Well, no, it proves that particular amp at that particular setting can be profiled accurately. Read the quote from the FAQ I just posted above.
Good quote. So which specific amplifiers gave you trouble?
No, WE don't need a kemper2
- warlus1
- Thread is marked as Resolved.
-
-
That's cool. Personally, if I had to choose, I'd keep whichever unit had the best amp tones vs. effects because I can always add effects after the fact if I have to. I agree with you about the Axe's routing capabilities, though. They're awesome, and I think the unit has some excellent effects. That's the main reason I'm using it with the KPA. In my opinion, they're superior to the Kemper's built-in effects, though I think the Kemper has slightly more authentic / organic amp tones overall. After listening to a lot of demos with both the Axe and Kemper, it seems to me the Kemper's amp tones tend to sit a bit better in a mix. They just blend in very naturally and gel extremely well. The differences probably wouldn't be noticeable to the general listener. A lot of non-musicians don't exercise a high level of scrutiny or listen with a critical ear, and that's fine. On the flip side, that isn't to say I haven't heard some excellent demos using the Axe. Some of them sound just as good, so I'm not suggesting the Axe isn't capable. The Axe can be made to sound as authentic in a lot of cases with a little (or a lot of) tweaking.
However, when I watched Michael Wagener talking about how he's used every modeler out there and honestly couldn't tell the difference between his real amps and the Kemper, that pretty much sold me on its authenticity. Wagener has produced some of my favorite melodic rock albums, so to hear him put it in those terms means a lot to me.
Just asking because here’s another interesting quote of a post written by you in 2016.
What changed in the meantime?
-
So which specific amplifiers gave you trouble?
No, the question is, have you been able to accurately profile an amp with more than one stage that's distorting significantly?
-
Just asking because here’s another interesting quote of a post written by you in 2016.
What changed in he meantime?
What changed? That post was written in 2016.
-
What changed? That post was written in 2016.
I see. So in 2016 it sounded indistinguishable from a real amp and now it doesn’t. What changed?
-
No, the question is, have you been able to accurately profile an amp with more than one stage that's distorting significantly?
you would have to explain to me what “one stage that’s distorting significantly” means. Which amps do that?
-
Display More
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?
No cocked wah, better noise gates, better stomps, no unwanted compression and gain means better tone. And I can tweak as much as I want without getting weird results. The tone coming from my speakers is double than with the kemper. Fatter, punchier, biteyer etc.
And the harmonics that aren't missing is better feel. Cuts a lot more like a real tube amp.
The fx? You skipped that one.
Ease of use: I can record separately dry and fx only tracks, and then get a dry/di track without having to change cables. Plus the great editor, which took kemper 10 years to make.
-
I see. So in 2016 it sounded indistinguishable from a real amp and now it doesn’t. What changed?
A lot of blind comparisons began cropping up the following year that demonstrated a number of discrepancies. For instance, this thread, which I was a part of.
-
you would have to explain to me what “one stage that’s distorting significantly” means. Which amps do that?
You don't know what multiple gain stages are?
-
No harm intended by the way. I just find it funny that the same “influencers” who 3 years ago were promising that the Kemper Profiler is super accurate now have turned around and find a myriad differences in tone.
I also find it funny that people jumped on the bandwagon both times, no questions asked.
What? Bea said that QC sounds even more realer? Better get a more realer Kemper or I HAVE to buy the qc.
I mean it’s not my money but just an observation ...
-
No harm intended by the way. I just find it funny that the same “influencers” who 3 years ago were promising that the Kemper Profiler is super accurate now have turned around and find a myriad differences in tone.
I also find it funny that people jumped on the bandwagon both times, no questions asked.
What? Bea said that QC sounds even more realer? Better get a more realer Kemper or I HAVE to buy the qc.
I mean it’s not my money but just an observation ...
My opinion isn't specific to the Kemper. Of the samples I've heard, I also hear differences between some QC captures and the actual amp. When there is a difference, the discrepancies tend to be less noticeable, but they're there.
-
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.
OK, you have really lost it now. That comment is so far off the mark its not even worth try to explain the relevance.
I’m outta here as this is beyond crazy now. -
OK, you have really lost it now. That comment is so far off the mark its not even worth try to explain the relevance.
I’m outta here as this is beyond crazy now.Insults aren't a valid substitute for substantive rebuttal. It's obviously not crazy or off the mark, but feel free to explain why you think it is.
-
You don't know what multiple gain stages are?
Instead of answering you try to defend with another question.
-
Instead of answering you try to defend with another question.
If he truly and honestly doesn't know what multiple gain stages are, there are plenty of resources to explain it. If he already knows, then he doesn't need me or anyone else to explain it.
-
Why do these threads always break down into some kind of argument over semantics?
-
Display More
No cocked wah, better noise gates, better stomps, no unwanted compression and gain means better tone. And I can tweak as much as I want without getting weird results. The tone coming from my speakers is double than with the kemper. Fatter, punchier, biteyer etc.
And the harmonics that aren't missing is better feel. Cuts a lot more like a real tube amp.
The fx? You skipped that one.
Ease of use: I can record separately dry and fx only tracks, and then get a dry/di track without having to change cables. Plus the great editor, which took kemper 10 years to make.
We are talking about tone here right? So what you are saying is that you can make an Axe III Fx sound SOOOOOO good, that given a blind listening test between the Axe III fx and a Kemper ..... both dialed in for the tone of a particular song ..... that people would overwhelmingly pick the Axe III Fx?
I call BS big time.
No cocked wah - please post proof of this. Not only has ck requested an example, it has been refuted on many threads.
Better noise gates - maybe. I didn't have noise issues with EITHER unit. What is your beef with the Kemper noise gate?
Better stomps - Nope. Not in my book. Do you have a specific stomp to compare? Maybe I didn't specifically cover it in my time with the Axe III Fx.
No unwanted compression - Seriously? Give me an example. None of my tones have "unwanted compression" They all sound fantastic live and sit wonderfully in the mix.
Can "tweak as much as I want without getting weird results" - BS. It was VERY easy to tweak the Axe III Fx and get off into the weeds with the tone. MUCH easier in fact than on the Kemper. You are simply wrong on this point IMO. I had no trouble getting "weird results" on the Axe III Fx.
Tone coming from speakers is "double the Kemper" - Wow. really? do you have a calibrated "tone meter" somewhere?
Where do you live? I bet we can find a forum member here close enough to take you up on a "tone off" with your Axe III Fx. If you are in NC, I'll do it myself. I am dying to see this calibrated tone meter of yours.
-
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..
-
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.
I came up with a funny...
Why own a Kemper if the Axe FX is better? To post in the Kemper private forums (hyok hyok).
-
There are certain amplifiers that the Kemper cannot profile. That is a fact.
But it's ridiculous to keep coming out with unsubstantiated theories like this, ColdFrixion .
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. Even I've come up with some that I'm happy with.
You want a larger sample size? Look at artists using the Kemper versus the Axe FX just for tone. Forget FX, just tone.
End of argument. I don't see how you can keep asserting non-relevance, when all you keep touting is your own experience and skills.
