No, WE don't need a kemper2

Quote from lightbox

Are you aware that the frequency response can significantly change when you turn up/down the guitar volume and even the tone knob?

That actually has no effect on the accuracy of an EQ match. Check out this demo. The first sample you'll hear in the demo is the original source with the guitar volume all the way up. The next sample is the Tone Matched version with the guitar volume also at 100%. The series of clips after that follow the same pattern but with the guitar volume rolled down progressively lower with each subsequent pair of samples.

Quote from ColdFrixion

That actually has no effect on the accuracy of an EQ match. Check out this demo. The first sample you'll hear in the demo is the original source with the guitar volume all the way up. The next sample is the Tone Matched version with the guitar volume also at 100%. The series of clips after that follow the same pattern but with the guitar volume rolled down progressively lower with each subsequent pair of samples.

I believe it does. You can only tone match at one volume. Since the volume changes the eq, any other volume, the tone would not be matched any longer.

Not that this matters in the least IMO. The current KPA sounds very convincing and very good compared to any tube amp I have ever used, owned, or heard. The fact of the matter is that even tube amps need to have eq tweaks at different volumes because even our EARS are not linear with respect to volume (even if somehow the amp was ..... which it isn't). My old VHT rig or Fender HRD rig sounded VERY different with the same gain and eq settings but very different volumes. This isn't a KPA or Fractal issue, this is the nature of the beast..... and one that tone matching doesn't solve either.

Quote from OneEng1

I believe it does. You can only tone match at one volume. Since the volume changes the eq, any other volume, the tone would not be matched any longer.

You don't need to Tone Match the guitar at different volumes in order to preserve the accuracy of the frequency response. In my tests, once the source has been matched, the frequency response remains as accurate at different volumes as it does at the original (Tone Matched) volume. Below are two graphs. The first is a comparison of the frequency response at the original volume. The second is a comparison of the frequency response at the lowest volume.

Comparison of Tone Match at Original Volume:

Comparison of Tone Match at Lowest Volume:

No, we don't need a Kemper, says the amp guy. Need is the wrong word, I guess.

I agree with Alienator, we, Kemper users, don't need a Kemper 2. Because we all know that It already works great for live and for recording. In fact my lunchbox works great since I got it in 2013 and I never felt the need to replace it by anything else. And I like so much that I never feel this pressure since then because Kemper still get updates again and again for free!

Now, unfortunately, maybe the Kemper team need a Kemper 2 because they are actually loosing a segment of their customers who always want to have the new hyped shiny toy with the most powerfull DSP and the most beautiful touch screen etc. But if you take a minute and look at it without emotion, you'll see that there is no ''game changing'' in the new toy (apart from the fact that maybe you NEED multiple amps setup... really??). Just a more powerfull package with most probably a lot of bugs to iron out for a few months and maybe more. I think QC will be a very good option but it does not offer enough to make me change my trusty Kemper 1.

Quote from Pick909

I agree with Alienator, we, Kemper users, don't need a Kemper 2. Because we all know that It already works great for live and for recording. In fact my lunchbox works great since I got it in 2013 and I never felt the need to replace it by anything else. And I like so much that I never feel this pressure since then because Kemper still get updates again and again for free!

Now, unfortunately, maybe the Kemper team need a Kemper 2 because they are actually loosing a segment of their customers who always want to have the new hyped shiny toy with the most powerfull DSP and the most beautiful touch screen etc. But if you take a minute and look at it without emotion, you'll see that there is no ''game changing'' in the new toy (apart from the fact that maybe you NEED multiple amps setup... really??). Just a more powerfull package with most probably a lot of bugs to iron out for a few months and maybe more. I think QC will be a very good option but it does not offer enough to make me change my trusty Kemper 1.

Amen to that brother.

Quote from ColdFrixion

You don't need to Tone Match the guitar at different volumes in order to preserve the accuracy of the frequency response. In my tests, once the source has been matched, the frequency response remains as accurate at different volumes as it does at the original (Tone Matched) volume. Below are two graphs. The first is a comparison of the frequency response at the original volume. The second is a comparison of the frequency response at the lowest volume.

Comparison of Tone Match at Original Volume:

Comparison of Tone Match at Lowest Volume:

Display More

Not sure what method you used to obtain these frequency response charts; however, it is undeniably true that the frequency response of a tube amp is NOT linear with respect to volume.... and our ears don't hear linearly at different volumes either (although the later is largely irrelevant since a good RTA mic is linear.... mostly)

I have done RTA frequency responses of my right and left speakers on my PA and even with identical signals going in and completely identical measuring techniques used for each speaker, and having NO audible difference in sound, I can still see visible differences (more than on your charts) between two identical speakers.

I find it hard to imagine that an audible difference would not show up on a well done frequency response plot ..... and I am confident that there is an audible difference between a real amp, and a tone matched model on an Axe.

Still, back to the original topic ......

The real reason I can see for a new KPA2 is to create a new device that isn't using obsolete parts. Any incremental tone improvement will likely be inconsequential to most guitarist. The point made above about "shiny new things" is valid though. A cool color LCD and new graphics would likely be a draw ..... but the audience would not be able to hear any difference. Shoot, the audience can't hear the difference between the original tube amp and the KPA so they most certainly wouldn't hear the difference between a KPA and KPA2.

The geek in me would love to see a phone/tablet app that connects through bluetooth though

Quote from OneEng1

Not sure what method you used to obtain these frequency response charts;

The method is simple. I loaded each pair of samples into Reaper and used FabFilter's EQ matching feature to compare the frequency plot of the samples at different volumes, but you can use any plugin that's able to capture and compare frequency plots, such as HOFA's IQ-Analyzer. There's nothing arcane or difficult about it.

Quote from OneEng1

I find it hard to imagine that an audible difference would not show up on a well done frequency response plot ..... and I am confident that there is an audible difference between a real amp, and a tone matched model on an Axe.

EQ matching has been around for decades and has proven to be extremely effective at replicating the frequency response of a source signal. Differences between the source and target are often dependent on the technique used to perform a match. For instance, EQ matching an isolated guitar that's double-tracked can produce less than accurate results. It's true that EQ matching doesn't necessarily produce an identical frequency response, but in my experience, the discrepancies are almost always smaller than the frequency response differences between a well-captured Kemper profile and the actual amp.

As far as frequency response differences due to volume changes, I've presented clear evidence (audio samples and frequency plot comparisons) that guitar volume differences don't affect the accuracy of an EQ match. But don't take my word for it. You can conduct similar experiments and verify the results for yourself.

Quote from OneEng1

Still, back to the original topic ......

The real reason I can see for a new KPA2 is to create a new device that isn't using obsolete parts. Any incremental tone improvement will likely be inconsequential to most guitarist. The point made above about "shiny new things" is valid though. A cool color LCD and new graphics would likely be a draw

Personally, I couldn't care less whether a modeler has a touch screen or the latest LCD technology because I use the software editor almost exclusively.

Quote from OneEng1

..... but the audience would not be able to hear any difference. Shoot, the audience can't hear the difference between the original tube amp and the KPA so they most certainly wouldn't hear the difference between a KPA and KPA2.

That's true in a live setting, but there are plenty of people who use the KPA in studios. Differences that are lost at a live venue may be apparent on a recording.

So just so I understand you correctly, you are saying that you can sit in a room with a Mesa MK IV and an Axe IIIFx, load up a Mesa MK IV model, run an eq matching and have the Axe III Fx sound closer to the amp than a Kemper that you just profiled the amp with?

This has not been my experience, or that of others who I know that use an Axe as their primary live rig.

I also find that people that do primarily studio work do tend to look more favorably on the Fractal ecosystem than the Kemper, while those that do live work feel the opposite and favor the KPA. I believe that this is due to the higher percentage of studio work to use software plug-ins and complex processing chains. While you could care less about live, others like me could care less about running 2 amp profiles at the same time.

From its inception, the KPA has catered to tube amp users. The layout of the controls, the authentic feel and breakup, the foot controller, etc, etc, have made it an ideal tube amp users digital amp rig. I personally hope that a KPA2 keeps this DNA and doesn't in any way attempt to be a Fractal wana-be.

Quote from OneEng1

So just so I understand you correctly, you are saying that you can sit in a room with a Mesa MK IV and an Axe IIIFx, load up a Mesa MK IV model, run an eq matching and have the Axe III Fx sound closer to the amp than a Kemper that you just profiled the amp with? This has not been my experience, or that of others who I know that use an Axe as their primary live rig.

Have you ever compared the frequency response of a profile of a Mark IV with an EQ matched version of the source amp in the Axe-Fx III?

Quote from OneEng1

While you could care less about live

I never said I couldn't care less about live use. I said I couldn't care less whether a modeler has a touch screen or the latest LCD technology because I use the software editor almost exclusively.

Quote from OneEng1

others like me could care less about running 2 amp profiles at the same time.

And I can respect that. I've seen a number of posts inquiring about the possibility of using two profile simultaneously, though.

Quote from OneEng1

From its inception, the KPA has catered to tube amp users. The layout of the controls, the authentic feel and breakup, the foot controller, etc, etc, have made it an ideal tube amp users digital amp rig. I personally hope that a KPA2 keeps this DNA and doesn't in any way attempt to be a Fractal wana-be.

There are a number of features in the Axe-Fx III that I'd love to see in the KPA that wouldn't affect its DNA. For example, I'd love to be able to use more effects simultaneously. I'd also love to see more flexible effects routing options that includes parallel paths. EQ matching would be a big benefit, in my opinion. There are more, but those are some of the features I'd like to see.

Quote

For example, I'd love to be able to use more effects simultaneously.

I see this very often in comments in many blogs and forums.My question is why do so many guys ask for "more fx simultaneously" to create complex,synth like ambient stuff with a dozen delays and even more complex reverbs...but never ever ask directly for a synth module??I mean..you guys look for "new sounds",right?

This is indeed beyond me.

We have 2021 but as guitar players...we still live in caves..

Quote from Nikos

I see this very often in comments in many blogs and forums.My question is why do so many guys ask for "more fx simultaneously" to create complex,synth like ambient stuff with a dozen delays and even more complex reverbs...but never ever ask directly for a synth module??I mean..you guys look for "new sounds",right?

This is indeed beyond me.

We have 2021 but as guitar players...we still live in caves..

This one I don’t really get either. One thing is sound design. But I bet my ass «real» sound designs are alot more creative than stacking 4 delays going into three reverbs...

I mean, how does all that «soundscape» even work in a setting beside being really «ethereal» by itself? Nevermind a live setting...

Quote from Nikos

We have 2021 but as guitar players...we still live in caves..

Well, don't you think that the style(s) of music you want to cover plays one if not THE role in that? You do not seem to want to get to know much about recreating the sounds of U2, Pink Floyd or Toto, or even much more modern experimental sounds, right? If so that is totally ok. Totally. It is you, yourself who decides where you want to live: will it be a (sexy) cave, as you say, or a sexy modern house. Fact is, you cannot play efficiently all the music of U2 with a mere Vox AC30 profile in a Kemper. In a side job I play in a U2 tribute band and the last 10 years I've spent millions of hours recreating those suckers with every possible equipment you can imagine. Although for me core sound is everything - I've been basing all those sounds around two or three good MB Vox AC30 profiles the last three years - believe me, that is only where you start from. Having all the options and sound and routing possibilities and not being limited by that basic Kemper signal chain helps not to be forced to find compromises when your aim is to nail sounds. Yes, a cool, easy to use and sexy UI helps very VERY much in this process. An easy workflow supports creativity and fun (which again helps creativity). Guess what, when I play BB King or Dire Straits I don't need anything of that. Then a mere good profile is enough. Goals define needs. GOALS DEFINE NEEDS! The definition of a modern all in one Multi FX digital amp processor is to open EVERY door and not make communities invent excuses for lacks only because their unit can do one or two basic things very good (like the Kemper Profiler does). The current Profiler is limited. Period. The Helix is perfect to show what I mean. Problem is: the Helix's damn core sound isn't that good as that of my Kempers. Yes, "WE" need absolutely a KemperII, if "WE" want to play sucessfullly U2 and only bring one unit to a gig and not an arsenal of other stuff. Everybody feel free to disagree. But my thinking of the best all in one unit is that it should be able to handle every need as good as possible. Like the QC tries to do and will IMHO successfully have done if its core sound will be that great as they say. Yes, different form factors could be a next step in the QC evolution but nobody said such will not come from Neural or from other companies.

-please delete this-

One more proof from Kemper profiles Guru-Michael Britt... How good actually the Kemper is. ?

Speechless...

Quote from Nikos

I see this very often in comments in many blogs and forums.My question is why do so many guys ask for "more fx simultaneously" to create complex,synth like ambient stuff with a dozen delays and even more complex reverbs...but never ever ask directly for a synth module??I mean..you guys look for "new sounds",right?

Quote from dahla

This one I don’t really get either. One thing is sound design. But I bet my ass «real» sound designs are alot more creative than stacking 4 delays going into three reverbs...

I mean, how does all that «soundscape» even work in a setting beside being really «ethereal» by itself? Nevermind a live setting...

Nikos, why do you assume someone is creating synth stuff of some sort if they use more than 4 post-amp effects? I can count the number of times I've used a synth block in an Axe-Fx III preset on one finger. Personally, I can easily use 5 or 6 post-amp effects involving EQ, flanger, delay, multiband compression and two different reverbs in parallel, or something like a phaser, chorus, multiband compression, reverb, and a couple of delays in parallel. For a more lush, ambient sound, I might stack a couple of choruses and put two different reverbs and a delay in parallel, along with some compression or multiband compression. Currently, I run the Kemper into the loop of an Axe-Fx III, so if I need to run 6 or more post-amp effects simultaneously, it's not a problem, but it would be great to be able to save the entire signal chain in one profile.

Quote

Nikos, why do you assume someone is creating synth stuff of some sort if they use more than 4 post-amp effects?

Because you say it yourself.The result of all this mess wil be:

Quote

For a more lush, ambient sound,

So if you want any kind of "lush ambient sound"..friend..I recommend just of of these countless ambient style synths out there.It will save you hours (and days?)..and cpu..

Quote from Alienator

Well, don't you think that the style(s) of music you want to cover plays one if not THE role in that? You do not seem to want to get to know much about recreating the sounds of U2, Pink Floyd or Toto, or even much more modern experimental sounds, right? If so that is totally ok.

In opposite.I love all these bands and I have spent as much time as any Gilmour fan trying to recreate his sound.And I dont know any reason why we should not be able to do it today with the kemper as it is.

But you know what?I know how hard it is afterwards(after you spent all this time "building" these epic guitar sounds) to find this freak of a synth player who could give me the other 50% of this atmospheric sound festival all these monster bands achieved.

And this!!! is what I am talking about..

Quote from dahla

This one I don’t really get either. One thing is sound design. But I bet my ass «real» sound designs are alot more creative than stacking 4 delays going into three reverbs...

I mean, how does all that «soundscape» even work in a setting beside being really «ethereal» by itself? Nevermind a live setting...

All these big bands already mentioned..have a genius keys player..

Now trying to do "big things" with more fx..this is not what I have experienced through out my life as a musician.Yes..we have U2 and the edge..problem is..he is the edge.And we are not.

But to talk about Gilmour,Lukather and all these other guys without to mention all the msical madness behind them on stage and in the studio..I dont know.I would not try this.

Quote from Nikos

Because you say it yourself.

No, I didn't. Lush and ambient guitar tones aren't synonymous with synthesizers.

Quote from Nikos

So if you want any kind of "lush ambient sound"..friend..I recommend just of of these countless ambient style synths out there.It will save you hours (and days?)..and cpu..

Not sure why you think "lush and ambient" is synonymous with synthesizers. It's not. There are plenty of lush and ambient guitar tones that sound nothing like a synthesizer, nor could they be duplicated with one.