Kemper KPA vs. Axe-FX II (Yes, another one...please read!)

    Haven't read all the replies so I apologize if someone mentioned this already but since cost is a factor:
    Kemper firmware updates are free, if you want an Axe FX update down the road you have to buy a new machine.

    Quote from paults

    If you change guitars, the Kemper will sound like the original amp would with that guitar. The profiling process primarily uses the test tones to create the profile, not the guitar that is used for refining. Refining the Profile is optional - not a requirement. It is only needed if the profile does not sound exactly like the mic'ed amplifier.


    Ah...thanks. That's good to know. Still, other users (even ones that love the KPA) have said that once you start tweaking (outside of minor adjustments) it stops sounding completely accurate, so that's where most of my concern stems from.

    Quote from mbrown3

    [quote='TheLightspeeder','http://www.kemper-amps.com/forum/index.php/Thread/18793-Kemper-KPA-vs-Axe-FX-II-Yes-another-one-please-read/?postID=203715&#post203715']because the Kemper takes a "snapshot" in time, once you start tweaking it from the profile, it stops sounding accurate. Not bad, just not entirely like what the amp sounds like when you make the same adjustments. For example, start changing the EQ curve and it starts not sounding accurate anymore. Use a different guitar with different pickups and it doesn't sound like that guitar, pickups, etc, would sound through that amp


    Hmmm... no, I wouldn't really agree with that.


    The Kemper's EQ for instance is based on a very common passive-EQ that all guitar amps have. They've even talked about adding more types. So when you tweak the EQ.... it is very amp like, and the differences between it and the real amp are minuscule. You wouldn't notice them if you weren't directly comparing.


    What helped me to get my head around it was thinking of it like this - both units have an internal amplifier model, with a wide range of parameters and values that the user does not have access to. If they wanted, they could give the end user twelve pages of bias values, frequency selectors, curve choices, etc... etc... but obviously that would suck for the end user, because we're not usually amp engineers.


    Axe - the company does the programming for you, based on schematics of the amps. These then become presets for the amp block of sorts.
    Kemper - you do the programming, based on the sound that you feed it and the refining process.

    Quote from Booyah

    Haven't read all the replies so I apologize if someone mentioned this already but since cost is a factor:
    Kemper firmware updates are free, if you want an Axe FX update down the road you have to buy a new machine.


    This is not my understanding. They've all said numerous times that firmware updates are all free with the Axe-FX too. Obviously hardware upgrades require a new unit, but I would imagine that to be true with Kemper as well.

    Quote from drew_fx

    Axe - the company does the programming for you, based on schematics of the amps. These then become presets for the amp block of sorts.
    Kemper - you do the programming, based on the sound that you feed it and the refining process.


    This is helpful, thanks. Still, I'm going off of real users' comments when they say the profiles don't exactly sound right once you start changing them from the profile. I haven't had experience with the unit yet...that's what other folks have said that have used the units (and not in a "bashing" way...many of them favor the Kemper and use it regularly). So regardless of how it does its work or the function of it, that's the one consistent piece of feeback I've gotten on the Kemper. It's not a problem for me, mind you, just something that I'm taking into account.

    The other main difference (as has also been mentioned) is profiling your own amp, if you want to, and having thousands of other amps to choose from. Of course, listening to all those profiles could easily take more time than deep editing the Axe. :)


    If the Axe has the exact amps in it you need, you may be more happy with it. You can be assured of more editing capabilities. Playing one is likely the only way to know for sure.


    I profiled my Jubilee after getting the KPA, because I wanted the specific knob settings I prefer. I didn't profile my Deluxe reverb for two years, though. There were already profiles that sounded just about like it. I eventually cranked it up, and made some very dynamic profiles.

    Quote from Booyah

    Haven't read all the replies so I apologize if someone mentioned this already but since cost is a factor:
    Kemper firmware updates are free, if you want an Axe FX update down the road you have to buy a new machine.


    This is almost 100% incorrect.


    I think I know what you're getting at - there have been different revisions of the Axe FXII. But those were hardware revisions and were nothing to do with firmware. Firmware has always been free for the Axe FX.

    Quote from mbrown3

    Except that I'm fairly sure that I am clear on the differences. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but Axe creates a more generic "overall" amp model that sounds pretty close to the original amp, if not 100%. That model includes all of the original tone shaping tools (EQ, gain, etc). The Kemper takes a snapshot of the actual sound coming from the amp, including settings, guitar, pickups being used, etc, then perfectly replicates it. Then (note that I'm going by what I've read, from both those for Kemper, AND those for Axe), because the Kemper takes a "snapshot" in time, once you start tweaking it from the profile, it stops sounding accurate. Not bad, just not entirely like what the amp sounds like when you make the same adjustments. For example, start changing the EQ curve and it starts not sounding accurate anymore. Use a different guitar with different pickups and it doesn't sound like that guitar, pickups, etc, would sound through that amp. That's less of an issue with the Axe because it's more of a generic model in the first place.


    Is it that important to you to have the amp controls influence the tone in the exact same way?


    Also, I don't understand why it would be less of an issue if the axe-fx works the same way, as you last sentence seems to imply. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something :)

    When you profile an amp, you profile these components: Mic, cab, amp


    the resulting profile is a combination of Mic, cab and amp. The Amp setting you will receive in your profile is exactly the same as on your amp. Thusly you can change the profile just th very you can manipulate your amp. The difference is that thE resulting sound is just like the sound you would perceive in a recording session. Don't forget, it's a miced amp and not a live amp in a room with you sitting in front of it. Totally different.. As for your desire to consistently re-profile, that's your decision. Taste changes but all you can really do is change can or micing position. The amp sound itself is always captured the way you set it and then basically copied over to the KPA one to one.

    Quote from mbrown3

    This is helpful, thanks. Still, I'm going off of real users' comments when they say the profiles don't exactly sound right once you start changing them from the profile. I haven't had experience with the unit yet...that's what other folks have said that have used the units (and not in a "bashing" way...many of them favor the Kemper and use it regularly). So regardless of how it does its work or the function of it, that's the one consistent piece of feeback I've gotten on the Kemper. It's not a problem for me, mind you, just something that I'm taking into account.


    I understand what you're saying. I can't speak to it 100% because I've not had that experience. When I make tweaks, they feel musical and useful. So I don't pay much attention to whether it sounds like the real amp would if I made the same tweak on the amp.


    Speaking of tweaks, it's totally possible to tweak the Axe FX and make it sound like utter gash. Take the dynamic depth and dynamic presence controls for instance. If you push them too far, you end up with terrible sounding tone, particularly on palm mutes. The Axe kinda expects you to have a bunch of engineering knowledge that most guitarists just don't have.

    Edited once, last by drew_fx ().

    Btw, nothing is 100% and yes it's a bunch of engineers sitting in a room, testing circuitry, EQs and cabs and capturing the data into a software format at Fractal. The KPA has an algorithm that recreates the sound based on a series of sonic test. The profiles itself are only 4bytes big...it's just a bunch of values that have been established based on these sonic tests and responses. One reason why the KPA doesn't need 2 processors. Streamlined mathematics and superior computation:) again, you are comparing apples and oranges

    The "snapshot" issue.
    I remember Ingolf stating this before in (at least one) other thread ... and I completely agree.
    A "snapshot" is a term we were used to use a few years back to describe the amazing accuracy of a profile compared directly to the original mic'ed amp & cab. Basically it IS a snapshot of this specific setting, yes. But the term is misleading somehow because to a newbie (or interested fellow) it implies that you can't change it.


    But that's simply not true. :) You can modify the profile easily. You will be pleasantly surprised what GREAT results you get from a "snapshot" by just increasing or decreasing the Gain (not even mention all the other parameters). There's a LOT of flexibility in this magic box which doesn't deserve the term "snapshot". I think we all had to learn this and I'm shure nowadays we demo the Profiler using different words ... or even better no words but just playing and listening with hands-on experience.


    Bottom line:
    Don't give to much about the term "snapshot". technically it's correct when you're taking a profile. But that's not the end of the story then. :)
    .

    I have both.


    I love the variety of tones & the capabilities I get from both.


    Im keeping both .


    (Oh yeah. I also have 7 different guitars. Im keeping all them for the same reasons stated above) ;)

    Quote from paults

    The other main difference (as has also been mentioned) is profiling your own amp, if you want to, and having thousands of other amps to choose from. Of course, listening to all those profiles could easily take more time than deep editing the Axe. :)


    Yeah, this is what appeals to me the most about the Kemper. I really like the tones of my amps (and I've spent years getting to the tones I have), so the ability to capture them directly sounds awesome.

    Quote from Michael_dk

    Is it that important to you to have the amp controls influence the tone in the exact same way?


    Not necessarily. The truth is, I have no basis for knowing, because all of the amps I've ever had have worked like themselves. Boy that's a weird sentence. Hopefully you get what I mean.


    Quote from Michael_dk

    Also, I don't understand why it would be less of an issue if the axe-fx works the same way, as you last sentence seems to imply. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something :)


    The axe-fx doesn't work the same way, that's the thing. I'm having a hard time figuring out how to grasp this better. Many Kemper folks are saying, "The Kemper works very differently than the Axe..it profiles, not just models. The Axe has more generic amp models, whereas the Kemper is an exact snapshot." Then the same people say, "The same poblems with profiling exist on the Axe as well as on the Kemper." It seems to me that it can't be both ways, and that's what I'm responding to.

    Quote from drew_fx

    I understand what you're saying. I can't speak to it 100% because I've not had that experience. When I make tweaks, they feel musical and useful. So I don't pay much attention to whether it sounds like the real amp would if I made the same tweak on the amp..


    Gotcha, and this is great to hear.

    Quote from TheLightspeeder

    Btw, nothing is 100% and yes it's a bunch of engineers sitting in a room, testing circuitry, EQs and cabs and capturing the data into a software format at Fractal. The KPA has an algorithm that recreates the sound based on a series of sonic test. The profiles itself are only 4bytes big...it's just a bunch of values that have been established based on these sonic tests and responses. One reason why the KPA doesn't need 2 processors. Streamlined mathematics and superior computation:) again, you are comparing apples and oranges


    Testing circuits and EQ and cabs is a lot different than completely guessing what an amp sounds like. So saying, "it's some engineer's idea of what an amp sounds like" is misleading. It's not based on their arbitrary opinion. It's based on their testing. Also, from what I understand, the engineers at FA are also musicians, not just scientists.


    Re: comparing apples and oranges, I agree with that. But I'm trying to figure out if an apple or an orange would be more what I want.


    Thanks, this is great. It wasn't so much the term "snapshot" that I was hung up on...but it was the concept. Thanks for clarifying.

    Quote from TheLightspeeder

    As I said before and lots of other guys here...2 completely different products. perhaps it would be easier for you to simply try them out and return the one you don't feel meets your needs. That's the bottom line. Good luck!


    Yep, that's the plan. The Kemper will arrive next week and I'll try it out. The Axe...will depend on whenever they run a free shipping promo, and I'll try that too. Still, I like hearing info from users. This (here and at the FA forum) has actually been very helpful.