Blind Test: Axe-Fx III vs. Kemper Profile

  • I guessed wrong in this thread as most did. Granted if the OP could have been more transparent and said the Kempers settings were adjusted. Some might have 'guessed' differently.

    I would have, Ant. The high-end emphasis is what fooled me, ultimately.

    But great job man!

    Indeed, and this is why I didn't complain but instead congratulated him. Top job.

  • I am glad to say that I had guessed the wrong way, as this destroys my pre-conceptions of what Kemper does.

    If a particular effect has been demonstrated many times and this is a rare exception, I don't think it would logically destroy any preconceptions. My guess is ColdFrixon made this comparison because he heard to "opposite" effect happen and figured correctly that he'd probably fool some of us.

    The second is more natural, for me it's the kemper

    This doesn't make much sense to me. If the KPA is supposed to emulate the source, in this case an Axe-FX III, are we suggesting it imposes its own "realism" to profiles?

  • If a particular effect has been demonstrated many times and this is a rare exception, I don't think it would logically destroy any preconceptions. My guess is ColdFrixon made this comparison because he heard to "opposite" effect happen and figured correctly that he'd probably fool some of us.

    This doesn't make much sense to me. If the KPA is supposed to emulate the source, in this case an Axe-FX III, are we suggesting it imposes its own "realism" to profiles?

    My preconception was that the Axe is always smoothed out with a mid bump and the Kemper is a bit more lively at the top end. The point for me was that it is really down to the profile or patch and you can get what you want from either.

    Karl


    Kemper Rack OS 9.0.5 - Mac OS X 12.6.7

  • I have published some such test before.


    The problem with these is (even) more so methodology. Audio tests can help eliminate biases when it comes to the listeners taking the blind test. There's issues there too, can be -- but how do we have people partipate in such testing when it comes to feel? Never mind it's pretty easy for anyone to just deny the experience the person is having, if talking about online test where one just "shares their experience".

    This is true for every single shoot out ever made..


    When ever it is about art..what else do we talk about other than sharing (or denying) "others experiences" and the skills/empathy to transport/recieving them?


    In any case the idea that next year we still will have "shoot outs" hearing 80s metal/Djent chugging (allthough made by nice and friendly forum members) is somehow frustrating for me.Again..we are far beyond this.And even if the next guy comes around and order me (really?) not to talk about all the hordes of famous musicians using the KPA day and night at any occasion the fact remains that the question of "how close" it comes to the "original" over the different kinds of hifi speakers/monitors should be a thing of the past.Technology has developed,So should the ways of "testing" these new technologies.I mean you can put me behind the steering wheel of the latest ferrari for "testing" it but most likely (I know how I drive) I will not be the most suitable person to test anything with four wheels and an engine..and none of the persons who ever saw me driving will ever give a rats shit about my "opinion"..^^:/


    Anyway..The latest modelers are sounding like amps.Period.The only question still remaining is all about what I already said.The "feel".And a guy with a great vibrato,phrasing and great taste of how to achieve a great sound for expressing all this is ofcourse a person you may either trust or not (because one could believe that he got paid for saying that etc)..but in any case he will "sound fantastic".This is the reason everyone wants the Kemper.Because the "pros are using it"..


    Also..For this reason we watch almost every shootout about the KPA,AF and helix..right?To get more than just "one opinion".Problem is that untill yet we dont have even one such shootout.Or I missed it.

  • Nikos, the pro's use all different kinds of equipment. Sometimes Kemper, of course. You don't need to bang on about this every single time a comparison is brought up. That argument only exists to end a conversation instead of enhance it, and if it's a conversation you don't want to be a part of: don't read the thread or respond. Just because you don't like the topic doesn't mean others don't find value or interest in it.


    And we're never "beyond" shootouts. There will always be people trying to compare and contrast the different gear options that are available to find what best suits them, or the advantages/disadvantages, or in this case testing their ears and biases. The comparisons also help companies drive innovation and improvement.

    Also..For this reason we watch almost every shootout about the KPA,AF and helix..right?To get more than just "one opinion".Problem is that untill yet we dont have even one such shootout.Or I missed it.

    There are a number of those very shootouts on YouTube for those who seek them.

  • The latest modelers are sounding like amps. Period.

    I agree, but they're not perfect. Not yet anyway. Some people are interested in the remaining discrepancies and how to go about closing that gap. You may not be, but some people here are.


    Are current modelers good enough for some touring bands and artists? Absolutely, but there's a reason some of those same bands and artists aren't using them to record (entire) albums in a studio.

  • This is true for every single shoot out ever made..


    When ever it is about art..what else do we talk about other than sharing (or denying) "others experiences" and the skills/empathy to transport/recieving them?

    My point is that methodology in terms of test regarding "feel" poses certain challenges compared to blind audio tests. It's about putting in place methodologies that allow for some level of epistemic objectivity. Yes, some methodologies are better than others, but I do think there's things relating to "art" that can be tested out in this manner.


    In my opinion, this plays a big role in how kemper and axe fx were developed and will keep developing.


    Even not taking into account how much testing was done before product release, involving however many people, consequent updates, aliasing fix for kemper didn't come out of nowhere. Neither did previous improvement in profiling. This improvement/update changed profiling results measurably so years after kemper's release.


    "Pros using kemper" didn't stop this. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if there's more such updates in the future, either.

    In any case the idea that next year we still will have "shoot outs" hearing 80s metal/Djent chugging (allthough made by nice and friendly forum members) is somehow frustrating for me.Again..we are far beyond this

    When I've posted tests of kemper (mostly elsewhere) it's all been fine and good, as long as nobody consistently spotted the profile vs the amp. Well, other than some tube amp fanatics being quite upset they can't tell the difference, when this was so. For whatever reason, it seems to me, that it's often when differences show that we're told such tests are totally meaningless and we just shouldn't conduct them.


    I personally do have a passion for testing out A or B and seeing how A or B can be improved further. I don't necessarily see the harm in it, to be honest, even if there may be dangers, depending on methodology. Such dangers go both ways in terms of evaluating a unit anyway.

    Technology has developed,So should the ways of "testing" these new technologies.I mean you can put me behind the steering wheel of the latest ferrari for "testing" it but most likely (I know how I drive) I will not be the most suitable person to test anything with four wheels and an engine..and none of the persons who ever saw me driving will ever give a rats shit about my "opinion".. ^^:/

    I agree that methodologies should keep improving or just changing in regards to what exactly is tested and how . Not that blind audio tests don't matter anymore, btw -- I think there's a lot of value there, still.


    Now when profiling works at its best, without any confusion due to multiple distorting stages or other reasons, it's often been good enough to fool me in a blind audio test depending on methodology, what is played and a few other factors. I've been unable to consistently spot kemper in some of my own tests involving my amps, too.


    That's part of why it makes sense to develop methodologies to test "feel", as well, to the extend possible. It's not like "feel" is this entirely magically thing totally separated from sound, even if there is a meaningful distinction there nonetheless.


    Yes, the "direct" experience of feel is something that does not exist in the lack of one's mind, so to say. It's a form of "qualia". But there's still properties of the world that can causally alter this experience. When I go to the doctor because my toe hurts (say a 4x12 fell on it today), pain is a "metaphysically subjective" experience I have. That said, the doctor may be able to prescribe medicine that has a very real effect on my pain.


    That is to say that provided latency is the same, if a given profile/axe preset/helix patch gives you B when fed A, there should be no difference in feel, unless some other "bias" comes into play, which we would anyway want to eliminate.


    And then we have different sets of questions. Do A and B feel the same to a given player or a number of players, are they different -- if so, how, and which one do you prefer? These are meaningfully different questions, in my opinion. I believe the connection between "sound" and "feel" was quite clear to CK for a long time, as well, in designing the kemper and making it as good as it is.


    Surely "feel" is already tested in various ways always, too (part of why A-B kemper function is there for the user!).

    Also..For this reason we watch almost every shootout about the KPA,AF and helix..right?To get more than just "one opinion".Problem is that untill yet we dont have even one such shootout.Or I missed it.

    What kind of test would you like to see exactly? Can you offer some more details on this exactly, what steps to take to conduct such a test? It's not so clear to me -- so I'm asking just to have a better understanding of this.

    This is the reason everyone wants the Kemper.Because the "pros are using it".

    I've known plenty of pros turning down digital devices years ago, some even now, kemper or axe fx or helix or even s gear. But for sure there was more resistance 6-7 years ago.


    Was kemper just that much worse back then compared to now? No, not really, even considering updates. Now if I were to trust some "pro consensus", at which would I adopt kemper? When there's some tipping point and "more pros use it than non-pros"?


    Surely popularity or even "pros" using a particular device is a big incentive for people to buy into the platform. But I think there's better ways to test out units and adopt/not adopt them nonetheless.

    The bonanza

    Edited 4 times, last by Dimi84 ().

  • Wowowow...slow down..


    @Dimi


    I will say it again..arts(and most of all music) are the last place one will look for "epistemic objectivity".I thought more of something rocknroll to be honest..;)


    What do I want to see?Maybe a great player testing two,three modelers like he would test a tube rig?How do do we "test" tube amps and the fitting cab since the 50s?It is still the same..lets keep it simple:Take a Les Paul,take a Strat..take a superstrat..play with the volume control..roll back the tone control a bit to make it "more creamy"..more throaty..and see what happens..which modeler behaves more to the "original"??This is the question for me.And thats it.There is nothing about "epistemic objectivity"within this but just a few words from musicians,from guitar players I can relate to..like "well..the AF3 reacts better when I turn back the volume control,more like the original tube amp"..something like this.This should be not so difficult.


    Just chugging a few power chords all over again and again is not what I can relate to.These power chords dont tell me anything.I wonder reading this thread when you write "I can hear the ts-sound from my iphone speaker" while other guys say that they cant hear no difference at all.This is chaos.Not reliable at all.And this is very understandable bacuse I too hear nothing in all these clips that I can value in any way.."chug chug" is all I hear and this for years now..something distorted with a guitar sound hidden deep in somewhere.With an always growing share of bass frequencies I dont like.And this is in my humble opinion just sad.

  • Believe it or not, there are people who don't really use the volume knob to any great extent. I don't, so in my case I find power chords and string picking useful because that's what I can relate to. If I couldn't relate to it and it had no significance for me, I probably wouldn't read or participate in the thread. So, if you're looking for something else, that's fine, I'm just wondering what motivates you to read and participate in threads like this if you don't find it useful or relevant?

  • So, if you're looking for something else, that's fine, I'm just wondering what motivates you to read and participate in threads like this if you don't find it useful or relevant?

    Good question..actually I was out of this thread.But quite a few people asked me quite a few questions after my last post.Would you say that I should not answer?You were one of these persons btw..

  • Believe it or not, there are people who don't really use the volume knob to any great extent. I don't, so in my case I find power chords and string picking useful because that's what I can relate to. If I couldn't relate to it and it had no significance for me, I probably wouldn't read or participate in the thread. So, if you're looking for something else, that's fine, I'm just wondering what motivates you to read and participate in threads like this if you don't find it useful or relevant?

    I use the volume pot a lot, and for this reason have tests with DI based on volume pot changes, feeding it into Kemper vs amp, axe fx 3 too. These can be interesting imo. Not that I agree with how sad and useless any other test is, as is obvious from my posts in any case. I'm glad you take the time to test things out, personally, partly because I think you may be able offer interesting EQ corrections, advice.

    The bonanza

  • Wowowow...slow down..


    @Dimi


    I will say it again..arts(and most of all music) are the last place one will look for "epistemic objectivity".I thought more of something rocknroll to be honest..;)

    Just tried to explain my perspective, can type quite a bit :)

    The bonanza

  • Good question..actually I was out of this thread.But quite a few people asked me quite a few questions after my last post.Would you say that I should not answer?

    No, of course not. I'm the same way. If someone responds to me, I feel obliged to reply. That said, it didn't seem that your first post (#29) in this thread was at the behest of other users.

  • I use the volume pot a lot, and for this reason have tests with DI based on volume pot changes, feeding it into Kemper vs amp, axe fx 3 too. These can be interesting imo. Not that I agree with how sad and useless any other test is, as is obvious from my posts in any case. I'm glad you take the time to test things out, personally, partly because I think you may be able offer interesting EQ corrections, advice.

    Long ago I decided that tweaking is bad for playing ..but I had (in my early 20s) a period in which I "tried everything"..but every minute I tweaked and did not play was a huge "defeat" in my eyes.This must be my "blues roots"..nothing is more important than your signature sound and your playing.Very archaic.And this wont change.We can see this with the modelers.Only the question "does it sound like a tube rig?" says everything.


    This is what I tried to explain above..


    You cant have a tube rig and use it as a computer.Thats the reason the KPA has this success.It sounds like a tube amp.It behaves like a tube amp.And if you want you can use it as a tube amp.

  • I will say it again..arts(and most of all music) are the last place one will look for "epistemic objectivity".

    But when it comes to empirical tests, there does exist objectivity. There was a right and wrong answer to this blind test as there were audible differences. That's not a matter of art or expression but of observable data.

    What do I want to see?Maybe a great player testing two,three modelers like he would test a tube rig?

    There are many of those videos on YouTube. In fact, once you find one, the YouTube algorithm will never stop recommending more of them to you. As far as somebody doing a comparison exactly the way you wish, you're not going to find that 100%. There are guys who will play with the units and give you their thoughts and observations, but it's as they wish to present them. You're free to buy these units as they have and provide your own comparison with all the criteria you outlined if you feel it's more valuable.

    Just chugging a few power chords all over again and again is not what I can relate to.

    Ok, but others can. Those of us who do play lots of rock and metal, we of course want to hear what power chords and chugs sound like from these units. Especially as a metal player the response of palm mutes is quintessential and in the case of the KPA in most other tests, very revealing.

    I wonder reading this thread when you write "I can hear the ts-sound from my iphone speaker" while other guys say that they cant hear no difference at all.

    We all have different ears. It's the reason some can reliably pick out the KPA in blind tests while others can detect no difference. Just because somebody can't hear the difference doesn't mean it's not there. That is why we test our biases and seek more empirical measurements to reach a conclusion. Well, some people. Others just want to validate their purchases with mental gymnastics.

  • It goes so serious very quickly.....


    Are comparisons valid? Yes to a point. What sounds better is subjective, can you detect a difference depends on who is listening ( I have crap ears so often can't) it can help confirm what you have bought into and can feed progression. For me all valid to varing degrees.


    At the very least its interesting.


    Digital amps have come such a long way to the point that they are very close to what they imitate and in some cases can sound better ( as they have a wider palate to chose from for a different sound - they can never sound better than what they imitate of course). So the digital vs valve comparison whilst still valid is massively less so...I'd take 90% imitation of 1000's of amps over 100% of 1 amp (i.e. the original) any day.


    So I'm back to:

    Thanks Coldfrixon for doing this, very interesting

    Confirms that the KPa and AXE are excellent tools, but everything can always be improved

    They are good enough for my hearing ( I have shit ears) for live and recording. In other words my playing is a much bigger impact/limitation on the sound

  • Before I reveal the answer to which sample belongs to which unit, it's worth noting that I did tweak the Kemper profile to match the Axe-Fx III preset the best I could. I tweaked the Treble and Presence and added a couple of bands of EQ using the Studio Equalizer. The Kemper profile was originally darker than the Axe-Fx preset. So, without further ado:


    Clip #1: Axe-Fx III

    Clip #2: Kemper

    I guessed correctly. The Axe had no body to the tone with jagged edges. The Kemper was thicker and smoother sounding.

    The key to everything is patience.
    You get the chicken by hatching the egg, not by smashing it.
    -- Arnold H. Glasow


    If it doesn't produce results, don't do it.

    -- Me

  • I guessed correctly. The Axe had no body to the tone with jagged edges. The Kemper was thicker and smoother sounding.

    While I ultimately think the Kemper profile turned out better than the Axe-Fx III preset, that's primarily because it was tweaked quite a bit. The original (untweaked) KPA profile sounded notably different (and not in a good way) compared to the AF3 preset to my ears. I wasn't trying to make the KPA profile better, though. My goal was simply to match them as closely as possible.