Ethics and kemper! henning pauly with his axe in the throat

    Quote from schneidas


    So by that logic - what if Marshall, Bogner, Vox, Mesa, ENGL and co. come out tomorrow and specifically say "guys, we hereby forbid anyone from making profiles of our amps and existing copies have to be deleted".
    Your KPA would suddenly be a device without sounds right?


    Firstly, have any amp manufacturers publicly stated that they don't approve of their amps being profiled? This isn't like when the RIAA publicly spoke out against MP3 sharing and people kept defending it regardless. If amp manufacturers have a problem with profiling, I say let them speak up.


    Quote from schneidas

    Oh no wait... we could just do it as some seller in here does... ANGEL instead of ENGL for example. Because by changing the name - you can find that little grey zone - avoid the fact that you copied somone else's design!


    Their design? Since when does the KPA profile amp designs? Further, profiles inherently include the mics, room, cabs, guitar, and everything else in the signal chain, not just the amp. It's simplistic and not factual to claim that the KPA is copying amp designs or amps. A profile is not the actual amp and only sounds like a particular amp when played using various other equipment to filter the sound. It's obviously not a copy of the amp.


    It's akin to taking a picture of a still frame from a movie, running it through various Photoshop filters, and then claiming you've copied the movie.


    Quote from schneidas

    Let's face it: we're copying... and that's fine! But don't label it differently to make you feel better. Face the truth


    Are artists copying the sound of an amp when they record guitars for a song?

    I'm not debating on the subject of ethics, but if a royalty was required to play a Kemper, well then I'd have to pay it to play it. That being said. If you took 3 recording engineers and gave them the same amp to profile, with a criteria to create a clean, a crunch and a hi gain profile,I assume the chances are you would end up with 3 different sounding profile packs. So my point is that the profile is in the ear. I think it's about aesthetics not circuits. Then if you were to give those packs out to the community and not tell anyone what amp was profiled, they may assume that they were 3 different amps. You may have profiled a JSX and they may think it was a TSL 2000. Just like a plug in compressor on your computer. It looks like an 1176, so it sounds like one. Strip away the image of the 1176 and you may end up thinking that the plugin doesn't sound very good.


    In my opinion, there is a sonic difference between a Kemper and a real amp. It doesn't seem to capture everything, but it's a very convincing emulator indeed and a wonderful tool.

    Quote from MarcelK-O

    In my opinion, there is a sonic difference between a Kemper and a real amp. It doesn't seem to capture everything, but it's a very convincing emulator indeed and a wonderful tool.


    I do think the KPA convincingly captures what the mic hears, but unlike a real amp the authenticity of a profile is conditional upon the guitar used.

    A real amp is both limited yet more versatile in many ways than a KPA. Until Kemper is able to perfectly clone an amp in its entirety, I don't see demand for real amps disappearing. In fact, KPA profiles seem to be good marketing for the amps they're based on. I've read more than a few posts from owners of both the KPA and Axe II who purchased an amp specifically because they loved a certain profile / preset..

    Quote from ColdFrixion

    A real amp is both limited yet more versatile in many ways than a KPA. Until Kemper is able to perfectly clone an amp in its entirety, I don't see demand for real amps disappearing. In fact, KPA profiles seem to be good marketing for the amps they're based on. I've read more than a few posts from owners of both the KPA and Axe II who purchased an amp specifically because they loved a certain profile / preset..


    I agree, I highly doubt that KPA sales are hurting the manufacturers of tube amp one bit.

    In any case the KPA and a real amp are two different things and used in different ways, so I really don't see the problem. Also the KPA would not exist, if there were no tube amps, on the contrary, the more there are, the better is...and if some KPA owner sell his tube amp IMHO it means he just don't need a tube amp...

    Quote from schneidas


    So by that logic - what if Marshall, Bogner, Vox, Mesa, ENGL and co. come out tomorrow and specifically say "guys, we hereby forbid anyone from making profiles of our amps and existing copies have to be deleted".
    Your KPA would suddenly be a device without sounds right?


    Oh no wait... we could just do it as some seller in here does... ANGEL instead of ENGL for example. Because by changing the name - you can find that little grey zone - avoid the fact that you copied somone else's design!


    A sound can't be protected by trademarketing or patent.
    Harley Davidson tried that with their engine sound, they failed.


    The same goes for amplifiers, the sound can't be trademarketed.
    It's perfectly ok to profile the sound.
    The sound also comes from the individual setting up the whole signal chain with speaker, mic, preamps... so no company can claim any trademarks at all.


    What amp companies often do is to make sure their name and logo is not used in marketing by others selling something.
    They can and will sue those, often with a warning first. Several threads on this forum is about how to market commercial amp profiles without getting in potential legal trouble, not showing amp names in photos etc. Sellers often use cryptic amp names instead of the real names, like Mars (for marshall). If a company gives a seller ok to use their name and photo then it's ok.


    Anybody can profile as much as they want and share, but if they are for commercial use then make sure not to cross any copyright laws in the marketing text or photos.


    This...

    You're comparing apples to oranges. Artists play a guitar into the amp... that's what the amp they play was designed for. We are running a device into it and getting the sound of it on our device - two different things. So we're copying (you guys seem to really have a problem with that word) - what the KPA was designed to do

    Quote from schneidas


    Let's face it: we're copying... and that's fine! But don't label it differently to make you feel better. Face the truth


    I respectfully disagree:

    • Profiling is mimicking. Nothing gets actually "copied" - neither the design, nor the hardware, nor any algorithms.
    • There is also no "reverse engineering" involved as ColdFrixion said - no object was taken apart, no parts were copied.
      In other words - the way the original product was created or how it is creating a sound is not at all being reverse engineered or duplicated.

    Mimicking is:

    • Common practice for a long time and now
    • Just easier and more accurate than before


    If mimicking was not allowed, we would not have the hundreds of overdrive / distortion pedals not only trying to mimic, but also being advertised to sound like well-known amps (Xotic SL Drive, JHS Angry Charlie, etc.).


    Let's also not forget that I can create a rig to sound really close to an amp by using a combination of pedals and amps that were not all designed to mimic that amp.


    ... and finally even music styles from band x have been mimicked by band y and often further developed or enhanced without copying a specific phrase or melody.


    We would not have Jazz.


    Regards,
    Martin

    Edited once, last by giletti ().

    Ok, so it's the word "copying" that you guys object to. Copying, mimicking, profilling - I throw it all in one pot.

    Quote from schneidas


    You're comparing apples to oranges. Artists play a guitar into the amp...


    Do artists play guitar through a Kemper?


    Quote from schneidas

    We are running a device into it and getting the sound of it on our device


    Yes, that's what happens when you play a guitar through it.


    Quote from schneidas

    So we're copying (you guys seem to really have a problem with that word) - what the KPA was designed to do


    I don't have a problem with the word copy, but you think the word only applies to audio produced by a KPA rather than a real amp. Any way you want to slice it, the fact is a recording of a real amp is a copy of the sound that amp produces. Further, as pointed out multiple times, the audio that's produced by the Kemper is not a copy of the amp because the audio that's produced isn't solely the product of just the amp but of the mics, room, guitar, etc. In fact, there's no way to copy the amp without filtering the audio through those channels. Again, you're conflating a still image that's been altered with several photographic filters with the movie that the still image was taken from. They're not even remotely the same.

    Quote from giletti


    There is also no "reverse engineering" involved as ColdFrixion said - no object was taken apart, no parts were copied.
    In other words - the way the original product was created or how it is creating a sound is not at all being reverse engineered or duplicated.


    Compaq successfully reverse engineered IBM-PC's Bios without ever having looked at the code. In fact, one of the conditions to avoid a lawsuit was that no one in the company who was working on the project could look at the code lest it expose them to legal trouble.

    @schneidas


    You raise interesting questions...and I can at least understand your points and reasoning, even though I don't quite agree.


    At the end of the day, a commercial profile vendor has created a product using his/her time, labor and art (mic'ing technique, preamping, etc.). The Kemper Profiler just happens to be just one of the hardware devices (albeit the key device) used in creating their product. However, that is neither here nor there. The commercial profile vendor's product is a digital file that is intended to be loaded onto a KPA and used by the buyer of their product...much like a software application is intended to be run on a Windows or OS X device.


    There is nothing inherently unethical about making any number of copies of a commercial KPA vendor's profiles for your own personal use. In fact, I have multiple copies stored on various USB and backup hard-drives. However, it would be highly unethical if you turned around and started distributing/selling a vendor's profiles to others, without the vendor's expressed consent. When you purchased a commercial vendors profiles, you effectively were given a sole-use license.


    Anyways, those are my thoughts on this matter.


    Cheers,
    John

    Edited 2 times, last by Tritium ().

    Hi John, I appreciate and respect your point of view.
    I also see what you mean.


    But I cannot help it but to always still kind of smile at this fact (for me):


    The profile seller captures a "snapshot" of an amp and sells this.
    Now, if I were to capture a snapshot of that seller's profile and sell it... wouldn't I do the same thing the seller does?


    I dunno, maybe I'm wrong - but this always makes me smile a bit.


    Cheers, Chris


    I agree, Chris..there is definitely some poetic irony going on, here.


    In fact, at least at first blush, one might even consider it a bit "cheeky" of vendors to actually charge a fee for their Kemper profiles. But again, at the end of the day, that market wouldn't exist if KPA owners did not perceive a definite value, and feel it worth the price of admission, so to speak. If anyone and everyone could make fantastic KPA profiles, then there would be no market.


    But the fact is, certain vendors have a talent and gift in the profiling department. I don't think any of us would dispute the fact that there is definitely an art to the selection and positioning of the mic's in relation to the speaker/cab, the type of speaker used, and the subtle voodoo involved with mic preamps, etc., etc. In many cases, these are pro-level studios using pro-level equipment. And of course, there is the other overarching factor...the commercial vendors ability to obtain expensive, rare and/or highly desirable tube amps.


    While I can't speak for others, I can pretty much confirm that I do not have a Soldono SLO-100, a vintage Marshall model 1959 SLP, a Friedman BE-100, a vintage Fender Bassman, a Matchless DC-30, nor a Dumble ODS just somewhere lying around my pad. :P:D

    Noted and agreed!
    However, when someone tells me *I have a Marshall XYZ in my home* - I say: "yes, I have it too... and around 2 thousand other amps".
    I just feel that one great captured sound is the essence of the whole amp :) :P