Tonal difference between merged & studio profiles

    Hey guys I'm new to the board but I've had my Kemper power rack for a couple of months now and am continually blown away by it every day.


    Yesterday I finally made the Leap to trying a commercial rig pack from TopJimi after being really impressed with the free profiles I tried of his.


    To preface my question, I am running the Power rack through a Mesa traditional 4x12 straight cab with cab sims turned off.


    Upon pulling up the profiles in my browser I noticed that every other one contained a capital "M" after it, which I assume means it is the merged profile of that variant. What surprised me is that many of the merged profiles lacked the girth and 3D "air pushing" qualities of some of the studio versions where the cabs were turned off and the Kemper was doing its "guessing" algorithm.


    Now I'm sure I'm doing something wrong or missing something because the merged profiles are supposed to be BETTER through a real cabinet right? The merged profiles almost sound kinda far away or thin sounding compared to its studio counterpart.


    Anybody have any tips on what I may be missing or something?


    Like I said I'm still fairly new to the Kemper so any insight from you guys would be appreciated.


    Thank ye!

    Quote from FitRocker33

    Now I'm sure I'm doing something wrong or missing something because the merged profiles are supposed to be BETTER through a real cabinet right?

    Hmmm... No, not better - just more authentic to how the real amp would sound played through that cab. Whether that sounds better or worse to a listener is subjective.


    IIRC, TJ used a DI box with a load attached (rather than using the real speaker as a load) for some of the first merged profiles he did, which had the result of the merged and the studio profiles sounding quite different from each other when played "normally" - ie. without a guitar cab, but going through headphones/FRFR/studio monitors instead.


    Merged profiles are the most appropriate solution for live needs when the player requires a profile signal appropriate for FOH AND an on-stage standard guitar cabinetry (as opposed to FRFR...) for example.


    For just playing through a cab alone, DAPs are the 'truest to amp' type of profile whilst studio profiles can still obviously provide pleasing results (of course, depending on taste).

    Hmm okay I think my next pack purchase will consist of some direct profiles as well.


    And ironically, GameOfTones is one of my bookmarked sites for a future purchase! :thumbup:


    I took a big gamble when I traded my beloved ENGL Powerball II head for the Kemper, but it seems to have been a worthwhile change thus far.

    Not bashing profilers, but I found TJ's the absolute worst sounding merged profiles that I've ever used, without a doubt, for whatever reason. They simply do not sound right at all through my real speaker cabinet, every pack I've had of his had this problem with the merged profiles. While the best sounding merged I've used are tonehammers far and away for me personally.


    Just wanted to point out, I wouldn't judge all merged profiles by one profilers examples, just my opinion...

    Yeah well all I can add to the above statement is that the studio profiles I got from TJ sound phenomenal. I bought the Friedman browneye pack and it's pretty sweet. He also gives quite a few different gain and switch setting variations too which is nice.

    Good sounding rigs......


    Its all a matter of taste and experience. It took my month to test, tweak and practice ro find my holy grails. My favs are di profiles combined with my cabs ( mostly cabs feom tonehammer) and i use a frfr solution. But there are also many many good studio profiles on rm and the merged profiles from Guido Bungenstock, esp. the bogner xtc are outstanding. I bought the bogner studio and the bogner merged profiles feom Guido and there is a big difference between them imho. The merged ones are absolutly great.

    For the OP, I have a lot of experience with many commercial profilers, and TJ profiles (merged) tend to sound thin in general with my rigs.


    I don't mean that as a slight, many people love the TJ stuff, and I use them for studio stuff regularly. But I have had better luck with Tonehammer and other profilers' merged profiles with my guitar cabs. So it may just be TopJimi profiles aren't what you're looking for. You'd be surprised at the variation from profiler to profiler.


    MBritt profiles are excellent, no doubt. For a time, he did a few merged profiles (some Marshalls if I recall) and they are definitely different through a guitar cab than his studio profiles (I have about 80% of all that he's made.) I prefer his merged profiles through a guitar cab, you may or may not, of course.

    Basically my tastes veer towards high gain flavors and as of right now my Kemper is acting as a traditional amphead, so what I really want the most are the most authentic recreations of the amps I'm playing through.


    GoT's profile samples on his website definitely sound like what I'm after.


    Dunno if this helps any but my main guitars that I play are an ESP E-II Horizon III w/ Duncan Nazgul/sentient pickups and a carvin dc727 with the same Duncan's as the ESP.


    The only weak link in my setup is my playing :D

    Quote from gtrgriff3

    For the OP, I have a lot of experience with many commercial profilers, and TJ profiles (merged) tend to sound thin in general with my rigs.


    I don't mean that as a slight, many people love the TJ stuff, and I use them for studio stuff regularly. But I have had better luck with Tonehammer and other profilers' merged profiles with my guitar cabs. So it may just be TopJimi profiles aren't what you're looking for. You'd be surprised at the variation from profiler to profiler.


    MBritt profiles are excellent, no doubt. For a time, he did a few merged profiles (some Marshalls if I recall) and they are definitely different through a guitar cab than his studio profiles (I have about 80% of all that he's made.) I prefer his merged profiles through a guitar cab, you may or may not, of course.

    As far as I'm aware, the only merged profiles MBritt made were for the free Kemper Rig pack. He wasn't happy with them, though, so tweaked them further and uploaded the results to the Rig Exchange. This was at the dawn of FW 3.0 that introduced the Direct Amp and Merged profiles and there were a few teething problems, as I recall. Going off others' accounts (Tonehammer, for one) the process has worked as intended since the first couple of updates to FW3, if done properly. C Kemper also states that Studio profiles and the Studio part of Merged profiles are identical, if you look at the code of well-made profiles. There shouldn't be any discernable difference, if done correctly.

    My 5150 Pack also has some merged profiles as well some Mesa Duo-Rec in my Heavy Pack. I've done merged profiles to varying degrees of success, and I in no way want to come across as dissing on them. They are great for people who run their Kempers into a guitar cab onstage and need that sound to recreate a real amp as close as possible. And as far as the sound differences between studio and merged profiles, I find some to be near perfect, and I've had some that I can tell the difference a little more. I will say that the difference is subtle.


    I went through a stage a while back where I did merged profiles of my main amps and used them live for about 3-4 months. I got used to them and there was a perceived feeling of a difference, namely more low end and less compression in the merged profiles compared to what I was used to with the studio profiles of the same amps. At one point, I ended up switching rigs for a song to a studio rig and it just felt different. I then changed a couple of my main clean sounds back to the studio profiles and eventually, they all got changed back. Like I said, it was a perceived difference and I'm not sure how much of it is mental or what. Mind you, I hear mostly from in-ear monitors so I'm hearing the sound with the cabs onstage. At the time, I was using a stage cab for just a bit of thump and feel onstage and I was using a 212 guitar cab at that time. I've since switched to using an FRFR type cab so I'm not as interested in the merged profiles, personally.


    From a philosophical perspective, I don't concentrate on merged profiles as much because I have a harder time judging them. When I listen to a merged profile and its studio complement, I always prefer the studio profile and I'm not sure why. I can look at the wave files on a computer and they look practically identical, so I'm not sure what the actual differences may be, but I think it's more in feel than frequency response. I do know that if I use different DI boxes to make direct/merged profiles, there is a difference depending upon the DI box. That tells me that even on a merged profile, the DI is imparting something to the tone that isn't there in the studio profile. The Kemper DI sounds the best to my ears, but I notice that the definition and gain will "read" somewhat differently when making the profiles, so the Kemper is hearing back some difference between the studio and DI profiles. This is not to make any negative judgment on merged profiles, only to say that I do not feel they are identical. If I used stage cabs exclusively and needed the merged versions, I may choose to concentrate on that, but in most of my applications (live, recording), the studio profiles work best for me and sometimes I don't have the time to make multiples and do direct/merged versions of every amp as my time is often limited. I tend to focus on studio profiles as a matter of personal taste, but I do like to make merged rigs for some of the heavier amps. I'm just glad that there are other guys out there who make nice merged profiles for the guys who prefer those. I may do more in the future as well as I try new things.