Kemper vs. Real Amp Test - Cameron CCV

    Quote from schreckmusic

    I just bought this pedal used on a different forum. Should arrive by Monday. It seems very interesting as I'll try it with profiling and in front of the Kemper.


    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    I don't know whether it will do anything to rectify the profiling issues, but that and TC BodyRez look like great pedals regardless.

    This is what I'm talking about four years, we're not talking about difference but about of lack. I do not prefer one over the other tone for their timbral difference, but for lack of the profile in a certain "aural thing". As it has already been said many times, in a certain range of frequencies, in the profile, is missing something that makes more beautiful, full-bodied, 3D, the real-amp sound than the Kemper.
    That is why I continue to use the real-amp in the studio and the Kemper for live because it sounds however very well, and is small and lightt. that's all.

    Quote from Webb

    Apologies as I haven't read every reply in this thread but it seems like there is some good discussion happening.


    I wanted to see if I could get it a bit closer so I made another profile and compared that to the amp using the same DI files as the OP. Might be in the same order...might not be. I'll let you decide. Close? Not close? Better? Sucks? Let's hear your thoughts...


    https://www.dropbox.com/s/5uoq…20reamp%203.2.17.wav?dl=0

    Anyone care to comment on round 2?

    Not being disrespectful, here...but you and @SonicExporer keep expounding upon the perceived limitations of the Kemper in accurately reproducing the full frequency dynamics and characteristics of the reference tube amp. Again, not trying to be argumentative, but if my memory serves, @SonicExporer had an infamous, multi-page thread (as a NEW Kemper owner and forum member) in which he was convinced his Kemper was either malfunctioning, or a piece of junk. As it turned out, at the end of the day (actually, many days, and many MANY posts) the problem was his audio interface:


    To Keep or not to Keep .... * RESOLVED *


    Aye yai yai.


    Look, I am sure you guys are sincere, and feel you can distinguish the "real, reference tube amp" from the Kemper profile. Invariably, the vast majority of these blind audio comparisons are set up as a single, binary choice. Rarely, do we see, for example, a sample of TEN or more selections in which the listener has to pick out and discriminate between the Kemper and the reference tube amp over multiple choices. If I were doing it, I would have THREE sessions, each consisting of TEN audio clips...for a total of thirty selections. It would be VERY interesting to see if one could successfully pick out the actual tube amp in a statistically significant manner (i.e., greater than chance).


    ...just saying.

    Quote from Tritium

    Not being disrespectful, here...but you and @SonicExporer keep expounding upon the perceived limitations of the Kemper in accurately reproducing the full frequency dynamics and characteristics of the reference tube amp. Again, not trying to be argumentative, but if my memory serves, @SonicExporer had an infamous, multi-page thread (as a NEW Kemper owner and forum member) in which he was convinced his Kemper was either malfunctioning, or a piece of junk. As it turned out, at the end of the day (actually, many days, and many MANY posts) the problem was his audio interface:

    Tritium, this isn't an accurate representation. The post you are referring to is where the issue turned out be my DAW interface was not saving channel mute settings internally and caused me to go chasing a LATENCY issue that wasn't the actual problem after all. One which, BTW, would never have surfaced had the KPA SPDIF been able to function at something other than 44.1K sample rate. Further, just sheer bad luck the KPA was unable to profile the first amp I tested. Turns out that amp doesn't get along with the KPA, but being new to the device I had no clue there were limitations where a few amps just can't be profiled.


    All that has ZERO to do with this very real issue with the KPA we are discussing in this thread.

    Quote from FaZz

    That is why I continue to use the real-amp in the studio and the Kemper for live because it sounds however very well, and is small and lightt. that's all.

    I am with you. The real amp will not die.
    For me it is quite probable that the KPA technology will not exist as long as tube amps.


    But at the moment for live the Kemper is for me the most simply gear with the best benefit to get a great tone without a sound check orgy.


    I think the market will change. For recording and for personal reasons, whatever, Amps will be available also in the future. Maybe they become a little more costly.

    I don't mind when there are tiny differences between the profile and the real amp.


    I do mind when the way low notes ring out, compress, react is big enough for me to feel as if playing through two distinctly different amps.


    This is what I personally mean by "lack of body". You can also hear it in the lead tones in my video.

    Quote from ColdFrixion

    I mean, if I posted a single sample and asked people whether it's the real amp or a profile, I doubt anyone who's able to identify the KPA in a head to head comparison would be able to identify it correctly when listening to the sample by itself.

    SinMix reckons he can hear the Profiler's "fingerprint" even in a mix context, but I agree, '80s Bro'.


    Folks, may I point out at this point that the shortcomings being argued here relate to direct comparisons involving specific and exact mic placements and signal-chain setups. If one were to, say, shift a mic's position in any given setup by a few centimetres, even millimetres, the resulting tone would change arguably-more than the difference between the original position's result and the Profile created from it.


    IOW, if I'm correct about this, the difference between a well-made Profile and the original source's tone is irrelevant when one considers that:


    a) The listener or player mightn't have been present at the Profiling session, and even if he or she were so, a short break for a snack or trip to the bathroom, followed by a resumption of playing the Profile only, would IMHO result in the player's believing that the sound and playability were identical to the original's.


    b) The listener or player and engineer, statistically, would have been overwhelmingly-likely to have chosen a slightly-different orientation, position and distance for the mic at any other equivalent session. This is why, even when attempting to replicate known setups using identical (literally the same) equipment for recording purposes (drop-ins into existing guitar tracks, for instance), even the best engineers concede that exact replication of the original session's tone is all-but impossible. Given this fact, what are the chances that the same mic and amp, employed by a different set of people at a different time and location, without the goal of replicating our "original-source"-reference setup, is going to sound even close-to-identical to it? So close to zero it's not funny.


    In simple terms, I'm saying that sweating the minutia of a direct comparison is pointless, IMHO, when recording location, millimetres in mic placement, preamp models chosen and exact gain and EQ stack settings used all contribute much more to the differences between any given properly-made Profile and its original source amp.


    Whaddaya think? Are we being bogged down unnecessarily here?


    One possible real-world scenario:


    A respected engineer creates and uses a Profile in preference to retaining the amp setup he constructed in the first place for utilitarian reasons (space, convenience of overdubbing, possible future re-tracking and drop-ins). He or she allows the recording to be scrutinised by a group of his most-respected, world-class-engineer peers.


    Is any of these folks qualified to accuse the engineer of having cheated / taken a short-cut by employing a Kemper when in fact not one of them was present at the Profiling session, and therefore has no knowledge of exactly where the mic was placed, which preamp was used, what the exact settings on the amp were, and so on? What the setup would have sounded like couldn't be imagined exactly even if all variables were shared with the group.


    Even if someone were present at the original session, how on earth could he or she have retained a memory of the sound accurately-enough in order to be able to discern the difference? Further to this, as I've pointed out, the mic could have been a cm further away, or closer, or laterally-across the speaker, or facing a different speaker, or at a different angle, and yielded a perfect replica of what might've been achieved by Profiling at another, slightly-different position.


    That's my take on this, FWIMBW. I may be completely-wrong and missing something obvious, in which case I'd very-much appreciate someone's enlightening me as to what it might be.


    EDIT:
    Dimi's issue obviously falls outside the boundaries of what I'm talking about here. I'm referring to the differences that occur during bread-and-butter, non-problem-amp Profiling.

    Quote from ColdFrixion

    Much, much better. The Kemper profile is the 1st sample, but If I drop the level of the KPA clip by .3dB, the differences (in tone) become practically imperceptible.
    What did you do differently?

    I agree that these are much closer. And the first sample is louder, which makes this even harder. Could you ( @Webb) match the levels so that it wouldn't introduce yet another variable?

    Quote from citizengain

    I agree that these are much closer. And the first sample is louder, which makes this even harder. Could you ( @Webb) match the levels so that it wouldn't introduce yet another variable?

    Closer, but in this case I do hear the difference as in most of my profiling sessions. The kemper is tighter and has a more Maxon-boosty type of tone. Pay attention to the low, muted notes via good monitors or headphones and it'll become quite apparent.. The kemper low notes are tinnier; the real amp's bigger and ballsier.

    Quote from Dimi84

    Closer, but in this case I do hear the difference as in most of my profiling sessions. The kemper is tighter and has a more Maxon-boosty type of tone. Pay attention to the low, muted notes via good monitors or headphones and it'll become quite apparent.. The kemper low notes are tinnier; the real amp's bigger and ballsier.

    1- Kemper 2- Real :D


    Stay Metal!

    Quote from sinmix

    1- Kemper 2- Real :D
    Stay Metal!

    Definitely kemper is the first... And it's pretty easy to hear with good monitors or headphones.I think once you get used to this difference you can spot it in many profiles.

    Quote from Dimi84

    Closer, but in this case I do hear the difference as in most of my profiling sessions. The kemper is tighter and has a more Maxon-boosty type of tone. Pay attention to the low, muted notes via good monitors or headphones and it'll become quite apparent.. The kemper low notes are tinnier; the real amp's bigger and ballsier.

    The palm mutes in the Kemper sample sound more gated even when the frequency response sounds identical. Now, while that difference may seem apparent and readily noticeable to some people, it's simply not to most people. Unless you know what to listen for, you're not going to catch it and most people don't know what to listen for. Those people make up the majority, in my opinion. To them, the difference is practically non-existent.

    The bottom line is this. If you examine two molecules with a microscope, the differences may become apparent. However, as it pertains to the KPA, most people don't listen to music with a microscope, nor do they have the luxury of comparing the KPA to its real-world counterpart in an actual project. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a future revision of the KPA that addresses the differences being discussed and allows two samples to null when A/B'd, but let's take a step back, see the bigger picture and recognize that the differences we're talking about are completely transparent to most people in a direct comparison, much less in a mix.

    Quote from ColdFrixion

    The palm mutes in the Kemper sample sound more gated even when the frequency response sounds identical. Now, while that difference may seem apparent and readily noticeable to some people, it's simply not to most people. Unless you know what to listen for, you're not going to catch it and most people don't know what to listen for. Those people make up the majority, in my opinion. To them, the difference is practically non-existent.

    What do you mean by "gated" though?


    I don't hear the same frequency response. It's close, but I'm sure I could get similar results with amp matching a close-enough-amp in bias fx (or maybe not matching at all, even, but using eq). In this case the low notes seem rounder to me, bigger, through JBL305s and even more apparent through beyerdynamic headphones. These differences, as small as they may be, tend to create quite a change in feel for me with my own amps. My laney profile feels as if there's a maxon 808 running at the front, for example.


    It's the same with profiling a couple of carefully designed tones in my pod xt -- and the same with my Orange Jim Root Terro miced up. Some may prefer the profiles, even, due to the perceived tightness. Also those profiling many amps (especially high gain tones perhaps) I believe will be familiar with these differences. But yea, you are probably right, that few others notice any difference. Then again, my ex girlfriend also couldn't tell the difference between the guitar tones in Master of Puppets vs Justice for All.. I'm sure the average listener or Metallica themselves would notice and care!


    So I still do think there's room to make profiling better. For me it'll be good enough when I don't feel the need to turn my Laney on :) I'm opening a support ticket myself to see what the kemper people think about this difference that seems to be consistent among many profiles and if there's something I can do to get better results. I know many say that "oh but a tighter tone works better in a mix anyway" -- but by that logic I can get a pod hd and achieve a tighter tone than most amps anyway. Imho the whole point of the kemper is to replicate the tone of the amp as it is.