No, WE don't need a kemper2

  • I mean ...


    How much better can it get? An improved CPU will not change anything unless it runs new code. If new code existed it would've been tested on current hardware already. I doubt the CPU ever was a bottleneck ...


    The only things I would like with a Kemper two would be lower latency, an improved editor from an usability point of view and maybe a slightly more free-form signal path ...

  • Ok, subjectively many more people think the KPA sounds better than the Axe II Fx.

    Specifically, what percentage of people think the KPA sounds subjectively better than the Axe-Fx II?


    Ok, fair enough. Of all the people I know and converse with in forums, the majority do not rely on profiles they created for their live show. Source, me.

    In other words, it's not a fact.


    I see. So a fractal device must be used exclusively with the original firmware forever if you don't wish it to change your tone then. Great feature. Good to know.

    Most updates that alter the modeling algorithms don't affect the sound of presets unless you reset the amp model in the preset.


    ONE of the many great features of the KPA is its ability to capture an amp in a given state; however, as discussed ad nauseum in the NQC thread, just capturing isn't enough. In order for it to be useful to the most number of people, the amp parameters need to be able to be EASILY modified for specific taste. This is where the KPA excels. Great tones, ease of use, many great live options, great value, etc .... these are where the KPA hits home IMO. Keeping the tones the same is another.

    There's not a unit out there that can't modify the sound of a model(or QC capture after the fact). The unique feature that has set the KPA apart from every other unit on the market for the last decade has been profiling.


    as discussed in this and other threads, this isn't the ONLY reason people use it.

    Straw man. I never claimed it's the only reason people use it.


    REALLY? ONE change to tone in an early release and THAT is what you want to hang your hat on?

    Well, if it's not worth hanging your hat on, then why did you repeatedly argue that the change in 2.6 did not affect previously created profiles?


    Sadly, I see little need for tonal improvements. Are there any that could be made? Sure, and it would be nice to have them; however, for live settings, the existing KPA is already a fantastic gig rig. I don't think any existing KPA owners are going to be rushing out to by the KPA2 because they feel their current tone is lacking. Certainly, their will be many (most here I suspect) who would want one, but I hardly think we on this forum represent the average KPA user out there. I think we are much more likely to spend 3K on something we don't NEED than the average musician out there.

    There are plenty of people who use the KPA for recording, so I think improvements to the profiling process would be a good selling point, but it would be one in a number of other complementary features.


    Do I think that a KPA2 could potentially sound better than the current KPA? Sure, some. I simply believe that we are talking diminishing returns at this point.

    Some of the discrepancies I (and others) hear between certain profiles and the reference amps they're based on are, at times, significant, so if the profiling process could be improved to remediate the difficulties the KPA has profiling certain amps, that could be a good selling point for a KPA2.

  • Some of the discrepancies I (and others) hear between certain profiles and the reference amps they're based on are, at times, significant, so if the profiling process could be improved to remediate the difficulties the KPA has profiling certain amps, then could be a good selling point for a KPA2.

    How many amps did you profile yourself and what setup did you use?

    There’s a large difference between profiles made by people who know their stuff well ( like in the video I posted in my previous post ) and youtubers like Rabea or Paul.

    Big difference!

  • The proof that Kemper needs to come up to date is that their FB page started posting a ton of posts about how accurate profiling is since the first videos of QC arrived.


    Apart from that, whoever knows a few things about guitar tone and owns both a fractal device and a kemper, knows that today fractal is far superior in every aspect. Core tone, feel, fx, routing possibilities, ease of use. But you have to own both to be able to tell.

  • You said that the profiling process is not accurate so I asked you how many times did you personally ran that process?

    And what setup did you use?

    I asked how it's even remotely relevant whether anyone has profiled an amp in order to determine whether a Kemper profile someone else has profiled properly is indistinguishable from the reference amp, so I'll ask again. How is whether I've profiled my amps remotely relevant? Tell me.

  • I asked how it's even remotely relevant whether anyone has profiled an amp in order to determine whether a Kemper profile someone else has profiled properly is indistinguishable from the reference amp, so I'll ask again. How is whether I've profiled my amps remotely relevant? Tell me.

    But then how can you know how the profiles you buy sound compared to the amps they were based on?

    It is relevant in a scientific sense. Once you’ve learned everything there is to know about profiling. Once you try and fail a good number of times. Once you can properly profile some amps but others you just cannot.

    Then you might say that it is imprecise. Just because one person or another says that it doesn’t mean it’s true because its possible that they didn’t go through the whole experience building process.

    Listen to the clip I posted and close your eyes. Can you honestly tell which is which?

  • I asked how it's even remotely relevant whether anyone has profiled an amp in order to determine whether a Kemper profile someone else has profiled properly is indistinguishable from the reference amp, so I'll ask again. How is whether I've profiled my amps remotely relevant? Tell me.

    Seriously, you have painted your self in a corner and don't know how to get out.

    Think for yourself, or others will think for you wihout thinking of you

    Henry David Thoreau

  • How is that even remotely relevant? I mean SERIOUSLY.

    Yes, seriously. How is it even remotely relevant?


    Seriously, you have painted your self in a corner and don't know how to get out.

    Here's why it's not relevant to the question AT ALL. Because profiling my amp or you profiling your amp isn't a REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE. If your profile sounds spot on, what does that prove regarding the accuracy of profiling in general? Absolutely nothing. It's a single solitary example.

  • Yes, seriously. How is it even remotely relevant?


    Here's why it's not relevant to the question AT ALL. Because profiling my amp or you profiling your amp isn't a REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE. If your profile sounds spot on, what does that prove regarding the accuracy of profiling in general? Absolutely nothing. It's a single solitary example.

    Computers are perfectly precise and can be described mathematically in exact ways.

    If I am able to profile an amp perfectly then it proves that perfect profiles are achievable and any deviation from this result is due to user error.

  • But then how can you know how the profiles you buy sound compared to the amps they were based on?

    It is relevant in a scientific sense. Once you’ve learned everything there is to know about profiling. Once you try and fail a good number of times. Once you can properly profile some amps but others you just cannot.


    Then you might say that it is imprecise. Just because one person or another says that it doesn’t mean it’s true because its possible that they didn’t go through the whole experience building process. Listen to the clip I posted and close your eyes. Can you honestly tell which is which?

    Again, one example of a profile that sounds accurate is not a representative sample. If there are several counter-examples from people who are intimately familiar with how to properly capture a profile that demonstrate an objectively verifiable difference, that's relevant.


    Further, and more importantly, Kemper has already stated that profiling cannot accurately capture an amp if there is more than one stage distorting significantly. This was from the KPA site FAQ:


    "The relation between the intermodulations and the unprocessed sine sweeps tell us the full story about the distortion shape and dynamic of the tube and the behavior of the surrounding circuit. It can even deliver the information about several distortion stages in a row, so long as there is only one stage significantly distorting."

  • Computers are perfectly precise and can be described mathematically in exact ways.

    If I am able to profile an amp perfectly then it proves that perfect profiles are achievable and any deviation from this result is due to user error.

    Well, no, it proves that particular amp at that particular setting can be profiled accurately. Read the quote I just posted from the FAQ above. Christoph himself has admitted that sometimes there are differences.

  • Apart from that, whoever knows a few things about guitar tone and owns both a fractal device and a kemper, knows that today fractal is far superior in every aspect. Core tone, feel, fx, routing possibilities, ease of use. But you have to own both to be able to tell.

    Really? I would like to think that I know a thing or two about guitar tone and I have spent entire DAYS with both just playing around.


    Lets go down your list:


    Core tone: Kemper was better in many more instances than Axe III Fx

    Feel: About the same IMO

    routing possibilities: Axe III Fx by a lot

    Ease of Use: Kemper by a lot


    You really think that an Axe III Fx is easier to use than a KPA?