I Intend to start a study about commercial profiles

Hi Michael,

This „gamerchanger“ was meant , that with that guitar the profiles from that commercial seller sound really totally different and near to the presented sound. I was absolute surprised by that. I didn’t bought this guitar for these profiles, it was a guitar on my whishlist for a long time and the first thing I have done was to plug in and check the profiles. Than I got this wow effect. Couldn’t stop playing for hours.

Otherwise I reached a presented strat sound with my strat but it was a pain.

Anyway, I am happy with the sounds I get and don’t compare them to a presentation as I have done earlier.

It was nice to read that so many others have the same problem when comparing because I also couldn’t accept the hint „buy the right guitar“, and this hint was from a moderator.....

A cool experience was to check out the BE100 profiles from LRS and from Matt. The packs are totally diffrent from each other, the guys haven‘t soundsamples and without comparing to soundsamples I got massive good sounds out of the packs. Funny was that I also tried later to reach the sound of the well known Phil X video from youtube. This sound was quickly reached with my Gibson and the LRS pack. Awesome punchy sounds, but also here a big difference from the Gibson to the Floydrose equiped jems.

Cheers
Frank

Hi Michael,

I try to show what I mean with diffrences to presented sounds:

Here is a short snap of Rubens presentation of a soldano 99 Cases Dist 2 profile from Bert in his video and I asked here in the forum if the vid is post processed because it's impossible for me to get this sound out of the box, like you will hear in the soundsample. First is Rubens sound from the vid
than
2= Some chords with my Luke II
3=Some with a jem and evo pu's
4=some with a jem from 89 and a pfa dimarzio
5=Strat
6=Gibson with dimarzion super distortion pu
7=EVH Wolfgang

none of these fine guitars have this clearness and the punch right out of the box like you hear from Rubens example with his Telecaster. All my examples sound like you have a woolplate over the cab. That was what I complained and why I think many soundsamples are postprocessed.

Sorry for the 4 quick chords

Quote from Eltzejupp

Anyway, I am happy with the sounds I get and don’t compare them to a presentation as I have done earlier.

I think you're right. The answer is to not try to compare to sound demos. Use a demo .kipr profile to decide. That's what I have been doing recently.

Quote from Rod Staples

I think you're right. The answer is to not try to compare to sound demos. Use a demo .kipr profile to decide. That's what I have been doing recently.

Thanks,

And there is something more to say.
My soundsample is a comparison to a profile from Bert Meulendijk. I posted his name because it’s clear that Rubens vid is about his pack. I claimed the sound in Rubens vid as not reacheable and this has nothing to do with sounds that Bert presented by himself. His presentations are surely not post processed, I know that very well.

Sorry to Bert that I used an example of one of his profiles but this vid was what I was focused on and as written, I got no answer when I asked if it is post processed ( maybe for marketing)

Otherwise I own every of Berts profiles from the beginning and they sound outstanding when you not compare and just play!

I know when Choptones record they use many profiles at once (not just demo the one) They run 2 min at once on a video and that may be quad tracked etc. TopJimi will also put out a very decent recording, it certainly sounds like it was mixed for a "final product" if comparing the recording to the single profile.

With out the same pick ups , or them being labelled for single coil, EMG , Humbuckers or P90's etc, , its very hard to get the same sound out of the box obviously, but also the demos must be shown to have post processing . To me your still marketing what your product can aspire too given the right work.

I Digress, when the guitars are labelled /tested with specific pick ups, and the demo's are transparent you must be able to get the same sound.

Ash

Quote from Eltzejupp

none of these fine guitars have this clearness and the punch right out of the box like you hear from Rubens example with his Telecaster. All my examples sound like you have a woolplate over the cab. That was what I complained and why I think many soundsamples are postprocessed.

You sure it's not just the way he's got the Stack EQ knobs adjusted, Frank?

I mean, at the most-basic level, it sounds to me like low end has been cut and treble and presence boosted, or something along those lines.

Surely when we talk about matching sounds out-of-the-box, we must include the logical necessity to at least hit the Stack EQ a little to compensate for guitar / string / playing-style (light or heavy-picking) differences?

Just putting' it out there...

Quote from Monkey_Man

You sure it's not just the way he's got the Stack EQ knobs adjusted, Frank?
I mean, at the most-basic level, it sounds to me like low end has been cut and treble and presence boosted, or something along those lines.

Surely when we talk about matching sounds out-of-the-box, we must include the logical necessity to at least hit the Stack EQ a little to compensate for guitar / string / playing-style (light or heavy-picking) differences?

Just putting' it out there...

If it is like you say Nick, why do not telling that. But I think it isn't so, because Ruben switches from profile to profile and present the sound.

Quote from Eltzejupp

If it is like you say Nick, why do not telling that. But I think it isn't so, because Ruben switches from profile to profile and present the sound.

But he could easily have the output EQ's tweaked towards the guitar he uses, the sounds he like etc. I think we sometimes ignore those.

Quote from Eltzejupp

If it is like you say Nick, why do not telling that. But I think it isn't so, because Ruben switches from profile to profile and present the sound.

Btw, you can do the same test with the presentation of Michael Britts Kemper rig pack. I bet you cant reach the vid sound out of the box. Yes I only speak about out of the box, no tricks. Record the first noodling and try to reproduce it out of the box. If some here can do that, chapeau. I live near to Recklinghausen ( headquarter of kemper). If somebody wants to visit me and show me that the vidsounds from Rubens presentation will come right out of the box, welcome, day and night.

Don't missunderstand, I don't care so much about that issue these days because I found my way to create cool sounds for my taste. The kpa is the best piece of gear on the market imho. I am just saying that the presented sounds didn't sound like in the vids right out of the box and that's on topic, Lets talk about presentations and sounds which come really out of the box. When I buy a pack because I have heard a presentation which sounds killer and I can't get these sounds after paying for that thats a game over like Michael said. I can give a lot of examples.

After Ash's post my trust in presentations morphed to zero.

Cheers
Frank

Quote from musicmad

But he could easily have the output EQ's tweaked towards the guitar he uses, the sounds he like etc. I think we sometimes ignore those.

Yes, he can do a lot of things with this cool unit. It would be fine to know that because the point is: Presentation checked, switched on the kpa, load the presented profile, scratch the strings and than.... dissapointed because the sound isn't there.

This discussion is of course relevant - no doubt. I would argue that perhaps we should prefer it this way? Do we really want everyone to sound the same as long as they use the same profile? I personally don't appreciate how all drums sound the same on demos these days, since making drums has become so easy. I much prefer mapping out drums to individual channels and mix those independently to get "my" own sound. The same principle apply here (to me). Give me a good representation of the amp and let me mix it the way I like it. (imho only!)

I tend to agree, Nikolaj; that's the way I roll too, mate.

Quote from Eltzejupp

If it is like you say Nick, why do not telling that. But I think it isn't so, because Ruben switches from profile to profile and present the sound.

He may have resaved the Rigs with his own EQ settings, Frank.

That said, I totally get your point, mate. There's enough snake oil in this world; we certainly don't need any more of it, especially in Kemper Land™ where we're all about authenticity.

Quote from musicmad

This discussion is of course relevant - no doubt. I would argue that perhaps we should prefer it this way? Do we really want everyone to sound the same as long as they use the same profile? I personally don't appreciate how all drums sound the same on demos these days, since making drums has become so easy. I much prefer mapping out drums to individual channels and mix those independently to get "my" own sound. The same principle apply here (to me). Give me a good representation of the amp and let me mix it the way I like it. (imho only!)

Nothing wrong with that but this is not on topic when I read Michaels post number one. We talk about to compare soundpresentarions and what you really get. Where is the point that the real profiles sometimes sound so diffrent from the presentations. My guess is post processing. Ash writes about using more than one profile or quad tracking. These are points of my interest because I want to point out that there are so many users out there who buy a pack after presentations and after that they are dissapointed or they think the kpa has a defect....

I did a test with my 59 re-issue telecaster on the Soldano profile:

https://drive.google.com/file/…_nVdVUfP/view?usp=sharing

First is Rubens take (including some speak), then mine (a little longer), then Rubens again, and finally mine again.

How do you think it's comparing?

No effects locked, no output EQ, recorded into Cubase via the analog ins of an Apollo Twin. No processing in Cubase.

Quote from musicmad

I did a test with my 59 re-issue telecaster on the Soldano profile:

https://drive.google.com/file/…_nVdVUfP/view?usp=sharing

First is Rubens take (including some speak), then mine (a little longer), then Rubens again, and finally mine again.

How do you think it's comparing?

No effects locked, no output EQ, recorded into Cubase via the analog ins of an Apollo Twin. No processing in Cubase.

Display More

Sounds diffrent but cool. Your sound is warmer and a little bit punchier , for me better than the original from the vid

Quote from musicmad

I did a test with my 59 re-issue telecaster on the Soldano profile:

https://drive.google.com/file/…_nVdVUfP/view?usp=sharing

First is Rubens take (including some speak), then mine (a little longer), then Rubens again, and finally mine again.

How do you think it's comparing?

No effects locked, no output EQ, recorded into Cubase via the analog ins of an Apollo Twin. No processing in Cubase.

Display More

Sounds slightly different but no more so than two different Teles through the same amp. Definitely recognisable as the same profile.

Quote from musicmad

I did a test with my 59 re-issue telecaster on the Soldano profile:

https://drive.google.com/file/…_nVdVUfP/view?usp=sharing

First is Rubens take (including some speak), then mine (a little longer), then Rubens again, and finally mine again.

How do you think it's comparing?

No effects locked, no output EQ, recorded into Cubase via the analog ins of an Apollo Twin. No processing in Cubase.

Display More

Excellent test. I can hear the difference but essentially they do sound the same. This is roughly the level of difference I was always expecting.

If it's not too much trouble, could you do the same test but with a different guitar, to prove that it's the guitar that causes the difference.

Quote from Rod Staples

Excellent test. I can hear the difference but essentially they do sound the same. This is roughly the level of difference I was always expecting.
If it's not too much trouble, could you do the same test but with a different guitar, to prove that it's the guitar that causes the difference.

I added a take with my Les Paul R8 (Tuned Eb). Unknown pick-ups:

https://drive.google.com/file/…nsXsgmV5/view?usp=sharing

Obviously higher output/less definition. Thoughts?

Thanks Musicmad.

After having done a few tests myself, and realising there's more difference than I though with my different guitars, I'm a bit shocked at how similar your Telecaster and Les Paul is.

I'm not sure what everybody else thinks, I'm kinda thinking your tests prove that it's not different guitars causing the different sounds. I'm going to have to re-evaluate later tonight. My ears are a bit fatigued now.

Of course we always have to make sure that volume differences are eliminated, but I think most of us know that by now.

My tests.

I used the Ruben section from Musicmad's wav file.
Kemper 'BM Sold 99 Cases Dist 2' profile into Focusrite 2i4 into Reaper.

Each comparison is 4 repeats, Ruben Telecaster, my guitar, Ruben's Telecaster again, my guitar again.
Then next comparison etc etc.

Ibanez RG2550Z (basswood body, dimarzio humbuckers).
Charvel Pro Mod San Dimas Style 1
Fender Roadhouse Deluxe Stratocaster
PRS SE Custom 24
Gibson SG Standard

https://drive.google.com/open?…uTGKf3wtbh85AF4yRZ_bEtOkl

I'm very interested in this thread! It troubles me that Michael is not getting the tones he hears in demos, specifically of my products...I most often use testers to make demos for me.....What do you guys suggest for future demos?