Old vs. New Profiles.

Hey Mark,

No, the Profiling process and rendering haven't changed; it's one of the strengths (the main one, really) of the KPA. There was an adjustment of the low-end response way back several years ago, but technically it wasn't a change as such 'cause the manual option to activate "bass compensation" was removed as an executive decision.

The changes the Andertons dudes alluded to revolve around the UI, FX enhancements, I/O and tuner tweaks and so on. No need to change the Profiling engine, apparently, although I wouldn't rule that out in the long term. I've the feeling many, including them, have assumed that the Profiling process / engine have been improved after hearing about constant updates, but this ain't no Axe FX. IMHO it's slowly dawning on folks that perceived improvements are likely due to their personal confirmation biases, and that in reality it's more a case of the public at-large becoming more-appreciative of the genius of the unit's design that's been there all along. Sometimes these things take time, especially when a new paradigm hits the market.

As for recommendations, the fact that you've invited them and they'll no doubt come will likely see your thread's being moved to the 3rd-party-discussion forum, so as long as you can live with that, here goes:

Without being too-specific, I've been impressed with Bert Meulendijk's offerings - organic, plenty of mojo and mix-ready in the sense that there's never any unnecessary weight (low-end welly) present. IOW, the fat has already been trimmed and the crucial tonal elements remain intact.

Guido Bungenstock's stuff is also consistently-good IMHO. He has his "sound", as does Bert, and they compliment each other very-well IMHO. Guido's are more suited to playing in isolation if you like a big sound. This goes for most Profilers' wares as they tend not to trim the fat; it probably scares some folks away due to their simply not being aware of the fact that when mixing, it all has to go anyway.

Cililabs' packs are impressive too IMHO. I think of Ivan as the mojo man. Plenty of vibe there, and IMHO his JVM pack, for instance, is the best out there. Really nails the character.

I wouldn't discount Michael Britt's stuff 'though. Just 'cause he's a country guy doesn't mean his great ear can't be applied to getting good rock tones, and he does. Maybe try his Crank ’n Go Pack that was released a few days ago; it might suit what you're after well. I also highly recommend his Colonial Pack. That amp's got so much mojo and an organic, woody vibe with balls to boot that I can't help but love it!

HTH, mate.

Actually I believe that’s not totally true. I recall Christoph or Burkhard mentioning that the profiling algorithm has changed and improved several times, mostly bugfixes so there’s much less requirement to “refine” profiles now. But of course the most notable change was the introduction of merged profiles (although it’s arguable whether the result is better there IMO).

Old profiles have never changed though, everything sounds as it always has. So profiles themselves have not changed... actually I’m not even sure I’m correct on that one, didn’t the file size change at one point? OK so the sound of profiles and the profiles has not changed, anything you made back then works and sounds identical now (sans aliasing that was there at the very beginning and depending on if you enabling pure cab, space, bass enhancement or other features that would of course change the sound of your profiling unit) but the profiling process and algorithm behind it may have.

Whatever under-the-hood Profiling / Profiling-engine changes might've been made over the years, Per, the sound is the same AFAIK.

So, for the purpose of answering Mark's question and in the context of Andertons' perception that the sound has improved, I'll stand by my claim that there's effectively been no change.

The less-stringent requirement to refine after Profiling is IMHO a workflow enhancement 'cause you still arrive at the same destination, albeit more-quickly in cases where it's not necessary.

Just MHO, of course, and either of us could be wrong, but let's face it, there's been no anecdotal evidence in the forum that Profiles suddenly became more-accurate or better-sounding anywhere along the timeline.

I think a healthy way to look at it might be to view every Profile as a person's take on capturing an amp for recording, Mark. That's after all what it is in reality, but folks tend to start viewing them as presets in a modeller, which is misleading IMHO.

So, in the real world, if you took your rig in or hired one for a studio gig, you'd be more-likely to be happy with the sound of your tracked parts, and less-so (less-likely) if they were captured by an amateur. This is exactly my point - you're literally hiring in an engineer / person to record an amp, so tastes, equipment and abilities will vary as-wildly across Profiles as they would in the equivalent recording situations.

You asked about Pure Cabinet™. For me at least, it's the antidote to phase-incoherent mic'ing during Profiling, be it intentional or otherwise. Not a 100% cure-all solution, but it can render many an unusable Rig smooth-enough to use in a pinch as it magically eliminates, to the degree you choose, comb-filtering nastiness that might otherwise pierce your ears. Some, especially some metal heads, rely on it for mix cut-through, but others such as I prefer "phase-issue-free" recordings / Profiles, so it can be a Godsend to some and completely-useless to others.

For me the Kemper is much like any amp you choose in getting the right sound. There has to be some commitment and time invested to reap the rewards. Personally it has been the gateway to getting everything I want both live and most of the time in the studio, but it took a year or so.