The "Helix Challenge" -- perhaps a bit of perspective is in order, here.

They can have all the challenges and discussions they want, your post explains why the Kemper is the champion.

I've read it takes about a month for the helix developers to model an amp.
How long does it take to make a Kemper profile? A minute?

Done 20 tests, got 14 right. Some of them were difficult and very close, I wasn't always sure at all.

At the end of the day, all that matters is if it sounds the same as the amp it's modelling, regardless if it's done live, while playing or if it's on a recording. There are many A/B Kemper tests where we listen and compare, the Helix 'challenge' is the same thing.

The Kemper sounds the same every time, I think the Helix sounds like a generic non specific version of the amp it's modelling some of the time, but still sounds pretty good.

I think the bigger concern is what the end goal is trying to be. People equate "modeling" as an attempt of a perfect, computer-generated representation of an amplifier. Let's be honest here - computer algorithms modeling analog components on a circuit board with differing failure rates and "ranges" of acceptable values (e.g. a capacitor rated at 10 microfarads might actually be 9.7 on one amp and 10.9 on another due to variances in manufacturing) can never be truly modeled, because even the exact same amp, from the exact same run, out of the exact same factory, has minute changes that affect how it sounds.

The Kemper has a unique benefit of being able to profile most (though, unfortunately, not all) amplifiers out there. Not only that, but the algorithm captures a snapshot of the referenced amp in a particular frame of time, factoring in all those caps and resistors and plates and rectifiers and tubes and eq curves and speaker responses, into one cohesive, small file. I truly believe this is why some people love a certain seller's profiles, and others don't - that "spot in time" that makes a Marshall JCM sound fantastic to one person may sound harsh or muddy to another person.

That said, modeling is simply that - it's a model - a system or thing used as an example to follow or imitate. A Line 6 Soldano model is an example or imitation of the real thing. In that fact, Kemper profiles are also models, just approached in a different manner, and allowed an openness to users to build their own models (or profiles). Once I understood that what Line 6 and Fractal does is just a model, and they're not trying to perfectly emulate an amplifier exactly, gave me a really great view on the older products. I got fantastic sounds out of my X3, but I also knew that it wasn't a Vox AC-15 and a Vox AC-30. They were models, and weren't designed to be completely 100% identical to the source.

Now that modeling has gotten so intense and precise, Line 6 and Fractal have gone to the point where a model is no longer an "example to follow or imitate." They are trying to replicate the amplifier 100%. This is why the Kemper succeeds 99% of the time - a profiled amplifier on the Kemper, 1 to 1, is nearly indiscernible to the profile maker, when done correctly. That boutique, hand-wired Tencount amp (man, I want some profiles of these) can be replicated with the Kemper, and it can be done perfectly. Getting that same sound out of any modeling processor is going to limit you to tweaking an existing amplifier model available to you or settling for a similar sound.

This is where Line 6 has come up short, and comes up short with the Helix. Fractal allows you to take any of their amp models, and basically go crazy with the parameters. If I wanted a Tencount amp sound, I bet I could get it out of the Fractal. Bias does the same things, but approaches it in a different manner - you can tweak a lot of the major "virtual" parts of an amp to really build a unique sound. With Line 6, you're limited to EQ, but that's not necessarily a bad thing - by keeping things simple, the end product is incredibly user friendly, even more so than our beloved Kempers.

I took the test. And I agree that not having A/B switching on the fly hid the tell-tale Line 6 sounds compared to a reference. Your ears become accustomed to a particular sound, and it's easy to second-guess yourself. I got 2/5 on it, which I feel is pretty decent for a piece of Line 6 equipment, and for the testing methodology.

However, at the end of the day - 95% of the audience isn't going to care if you're using a Kemper or a Helix or an Eleven Rack or a Bogner Ecstasy or a Fender Frontman 15. Non-musicians don't geek out about this stuff. And, if it sounds good enough to you, then it's a viable alternative. It does sound good. After using Line 6 equipment since the early days (I still own a small table and storage bin known as the AxSys), I can't knock their stuff but so much. Their effects are light years beyond what the Kemper does, save for maybe Transpose/Pitch Shift. And their routing configuration is much better - the oft-requested "delay before the stack" is easily done. I've never found a model of an overdrive pedal I've ever liked, Line 6 and Kemper both, but I feel like Line 6's selections are more varied, and don't rely on "shapers" (which I still don't really fully get) to emulate particular sounds.

That said, after going Kemper, I see zero reason to revert to a piece of Line 6 equipment. It's like driving a Ferrari, then going back to a BMW M3. Both are fantastic cars, but the BMW just doesn't meet up to an Italian sports car after driving it for a while. However, unless you have some sort of supersonic hearing and discernment, most people are going to be just as happy with the BMW M3 as they would with the Ferrari.

/rant

The biggest difference for me is the fact that if I want to make a recording with my amp, I can mic it to exactly as I want, and then profile it. With the Helix, while its good, it's always someone else's sound.

It's also a generic sound of the amp, it's never going to be 'your' amp.

I mostly use other profiles so perhaps the point is moot, but there have been many times where I've been playing through my amp and thought how nice it sounds, and then mic'd it up and profiled it to sound just how it sounds in the room.

Quote from PhilUK84

The biggest difference for me is the fact that if I want to make a recording with my amp, I can mic it to exactly as I want, and then profile it.

I drank the koolaid and bought the Kemper never thinking I would really ever profile my own amps (let alone anyone else's) since there were already so many commercial versions of the amps I owned - I knew it would give me the versatility I was looking for even without profiling. But yesterday, I jumped in feet first into the profiling world and it really opened my eyes to just how well the Kemper actually can capture the essence of a reference amp. Granted, I think I got really lucky with my first attempt and expect that future profiling won't always be so easy, but DAMN!

Having that ability on top of being able to use and tweak existing profiles is just so much more value added for me as to compared to investing in any of the modelers. I realize everyone has a preference and some people choose other options but for me the Kemper is the better investment hands down.

Quote from Tritium

I do not disagree. Nevertheless, my point was geared more towards the hyperbole and hype that has surrounded the Helix. There are a lot of digital modelers in which it is difficult to "hear" the difference between the model, and the real tube amp...especially when recorded and played back as a .wav file.

What really separates the men from the boys, IMHO, is a blind test in which you can actually play the amps in question (digital and tube). In such a scenario, one can make a judgement based not simply upon recorded audio tone, but rather upon the synergistic combination of tone and feel. Do they respond the same to playing dynamics? This brings the guitar (player)-vs-amp interaction into the central discussion.

Again, just my personal opinion...but this is exactly where alternative digital modeling amps come up short, compared to the Kemper.

Cheers,
John

Display More

Well, in my opinion, most of the "feel and response" thing people is always arguing about is myth. If the test is done with the same feed (meaning not being played twice) and the results are pretty much identical I would say that the feel and response must be as well.

The testing is flawed. Ok so they can't reproduce the same Impulse they shot earlier with the original amp (As Sean said in the video) , I'll give them that, but why not shoot another IR of the original speaker or any speaker and feed that to helix right then and there? leave the mic in its identical position , then let's hear the Helix with the freshly shot Ir and compare it to the Amp with the signal coming from the mic similar to the Kemper comparisons video?

The answer is very clear, because if they do what I suggested (the obvious logical method of comparing), Helix would sound so different that it wouldn't be worth it. They couldn't get the Helix to sound any where near identical so they choose to show samples that are actually very different even though they're going into the Same impulse response!! If the modeling is accurate there should be no difference. It's good modeling and good sounding amps but it's simply not authentic to the real amp if that matters to anyone. It matters to me and that's why I choose KPA.

So my challenge to Line 6. Shoot and IR of the speaker and leave the Mic in the same position. Don't bother with buffers. Feed the IR to Helix, send the Helix signal to the board and send the amp mic signal to the board and let's compare. It's not very difficult to do, actually much easier!!

I think Helix' built-in cab simulation is algorithmic and not IR-based.

Quote from MadH

Well, in my opinion, most of the "feel and response" thing people is always arguing about is myth. If the test is done with the same feed (meaning not being played twice) and the results are pretty much identical I would say that the feel and response must be as well.

I agree. I think that 2 amps can respond very differently to how you play through them, but to me that's just dynamics. 'Feeling' is a subjective term which no one seems to be able to define. I think it's an emotive response to what you're playing or playing through, and how that amp responds to your playing. Some will break up differently depending on how hard you pick, some won't at all. (Twin Reverb vs a Princeton) and depending on preference, we feel that the amp responds in a pleasant way and try to rationalise it by saying that the amp is communicating with us, so to speak.

I also believe that this 'feeling' is heightened when you have an amp in the room, with that very apparent bass response, which isn't as pronounced through monitors. Which is why people are always asking for the 'amp in the room' aspect to be heightened.

I suspect that a lot of people have never mic'ed up an amp in another room and recorded while it's coming through monitors. If they were to do this, then they might realise that it's not the Kemper/Helix/Axe, it's them not noticing it before, inexperience, or just nonsense.

Then again, this is just my opinion so this could also be nonsense.

I don't own Helix but I'm pretty sure that the distance parameter in the cab is only scrolling between Impulse responses, so it's definitely IR based and the algorithm there if any is for added EQ and pre-delay etc.

Quote from PhilUK84

I agree. I think that 2 amps can respond very differently to how you play through them, but to me that's just dynamics. 'Feeling' is a subjective term which no one seems to be able to define. I think it's an emotive response to what you're playing or playing through, and how that amp responds to your playing. Some will break up differently depending on how hard you pick, some won't at all. (Twin Reverb vs a Princeton) and depending on preference, we feel that the amp responds in a pleasant way and try to rationalise it by saying that the amp is communicating with us, so to speak.

I also believe that this 'feeling' is heightened when you have an amp in the room, with that very apparent bass response, which isn't as pronounced through monitors. Which is why people are always asking for the 'amp in the room' aspect to be heightened.

I suspect that a lot of people have never mic'ed up an amp in another room and recorded while it's coming through monitors. If they were to do this, then they might realise that it's not the Kemper/Helix/Axe, it's them not noticing it before, inexperience, or just nonsense.

Then again, this is just my opinion so this could also be nonsense.

Display More

You are describing exactly my sentiments. Without the direct feedback during playing, the sound is different. I play different through a Trainwreck in Van Halen mode and a MusicMan in clean mode.

To me, "Feel" is a very real thing. It is the way a piece of gear responds to playing dynamics. Most modelers I have owned had a more compressed dynamic and tonal range than a good amp. Many of them did this to the point of making all guitars sound more alike.

If an amp is miced in another room, and you are listening to it through studio monitors, the amp still responds to the way you play, and you can hear the changes.

Come to think of it, that is exactly how I compared the KPA to real amps when I first got it.

Quote from Dean_R

I don't own Helix but I'm pretty sure that the distance parameter in the cab is only scrolling between Impulse responses, so it's definitely IR based and the algorithm there if any is for added EQ and pre-delay etc.

Why do you think the distance parameter is scrolling between IRs? The built-in cab simulation uses a lot less processor power than using imported IRs.

I believe I remember Digital Igloo stating they were IRs. Could be wrong though.

Quote from burningyen

Why do you think the distance parameter is scrolling between IRs? The built-in cab simulation uses a lot less processor power than using imported IRs.

I watched the early videos when I was in the market for a better modeler, the only Amp/Cab simulator that doesn't use Impulse responses and is purely algorithmic is "Vandal" by Samplitude.

In this video from line 6 at 2:45 they talk about the impulse response resolution they used. It might be that the distance parameter is an EQ that tracks the bass frequencies, but the starting point is an impulse response. It wouldn't make any sense that you can load external impulses if Helix internally never used them. Even Pod HDs uses impulses but line 6 added few parameters that were supposed to improve the IR but they actually broke, it. I'm glad they didn't do the same with the Helix. But also IGloo stated several times in the line 6 forum that they used IRs as deadpan stated above.

HelixHD is probably just around the corner...