Quality improvements, before quantity improvements

    1) I've noticed that the gain-structure of the real amp does sounds different from the tweakable GAIN knob of the Kemper (increased & decreased). The Kemper's GAIN-knob is not true to the gainstructure of
    the real amp.
    Therefore I now make seperate profiles of each gain setting of my amp.
    My idea: While profiling capturing the gainstructure of the amp, by profiling at a lowgain setting & then profiling at a highgain setting, so the kemper recognizes the gainstructure of the amp.




    2) Use of the 2 RETURN-inputs, at the same time, for using two mic's.
    My idea: A software blendknob, between the two mic's.
    So i can adjust the amount of mic's afterwards to fit a song, while playing in the studio or live. Instead of making seperate profiles with different blends of mic's.

    I see how this could be useful but it really sounds like the kemper might be able to do some of this with the morph function. You could maybe change cab parameters and morph between them for example.


    I'm sure there are all sorts of possibilities with this new feature


    1) Actually I think this is an advantage of the Kemper! Many amps sound only good at a certain point of their gain knob and with the Kemper you can use this sweet spot and scale it up and down. A good example are the lead channels of some Engl amplifiers. The gain knob ranges from completely silent at zero, a very ugly chrunch at the lower settings to immediate high gain. If you profile this high gain sound you can dial it back to very usable crunch sound which would be just not possible with the actual amp channel.


    2) Good idea! I often mic the amp with more than two mics anyway and blend them in the software mixer of my RME card before I profile them. Having some influence afterwards would be awesome, but I'm worried it might not be possible with the Kemper. Loading two profiles at once is a much requested feature and it's apparently not possible with the computing power of the Kemper. Your suggestion is pretty similar in terms of computing power I think.

    I have suggested ages ago to introduce an "advanced" profiling, involving different settings for gain and tone stack. I strongly believe it's a good idea.
    The second request sounds like having two different cabs loaded at the same time, with the option of blending them (how about phase issues?) I don't know if it is technically possible due to the actual hardware.

    Totally agree on the gain structure front although it may be possible with the morph feature. If you've got two acceptable gain profile for the same amp, note the differences down of the higher gain setting eg definition, clarity etc. Change them in too that at the toe position and then morph between them. I bet that will produce much better results than simply upping the gain.


    shame it can't be done between two rigs but I bet this will work pretty will. Also agree with the sweet spot comment but the above will probably be more realistic.

    Quote from Jimmyno

    I have suggested ages ago to introduce an "advanced" profiling, involving different settings for gain and tone stack. I strongly believe it's a good idea.
    The second request sounds like having two different cabs loaded at the same time, with the option of blending them (how about phase issues?) I don't know if it is technically possible due to the actual hardware.



    I did get this technical thing of Kemper, about the RETURN-inputs.
    But I dont know, how to read it :D So I dont know, if its technically possible.

    Probzbly i didn't get what you mean: if you just want to make a dual mic profile, you already can, with a simple 2 channel mixer; if you want to have two cab profiles being free to blend them in a second moment, i think you cannot because of the actual processing power.


    BTW, the two inputs seem to be hardware connected, so no way IMHO.

    Hang on...


    I thought that the earth-shaking space-wars sounds built up in level during the profiling process in order to allow the Kemper to map the gain up to and including the current amp setting. IOW, the gain knob is effectively modelled at all points up to the position at which it was set prior to profiling.


    For this reason, one could expect that lowering the gain on the Kemper would reflect a similar move on the amp fairly accurately, and that raising it on the Kemper above what was used on the amp would require our beloved beasties' extrapolating what the amp might sound like in this case - an educated guess, if you like.


    So, I believe therefore that request # 1 of the OP has already been implemented. If one wants a given range to be modelled, one only needs to determine the maximum setting in that range and profile that setup. Obviously a dedicated low-gain profile will contain what I'm guessing will be a higher-resolution (in terms of data focus) snapshot at that setting and below it; there's less of a range to modelled, after all, with the same amount of "fodder" (epic space-war noises).



    Nah... It's more akin to volume adjustments on the guitar.

    Quote from Monkey_Man

    I thought that the earth-shaking space-wars sounds built up in level during the profiling process in order to allow the Kemper to map the gain up to and including the current amp setting. IOW, the gain knob is effectively modelled at all points up to the position at which it was set prior to profiling.
    For this reason, one could expect that lowering the gain on the Kemper would reflect a similar move on the amp fairly accurately


    Mhhh... This would be true if the level of the test signal(s)' you're considering equalled a guitar's one. But it actually raises a lot higher (the aim I guess is to completely map the clipping of the amp as a whole unit function input level), so the relationship with how the guitar drives the amp (Gain knob being set the same on the amp) gets lost I'd say...

    Quote from Monkey_Man

    Interesting that lowering the gain setting on the Kemper approximates the modelled amp more accurately than raising it 'though. I wonder why?


    And this is an interesting thought Nicky, but we should ask ourselves if and to what extent it's a true statement. It might be not because:

    • EQ apart, many amps sound way more similar to each other when they are clean than when they are driven. This would make any clean sound statistically "realer" in itself;
    • many guitar players don't care about clean sounds (namely, those who say that distorted sounds are harder to be reproduced by a digital device than clean ones). This might lead to an average lower attention (and expectations) to cleans.

    ... if this makes any sense LOL

    Stick the two together though and you have something. A great way of getting a clean tone is simply by using your guitar volume to back off the input into an overdriven amp. Makes sense that people feel more at home with reducing the gain on a more saturated tone as that's how many of us actually had to do it PK (pre-Kemper )

    Quote from Lex81

    I did get this technical thing of Kemper, about the RETURN-inputs.
    But I dont know, how to read it So I dont know, if its technically possible.


    The picture shows only that you can not use both inputs at same time.
    If you plug in a Guitar cabel (I think its called TRS-Plug) the XLR Input will switched off.