Get closer to the unplugged sound of the acoustic guitar with the Kemper. Is it possible?

  • The sounds of acoustic guitars recorded in recent years are much poorer than those heard in recordings of the past when there was less technology. The reason is simple, because the best way to capture the sound of the acoustic guitar is to use external microphones. However, most of the kemper acoustic profiles that I have tried or heard give a very plastic and unrealistic sounds. I would like to find a way to recreate (as far as possible) a real acoustic sound (unplugged). To achieve this purpose I am working on a free starting profile (shared by Mark Hall on RE), with the addition of COMP, EQ, WIDE and REV, using an acoustic guitar with three sound capture systems (blended together through the loop): piezo (front input), internal microphone and pickup (alternative input). The result seems to me very good, but I think it can be improved more. Do you have any other suggestions ?

  • My suggestion is to wait for the acoustic sim Kemper team is working on !


    I agree on miking a folk in a regular way without the KPA , much better tone , and maybe disengage AMP & CAB on a KPA to benefit from the new verbs if you plan to get the signal from the folk to your DAW ( I often use this method just to use the spdif signal chain to my soundcard )

  • Man, that's getting way too complicated! I'd wait until the next update, where they've hinted at an "acoustic simulator." You could just mic a real acoustic 8). Though my Alvarez Yari sounds awesome through a Martin-JRE profile, a freebie from some awesome dude. (I forget where I found it)

    thanks, I didn't know about the acoustic simulator. Interesting!

    I know the best way is to use the microphone, but when you play live it's too difficult to use it.

  • I use a LR Baggs Anthem panned wholly to the internal mic through an LR Baggs Venue profile it sounds pretty decent and I also dislike that ‘plasticky ‘ sound (usually from piezo) ...I am also experimenting with a solid body electric fitted with a piezo ..and either another preamp profile or a Sigma IR ...I await the upcoming acoustic sim from Kemperwith interest :)

  • More recent Expression Systems on Taylor guitars go a long way towards good sound via DI from stage imo.

    Most people I know recording acoustic guitars are still using mics, but there are plenty of mix processes and decision after that that can limit dynamic range, bandwidth and overall impact of a well-played acoustic guitar part.

  • The sounds of acoustic guitars recorded in recent years are much poorer than those heard in recordings of the past when there was less technology.

    Not sure what you are talking about, maybe your neighbor records his acoustic guitar straight from his zoom interface but I assure you that a real producer knows how to get a good acoustic sound. The method hasn't changed much from "the past".


    IMO, the selection of acoustic rigs from RE is quite limited but some of the most popular acoustic preamps (Fishmans, LR Baggs, etc) have been already profiled pretty successfully by some commercial profilers. However, by virtue of the instrument itself, the totally pure and "kosher" acoustic sound is best captured acoustically by microphones. That being said, there are also situations where that purity factor is not necessarily what the song is going for and the sound of a plugged in acoustic can work (for example, I sometimes use a Godin Multiac Doyle Dykes). Not necessarily a "poorer"sound than a high end Taylor, just a different animal for a different purpose. For live, after touring with a big Martin for a while, now for most situation I'd now much rather take that Godin/crowdster.

  • Not sure what you are talking about, maybe your neighbor records his acoustic guitar straight from his zoom interface but I assure you that a real producer knows how to get a good acoustic sound. The method hasn't changed much from "the past".


    IMO, the selection of acoustic rigs from RE is quite limited but some of the most popular acoustic preamps (Fishmans, LR Baggs, etc) have been already profiled pretty successfully by some commercial profilers. However, by virtue of the instrument itself, the totally pure and "kosher" acoustic sound is best captured acoustically by microphones. That being said, there are also situations where that purity factor is not necessarily what the song is going for and the sound of a plugged in acoustic can work (for example, I sometimes use a Godin Multiac Doyle Dykes). Not necessarily a "poorer"sound than a high end Taylor, just a different animal for a different purpose. For live, after touring with a big Martin for a while, now for most situation I'd now much rather take that Godin/crowdster.

    I think the acoustic sounds of 30-year-old records sound better than the acoustic guitars recorded today on pop-rock CDs. That old sound, in my opinion, is more realistic. The only exceptions are the recordings of the great guitarists who mainly play the acoustic guitar (tommy emmanuel, andy mckee, etc.). Most acoustic recordings are too "plastic" compared to the true sound of the guitar.

  • I think the acoustic sounds of 30-year-old records sound better than the acoustic guitars recorded today on pop-rock CDs. That old sound, in my opinion, is more realistic. The only exceptions are the recordings of the great guitarists who mainly play the acoustic guitar (tommy emmanuel, andy mckee, etc.). Most acoustic recordings are too "plastic" compared to the true sound of the guitar.

    I think perhaps what you are hearing is the change in approaches to mixing and mastering, more than the changes in the way the acoustic guitars are captured. Especially in the modern pop/rock genres, there can be huge amounts of dynamic compression and filtering of frequencies to allow acoustic guitars to occupy a space in the mix, without taking away from anything else, sometimes reduced to little more than a percussive strum sound. What you hear from Andy McKee and Tommy E is the sound of a miked guitar, for sure, but their music has the guitar as the sole occupant of the complete mixed track, in terms of arrangement, dynamic range and frequency bandwidth. If you've got some specific track examples, I'll have a listen and see whether I think what I'm saying still holds true.

  • I think perhaps what you are hearing is the change in approaches to mixing and mastering, more than the changes in the way the acoustic guitars are captured. Especially in the modern pop/rock genres, there can be huge amounts of dynamic compression and filtering of frequencies to allow acoustic guitars to occupy a space in the mix, without taking away from anything else, sometimes reduced to little more than a percussive strum sound. What you hear from Andy McKee and Tommy E is the sound of a miked guitar, for sure, but their music has the guitar as the sole occupant of the complete mixed track, in terms of arrangement, dynamic range and frequency bandwidth. If you've got some specific track examples, I'll have a listen and see whether I think what I'm saying still holds true.

    About the part of the mix reserved for the guitar it is true, but if you listen for example to the mixed acoustic sound of James Taylor or Bruce Springsteen (in the old or new CDs) it also reproduces well the resonance (rumble) of the wood (like the sounds by Mckee and Emmanuel). However, is my thread like trying to partially reproduce this sound quality passing through the kemper and not through external microphones (for live use)? :)