DI vs Preamp profiles

    From what I understand, there are two ways for creating a profile that I can use live with my cabinets:


    a) Use a DI box to capture the loaded poweramp output.

    b) Use the fx send (or other direct outs an amp might offer)


    What's the intended use for each? With a powered Kemper, should I rather make direct profiles (including the tone stack of the power amp) to have a decent sound when running my Kemper into a cabinet? If I run my Kemper into a tube power amp (cause two 16 ohm cabinets and stuff), should I rather try and make pure preamp profiles? A bit confused in regard to the sound differences between.


    Cheers,

    Michael

    Whichever one sounds best to you is the way to go ;)


    I’m only half joking though. There is no right and wrong with “tone”. it’s such a personal thing. If it sounds good to you it is good no matter what anyone else thinks about how you got there.


    I would tend to make a full DI profile including the amp's own power section. Then use the Powered Kemper to drive a cabinet. You should also be able to get excellent results using just the pre amp profile into a valve power amp section. However, another way that some people do it is to use the full DI profile PLUS runnng through a valve power amp. That is undoubtedly the furthest awat from the true sound of the origInal amp but many people really like what it does to the sound.

    Unless you want to color the sound with an external valve amp, I would suggest you want a DI or merged profile.


    A merged profile mean you can easily go FOH direct without miking.


    I'm not sure how a DI profile works in that config ( I assume you can add to the cab section ??), but a merged profile probably has more predictable results...


    I currently run merged profiles if using a 4 x12 but never mike up now...

    Quote from mybyte

    a) Use a DI box to capture the loaded poweramp output.

    b) Use the fx send (or other direct outs an amp might offer)

    The sonic differences between profile types is derived largely from the point from which you tap the signal that is looped back to the Kemper. Which in turn determines whether a microphone, the cabinet, and/or the room contribute to that sound.


    Your description "a)" seems like a Direct Amp Profile (DAP). It is not called DI profile, even though it uses a DI in the signal chain. I use a special Kemper DI box that is designed specifically for making a DAP. Check the Kemper manual for details.


    In a DAP, even though the complex speaker / tube amp interaction is still part of the profile's sound, the cab's actual sound is not.


    In your "b)" scenario, you are eliminating the amp's power amp section from the profile equation if you use a send from an effects loop on the amp. This is a preamp profile.


    Any other direct outs an amp might offer could be a 'recording' output or a 'slave' output. Be aware that such outputs might be compromised with internal circuits that alter tone. Also, be careful with slave outputs. These were included to daisy chain amps in large venues where higher volumes might be required. Using such an output could potentially damage your profiler.

    My Engl Invader has a recording out that supposedly includes the coloring of the power amp (presence settings and all). It runs at line level. I used to reamp with it and run it through IRs and got a decent sound.

    So that one would be similar to using a DI box between amp /cab, right?


    I figure you would do this to capture the full amp sound, in case you wanted to try different IRs or run your Kemper through a linear power amp and retain the power amp characteristics, right?


    A preamp profile might be useful when IRs include the power amp coloring. I make my IRs mostly though an Engl 930/60 with the presence cranked way up. So I imagine full profiles might sound weird. Same thing if I run my Kemper through a tube power amp. Would make more sense to have profiles of the power amp section only, wouldn't it? There would be two power amps in the (one profiled, one real) in the signal chain...

    I noticed that for all merged profiles I tried, I have to turn the presence waaay down on the power amp. Maybe that's the reason.

    Rcording Out normally includes some for of speaker emulation too. The Engle may be different though. If it doesn’t then the only thing to consider is that the recording out doesn’t capture the interaction between the power and and speaker which a Direct Profile frm the amps speaker out will do. Kemper recommend against usinf load boxes (which the recording out seems to be) for this reason. Having said that experimting is fun and easy so give it a whirl. If you like the sound that’s all that matters.

    If I remember the ENGL has a pre amp out, no speaker emulation ( had an Invader for years, loved it!!) I think...


    Personally I see no reason to profile just the preamp, the amp is a combination of pre and power ( assuming valve power amps add colour). The only application is to run it through another valve power amp but seems pointless to me...

    Quote from V8guitar

    The only application is to run it through another valve power amp but seems pointless to me...

    Not to me. I have made a lot of preamp profiles which I like to match with different power amp types. Tube type and mode as well as class (A, AB) will make substantial sonic differences. with the same preamp.


    I also use my UAD amp sims with their preamp off placed after a preamp profile in the Kemper. These also make nice combinations.

    Quote from scratch17

    Not to me. I have made a lot of preamp profiles which I like to match with different power amp types. Tube type and mode as well as class (A, AB) will make substantial sonic differences. with the same preamp.


    I also use my UAD amp sims with their preamp off placed after a preamp profile in the Kemper. These also make nice combinations.

    My point is the the KPA profiles the whole chain, so to take out the power stage from one amp and replace with another whilst creates more variation, seems like a fruitless task/another level of complication. I know it makes a difference, just not sure why more variation is required beyond the endless tones available. Just a bit similar to IR rabbit hole to me.


    However, if it works for you, fab, just explaining to the OP that is not necessary.