Axe FX III vs Kemper Profiling Amp

  • I don’t see the point of this video.
    Same amps but completely different cabs, so it doesn’t make any sense IMHO.
    I know that the KPA doesn’t deliver the best when profiling modelers but that’s what I would have done if I was willing to make a comparison.
    Or at least I would have used the same IR.

  • AXE FX III is still unable to model the impedance curve and the speaker/amp interaction which makes it less authentic. Currently Kemper is the only modeler that accurately captures the whole thing including speaker interaction and speaker saturation, An impulse response used by the AXE FX has zero information about Speaker saturation. A kemper profile has all that. Y


    You make your own conclusion based on the facts stated above,


    If you have no idea what I'm talking about, next time you buy impulse responses, make sure to ask the seller about what to do about impedance curve or resonant frequencies of the corresponding cabinet and whether they measured and can provide you with that information,

  • AXE FX III is still unable to model the impedance curve and the speaker/amp interaction which makes it less authentic. Currently Kemper is the only modeler that accurately captures the whole thing including speaker interaction and speaker saturation, An impulse response used by the AXE FX has zero information about Speaker saturation. A kemper profile has all that. Y


    You make your own conclusion based on the facts stated above,


    If you have no idea what I'm talking about, next time you buy impulse responses, make sure to ask the seller about what to do about impedance curve or resonant frequencies of the corresponding cabinet and whether they measured and can provide you with that information,

    To be honest FAS emulates speaker saturation and impedance curve.
    Neverthless, it is always a simulation, so it can be more or less accurate.

  • To be honest FAS emulates speaker saturation and impedance curve.Neverthless, it is always a simulation, so it can be more or less accurate.

    They do, but you have to input those numbers manually, and if you use an external IR, there's no way of accurately knowing what the numbers are so it's usually approximated and even then, the algorithm or modeling is subjective to a certain degree based on the programmers ears.

  • The video is utterly useless, as is this thread.

    The thread can be as educational and useful at the level of professionalism of those who contribute to the thread., I's a very relevant question to many who might be considering either device. I understand your point though as it seems that many are unable to professionally discuss certain topics.

  • well i already profiled all amps of the axe fx 2


    and as you see, when you profile the axefx the difference is not as big as
    when you compare the stock amps of the axe fx to some other amps with another cab/mic/position ... know what i mean?


    i really think the axe fx III can sound more real then the kemper because of the proper gain staging
    but i will stay with kemper because the amps and amp pedal combos i love are not in the axe fx so i get close to my sound in the studio with the kemper
    in less time then with recreating the same sound with a completely different amp cab and pedal setup.


    and when it come to usability ax8 is the best fractal product so for me because of the direct amp controls. still not as convenient as the kemper but
    this is the one thing i hated when i had the axe fx ultra ... everything you do is in menus and submenus ... really not my thing


    But don't get me wrong soundwise and effectwise the axefx is the best thing on the market when you want a great sounding "all in one" package
    the portability of the powered kemepr head is unbeatable imo but if i were rich i would get a axefxIII
    too or maybe one day the ax8

  • The video is utterly useless, as is this thread.

    I don't think so, obviously anyone can make one or the other sound better, and it's very hard to compare unless it's the same IR's etc, but videos like this can have some use, in fact I'm right now at a recording studio working with a guy who thinks all digital gear sucks, and I played him this video listening to very good studio speakers, and he was pretty surprised, and even asked me how much these units cost.. :) he's been all 100% tube amps or nothing, I've mentioned Fractal and Kemper a bunch of times to him in the past and didn't see any interest from him..till now and the funny thing is, just based on this video, he didn't choose the same one I did,.. ;)
    I owned both Axe 2 and KPA at same time for about 6 months, so I'm very familiar with the Fractal and KPA sound.

  • This thread is completely usesless..


    It is confirmed by the guys on the fractal forums that the synth block of the AF3 is monophonic!!
    Another hillarious thing is that their pith shifter has still no "formant shift";Is this true;


    What is the point of all this (bragging about specs and "processor power") when you cant even deliver on these simple issues;


    I was thinking about the AF3 some weeks ago..sure not anymore..

  • Tip the receptionist on the way out, Dave; I'll be here all week. :D


    I do think Dean's point about cabinet behaviour is highly-relevant 'though. As I pointed out in another thread today, as one lowers overall volume, cabinet resonances' levels as well as impedances are reduced, including those involving the inertia of the voice-coil mechanism and speaker cone/s (heavy magnet, air-pressure resistance to cone movement and so on), and thus behaviour varies with both the frequency content as well as input volume (to the cabinet).


    IR's simply cannot convey this. The Kemper has been accused (by those who aren't fully-aware of its potential) of being a snapshot machine. Well, if ever there were a classic example of a static snapshot's being a limitation, I'd say IR's vs Kemper Cabs would be it.

  • IAs I pointed out in another thread today, as one lowers overall volume, cabinet resonances' levels as well as impedances are reduced, including those involving the inertia of the voice-coil mechanism and speaker cone/s (heavy magnet, air-pressure resistance to cone movement and so on), and thus behaviour varies with both the frequency content as well as input volume (to the cabinet)...

    I think that's hugely relevant and meaningful. Sometimes I find it puzzling that people who purchase the Kemper still continue to experiment with impulse responses ignoring the huge advancement in the profiling process as it relates to capturing the cabinet and power amp response without knowing what the need for actual measurements of these critical factors .


    Of course we're just talking about accuracy and authentic amp sound. Missing the impedance, resonance, and speaker saturation and interaction effect on the tube amp response and sound without getting that correctly and settling for approximation is significant.

  • I think that's hugely relevant and meaningful. Sometimes I find it puzzling that people who purchase the Kemper still continue to experiment with impulse responses ignoring the huge advancement in the profiling process as it relates to capturing the cabinet and power amp response without knowing what the need for actual measurements of these critical factors .
    Of course we're just talking about accuracy and authentic amp sound. Missing the impedance, resonance, and speaker saturation and interaction effect on the tube amp response and sound without getting that correctly and settling for approximation is significant.

    Lots of people, myself included, have spoken to why we like the Axe. You are not “puzzled”. You simply refuse to accept that anyone can have an opinion that differs to yours.

  • He plays really well. I preferred Axe sounds over profiles sounds in this particular video, but it's a matter of preference. Kemper can sound just like that too, with different profiles.


    p.s. I think Kemper version of most if not all of these tones would would work better in a song context.