix ready) right out of the box. I don't want to have to EQ them to death later. I'd much rather the creator of the profile make it mix ready (through micing techniques, etc., not EQ) from the start. EQing things to death later on results in an unnatural sound IMO. For practicing/jamming I'd much rather have the raw, full response profile.

Seems to me that most of the high-gain commercial profile sellers are offering the "studio" variety of profiles. Makes sense as most of these sellers come from a production background and there's more of a market for these types of profiles. With low to medium gain sellers, it's more of a crapshoot in terms of what you'll get.

I generally agree... but you must know that as soon as you put a microphone in front of a speaker, you're not going to get a raw full frequency amp tone. You're going to get some sort of "mix-ready" sound... just depends on the mix!!

What I also like to see is profiles with no EQ tweaks on the KPA, no stomps loaded, no tweaks inside the amp section etc etc. I want profiles that capture the amp as it is (with the microphone). That is my idea of an ideal profile. I'd rather have that as a platform for my own tweaking.

+1 to what drew said. The way you mic will always reflect the way the engineer wants to hear the tone.

But I agree, I also like the amp settings not to be fiddled with. For tonestack and eq I'm not as picky, as you can easily just deactivate that.

I think it also depends on what was the reason for the tweaking within the kemper.
Was it because the tone wasn't good enough to begin with, or was it to enhance or bring out a different flavour, that you wouldn't be able to catch via different mic placement and tone settings? I guess that's where you say you want that slate clean to decide for yourself.
And yeah, I'd also like not to have to go through 10 different tweaked versions of the same rig in that case.

Some profileres seem to like to tweak the amp parameters to get closer to the mic signal, if it wasn't possible to get that via refining...just my speculation tho, I never fiddle with "clarity" for example. I also leave definition where it was, but for most of my high gain tones it sets it to 10 by default

I like to take out the most prominent nodes with a bit of eq though. Nothing major so you won't recognize the tone anymore, just the spikes I know that speaker has.

Regarding the "mix ready tones", I generally like to PLAY through tones that wouldn't work in a mix more than tones that are tweaked within the kemper (via EQ) to fit better in a mix.

Yeah, doing FIXING on the front end (i.e. what can't be done with mic placement alone) is fine by me. Maybe even EQ'ing, but my brain would prefer if the EQ section is then disengaged by default. Sort of like "I made this great profile, and I have a further suggestion for how to tweak it", rather than sending a sginal that COULD be perceived as "I needed to tweak it on the KPA to get it to sound good"...

I agree with the OP about the opportunity for the profilers to spend some more words a out each profile they make.

OTOH, I'd disagree about the mic being the only variable: the amp's tonestack setting matters a lot too. Almost no amp is profiled "flat", since it's quite hard sometimes to define where the flat tonestack setting is.

Quote from viabcroce

I abree with the OP about the opportunity for the profilers to spend some more words a out each profile they make.

OToh, i'd disagree about the mic being the only variable: the amp's tonestack setting matters a lot too. Almost no amp is profiled "flat", sinceit's quite hard sometimes to define the flat tonestack setting.

...And a flat tonestack setting would probably suck anyway But I don't think that's what the OP meant. Quote:

Quote

I think profiling should be all about capture the amps genuine sound. So the profiling-workflow should be about the amps settings and the mic settings and stay away from the EQ and other studio stuff. Of course the mic and its position is colouring the sound a lot, but that should be the only parameters in profiling. If it not sounds right thru the studio monitors change the mic(s) or its position. If the guitar amp is dark and boomy, the profile should be dark and boomy. If the amp is tight and sparkling, the profile should be tight and sparkling.

I think my main beef - and actually I've noticed this with more commercial profiles than freebies - is the "roominess" of the high-gain tones.

Room reflections in a high-gain tone, imho, are not very good. They mush everything up and sound crap. Also distant mic'ing... sounds crap for high-gain, again... imho.

I much prefer a maximum distance of 4inches from the speaker. But I've noticed a lot of commercial profiles trying to do the "amp in the room" sound by distance mic'ing and allowing room reflections... and thus they're useless to me.

Again, imho

Quote from Michael_dk

...And a flat tonestack setting would probably suck anyway But I don't think that's what the OP meant.

I was commenting the bold:

Quote

I think profiling should be all about capture the amps genuine sound. So the profiling-workflow should be about the amps settings and the mic settings and stay away from the EQ and other studio stuf. Of course the mic and its position is colouring the sound a lot, but that should be the only parameters in profiling.

My point is that the mic is not the only parameter in profiling, even when you do not tweak the profile or add fx.

OP, first of all I like the labeling direction - seems simple enough. Yet I think it'll be difficult to get a good conformity going. Many profile sets include both, and even raw profiles will be something in between.

Some vendors seem to take this philosophy already. Soundside for instance gives you a ton of profiles with the settings listed, then a smaller group of 'dial-ed in' studio profiles. But the profiles are all going to be influenced by the mic(s) and positioning (and mix). Then he released Studio Packs which is I believe one amp with one setting, but multiple mics/positions. Pete Turley has some profile sets that feature like 6 different mics, or combinations of mics.

Of course each vendor has his own method and style of profiling and refining.

If you read the descriptions and listen to the samples, you should have a good idea of what to expect, especially if your vendor provides clips featuring the isolated guitars without post-EQ/processing. Of course, I always find a Studio EQ in one of the stomp slots can help dial in the tone that works best for your guitar.

The best I can tell you is to write reviews of the commercial profiles you've purchased. If you've regretted your purchase, communicating what turned you off is good feedback for the vendor and the community.

As far as trying before buying, I might be working on something.

I shot raw - photos and profiles

But some prefer "mix ready" rigs - so my packs contains both.

One folder with (many) raw profiles and a second folder with some "mix ready" profiles incl. effects and all.