No, WE don't need a kemper2

  • For some strange reason I never found any profile of the axefx2/3 that I would use in any situation.Strange enough.I found them all (and there are plenty of them in the RE) cold as ice,no feel,sterile and boring.Though they all remind me of the amp they try to emulate.No doubt.


    I mean they sound "good" in terms of "tone" ..but it is like an audio vampire has sucked all the blood out of these tones..

    I don't know if they're more difficult to profile like amp sims from the computer are . But I agree, I have tried profiles made from axefx too and I've erased them after I tested them cause they sound sterile and boring.

  • I mean, you keep coming up with this "not relevant" argument because of a small sample size. Have you seen the rig exchange? Lots of good profiles.

    Yes, there are plenty of excellent profiles on the Rig Exchange, but that's independent of the fact that you can't determine the accuracy of any profile on the Exchange without a sample of the reference amp that the profile is based on to compare the differences.

    You want a larger sample size? Look at artists using the Kemper versus the Axe FX just for tone. Forget FX, just tone.

    The issue is the accuracy of the profiling process, not whether good profiles exist or how many artists use the Kemper vs. the Axe-Fx. Again, profiles in the pool need to include samples of the reference amp in order to compare the sonic differences to determine accuracy.

    I don't see how you can keep asserting non-relevance

    Then with all due respect, you don't understand the issue. Again, the issue is not whether good profiles exist or whether professionals use the Kemper. Both are true. The issue is the accuracy of the profiling process itself, independent of the methodology of the person conducting the capture. Yes, poor methodology on the part of the person capturing a profile is the culprit in many cases. No question. However, even people (including some commercial sellers ) who are completely competent at capturing profiles have had difficulty rendering accurate captures with specific amps at certain settings. Again, the profiler has been noted by Kemper itself as experiencing difficulty rendering accurate results when more than one gain stage is distorting significantly. A number of years ago at NAMM, Christoph noted that there may be some small differences in the low-end of certain profiles.

  • So is it a problem of the Profiler?


    Strange enough because there are great profiles of other modelers and even plug ins like the neural ones.

    Any time you tweak the BMT controls to taste, you're deviating from the sound of the reference rig, resulting in a less than accurate profile, thus a profile doesn't have to sound accurate to sound good. But if I'm trying to profile a specific rig that sounds perfect to my ears, accuracy can be really important.

  • Replied within quote!

  • That's an altogether different argument though, i.e. The ability to compare.

    No, it's not. The ability to compare is a necessary adjunct to my argument, which is that the profiling process isn't always accurate and could thus be improved. You can't know whether a profile is accurate unless you compare it to the reference amp.

    There are plenty of videos demonstrating the Kemper's accuracy, surely that should be enough?

    That would be enough to demonstrate that the profiler is able to produce accurate results, but I never claimed it can't. My claim is that it doesn't always produce accurate results and could thus be improved.

    I don't think the Axe FX or Quad Cortex will be doing this either though.

    You don't think the Axe-Fx or Quad Cortex will be doing what?

    But it's also equally true that not all amps are dependent on both sections being driven to overdrive to get their characteristic sound.

    The fact this is an issue at all should put the debate about whether the profiling process can be improved to bed.

    If we look at most of the profiles that we could both agree are "good", I think it's clear that the Kemper does more than a fine job at capturing the tone of most amps, barring the situations that you've discussed.

    Whether you or I think a given profile sounds great is independent of whether it sounds accurate enough to the person who captured it. Of course, a profile doesn't have to sound accurate to sound good, but if I'm trying to profile a specific rig that sounds perfect to my ears, accuracy can be very important.

  • No, it's not. The ability to compare is a necessary adjunct to my argument, which is that the profiling process isn't always accurate and could thus be improved. You can't know whether a profile is accurate unless you compare it to the reference amp.

    That would be enough to demonstrate that the profiler is able to produce accurate results, but I never claimed it can't. My claim is that it doesn't always produce accurate results and could thus be improved.

    You don't think the Axe-Fx or Quad Cortex will be doing what?

    The fact this is an issue at all should put the debate about whether the profiling process can be improved to bed.

    Whether you or I think a given profile sounds great is independent of whether it sounds accurate enough to the person who captured it. Of course, a profile doesn't have to sound accurate to sound good, but if I'm trying to profile a specific rig that sounds perfect to my ears, accuracy can be very important.

    That Soldano video showed Kemper is quite good at profiling. Are there 5 amp models in the world that cannot be profiled accurately? So be it, you have the other hundred that can be.

  • No, it's not. The ability to compare is a necessary adjunct to my argument, which is that the profiling process isn't always accurate and could thus be improved. You can't know whether a profile is accurate unless you compare it to the reference amp.

    That would be enough to demonstrate that the profiler is able to produce accurate results, but I never claimed it can't. My claim is that it doesn't always produce accurate results and could thus be improved.

    You don't think the Axe-Fx or Quad Cortex will be doing what?

    The fact this is an issue at all should put the debate about whether the profiling process can be improved to bed.

    Whether you or I think a given profile sounds great is independent of whether it sounds accurate enough to the person who captured it. Of course, a profile doesn't have to sound accurate to sound good, but if I'm trying to profile a specific rig that sounds perfect to my ears, accuracy can be very important.


    Neither the Cortex or Axe FX provide you with a recording of the reference amp either, just like the Kemper, so the argument doesn't really make sense. There are real world users like Andy Sneap and Michael Wagener who say the Kemper is accurate. In that sense, it would take a very large leap of faith to accept that somehow they don't know what they are talking about.


    The accuracy of the profile is contingent on the user's ability to mic up the amp properly, as well as adjust the preamp and other elements in the signal chain in a way that will result in a 1:1 profile. I have my own experience that tells me the profile can indeed be an exact representation of the reference amplifier. Do I get it wrong from time to time? Yes, I do, but I wouldn't blame it on the Kemper, it is due to improper micing rather than a failure of the algorithm.


    I am curious to know what amps you had that couldn't be profiled. I've seen some wonderful examples of profiling of most amplifiers out there. Heck, even companies like Victory and Omega Ampworks are putting out official profiles of their amps. So I am not sure why you feel that you are unable to profile certain amps to your taste. Could it just be the volume difference between the blaring amp and your more controller Profiler volume? Could you be confusing the miced up amp tone wth the sound of the amp in the room? What kind of environment were you profiling in?


    Yes, there are amps that cannot be profiled, but like I said, I've heard of only 5-6 at best, probably not even that.

  • Neither the Cortex or Axe FX provide you with a recording of the reference amp either, just like the Kemper, so the argument doesn't really make sense.

    I never suggested or claimed a QC capture by itself is sufficient to demonstrate whether the unit is accurate. Like the Kemper, you can find multiple comparisons of QC captures vs. the reference amps, though from what I've heard, the QC isn't completely accurate either. When compared to Kemper profiles of some of the same source amps, it sounds a bit closer in a lot of cases, though.


    As far as the Axe-Fx, there are at least some comparisons to the actual amps that a few of the models are based on, and they sound extremely close. While the Axe-Fx modeling algorithms may not be 100% accurate, the difference is Fractal Audio continues to refine them. In the case of Kemper, Christoph has stated that while the profiling process isn't quite perfect, there's virtually no room to improve it.


    For me, the point of the discussion is that a KPA2 could potentially benefit from more accurate profiling.

    There are real world users like Andy Sneap and Michael Wagener who say the Kemper is accurate. In that sense, it would take a very large leap of faith to accept that somehow they don't know what they are talking about.

    We've already established that there are certain conditions in which the profiler has difficulty accurately capturing an amp. If you watch this interview with Sneap in 2012, he compares a Kemper profile he created with the actual amp. He claims he can't hear a difference, but there's an obvious discrepancy in the low-end around 100 Hz, and I'd bet any amount of money that a comparison of the frequency spectrum would demonstrate that. Christoph himself has stated that there can be a difference in the bass response sometimes.

    The accuracy of the profile is contingent on the user's ability to mic up the amp properly, as well as adjust the preamp and other elements in the signal chain in a way that will result in a 1:1 profile.

    This can account for some issues, I agree. However, the ability to accurately capture a profile isn't wholly dependent on the competence of the user, as evidenced by the comment from Christoph referenced above.

    I am curious to know what amps you had that couldn't be profiled.

    As mentioned previously, it really makes no difference which amp(s) any single user has had difficulty profiling, but rather the number of collective examples on the whole. More to the point, what's really relevant is that the profiling process has been established as having limitations and that it's not always accurate. It should be taken for granted by now that the profiler doesn't always yield a perfectly accurate capture, irrespective of the competence of the user.


    Again, the point for me is that a KPA2 would benefit from improved (ie. more accurate) profiling, in my opinion.

  • Do you mind sharing videos comparing an axe to the real thing and being “extremely close”?

  • Do you mind sharing videos comparing an axe to the real thing and being “extremely close”?


    That's pointless. Examples of the Kemper profiling amps accurately were rejected :(



    Again, the point for me is that a KPA2 would benefit from improved (ie. more accurate) profiling, in my opinion.


    Could they do it in the Kemper Mark I though? That's the question. As far as I can tell, it is really, really close.


    So maybe just add a "tone match" in version two?


    Funny thing. If you have Ozone, you can do this. Not all ITB, but doable :)

  • they don’t really sound alike. There’s bite and top end in the amp that completely misses in the axe on the morgan amp, the marshall doesn’t sound the same at all and I’m listening on my phone.

    I only listened to those two. Will give it another try with headphones but imo the diference is a lot bigger than kemper vs amp.

    Also I would like to see how Axe compares to a real amp picked up and not through irs.

    The jcm800 was pretty spot on though!

  • Could they do it in the Kemper Mark I though?

    Would be great, though based on Christoph's comments, I don't see it happening. To be honest, I'm not even sure it's a hardware limitation. The issue could be exclusively related to challenges from a programming perspective for all I know. If that were the case, then improving the profiling process may not be feasible even with updated hardware.


    So maybe just add a "tone match" in version two?

    I'd love to see a Tone Match option in addition to profiling, and I'm not altogether sure it couldn't be added to the current gen.