• The triaxis is not a mark series amp, and I do not see why they cannot add a larger selection in eq presets, when they decide to do so. If they can add a tone stack pre or post gain they can , add a second eq post gain , or post amp pre cab , or post cab, in respect to the cost of their programming, or processing.

    Apologies. I was thinking about the actual 5 band graphic and not the Triaxis rack.

    Karl


    Kemper Rack OS 9.0.5 - Mac OS X 12.6.7

  • Not when profiling , the profiling process takes mere seconds, and the amp can be profiled with the use of only the tone stack in the signal chain. If it came down to the components drifting in those mere seconds on all amplifiers with a regulated mains voltage no amp would be worth profiling. It really is not that much to ask for an eq that has more than 4 selectable bands, otherwise other methods have to be employed , and I have to build or buy my fix. The bands are not even fully customizable, my guess is the cost effective method for doing this would be to allow us the ability to have a customizable cursor box in the rig manager, depending on what script they have to write for what software.

    you misunderstood what I was trying to say. Although Mesa specified component values in the design to achieve a specific frequency the actual components have a tolerance range and are almost never exactly the number specified. As a result the real world EQ frequencies will be close to the designed frequencies but not exact. They will vary slightly from amp to amp. The values of these components also drifts over time, as in an original Mark iiC+ EQ will probably sound different today than it did when new. I don’t mean that they drift during the profiling process.

  • How about a pre or post eq in the cab section Maybe?


    I know there is high and low shift but maybe cramming some sort of multiband or parametric eq in the cab section with the ability to select pre or post cab would do the trick.

  • you misunderstood what I was trying to say. Although Mesa specified component values in the design to achieve a specific frequency the actual components have a tolerance range and are almost never exactly the number specified. As a result the real world EQ frequencies will be close to the designed frequencies but not exact. They will vary slightly from amp to amp. The values of these components also drifts over time, as in an original Mark iiC+ EQ will probably sound different today than it did when new. I don’t mean that they drift during the profiling process.

    That is why we have five band equalizers, some equalizers even have master q settings. The higher your q value the more specific your selectable frequency may be. So you can adjust to taste during the time of profiling which takes less than 5 minutes which is hardly time for those components to drift in most cases.

  • That is why we have five band equalizers, some equalizers even have master q settings. The higher your q value the more specific your selectable frequency may be. So you can adjust to taste during the time of profiling which takes less than 5 minutes which is hardly time for those components to drift in most cases.

    I can't speak for Alan, but I think he meant that it is hard to accurately replicate the 5 band eq, as the sound differs from amp to amp. Also the the components change over time.


    I have occasionally stacked more eqs to deal with problem frequencies and you could do that to create your 5 band. In the end though, the strength of the Kemper is that you can just find a more suitable profile instead. There are thousands out there and modelling just takes all your playing time up.

    Karl


    Kemper Rack OS 9.0.5 - Mac OS X 12.6.7

  • I can't speak for Alan, but I think he meant that it is hard to accurately replicate the 5 band eq, as the sound differs from amp to amp. Also the the components change over time.


    I have occasionally stacked more eqs to deal with problem frequencies and you could do that to create your 5 band. In the end though, the strength of the Kemper is that you can just find a more suitable profile instead. There are thousands out there and modelling just takes all your playing time up.

    Not with digital profilers it is not. They can update it in respect to their programming cost , and give us more value by creating new more versatile eq sections, that take up less effect slots. If I have a reference sound , and the eq space I can make a iic+ sound like any iic+ I want given that I can get it react the way that I want during the refining process alone. If Kemper gives us the options we ask for then I do not have to spend more money on the overpriced versions of these physical devices , I can spend that money on Kemper gear instead. I have bought two near mint condition Triaxis preamps why would I spend more money to buy more Triaxis profiles? The only thing it would make sense to spend more money on is Impulse responses, so I can cheaply afford all the speaker curves I want. Given the argument that no two amps are the same they should just give us equalization that we ask for so long as it is cost effective , and we can own virtual versions of long lost amplifers , and equalize them to bring out our favourite aspects of them in our playing space.

  • Not with digital profilers it is not. They can update it in respect to their programming cost , and give us more value by creating new more versatile eq sections, that take up less effect slots. If I have a reference sound , and the eq space I can make a iic+ sound like any iic+ I want given that I can get it react the way that I want during the refining process alone. If Kemper gives us the options we ask for then I do not have to spend more money on the overpriced versions of these physical devices , I can spend that money on Kemper gear instead. I have bought two near mint condition Triaxis preamps why would I spend more money to buy more Triaxis profiles? The only thing it would make sense to spend more money on is Impulse responses, so I can cheaply afford all the speaker curves I want. Given the argument that no two amps are the same they should just give us equalization that we ask for so long as it is cost effective , and we can own virtual versions of long lost amplifers , and equalize them to bring out our favourite aspects of them in our playing space.

    I wouldn't argue against there being a more expansive eq at all. Maybe that will come one day and the Kemper is barely recognisable from what was originally released as we get more and more value from gear I bought nearly 7 years ago.


    One thing you should consider is that you might be missing the best of the Kemper if you look to use IRs. For me the thing that sets it aside from other modellers is the way cabinet sounds in a full profile. Try and set up those amps you like with a cabinet and take the whole rig.

    Karl


    Kemper Rack OS 9.0.5 - Mac OS X 12.6.7

  • Not with digital profilers it is not. They can update it in respect to their programming cost , and give us more value by creating new more versatile eq sections, that take up less effect slots. If I have a reference sound , and the eq space I can make a iic+ sound like any iic+ I want given that I can get it react the way that I want during the refining process alone. If Kemper gives us the options we ask for then I do not have to spend more money on the overpriced versions of these physical devices , I can spend that money on Kemper gear instead. I have bought two near mint condition Triaxis preamps why would I spend more money to buy more Triaxis profiles? The only thing it would make sense to spend more money on is Impulse responses, so I can cheaply afford all the speaker curves I want. Given the argument that no two amps are the same they should just give us equalization that we ask for so long as it is cost effective , and we can own virtual versions of long lost amplifers , and equalize them to bring out our favourite aspects of them in our playing space.

    Im totally lost on this....so lets start again....


    Why does the KPA not have a 5 band eq as per the triaxis....because it's not a triaxis in the same way it doesn't have exactly the same eq's as any other amp. Axe will have because it models specific amps. Its been requested many times to be able to take multiple profiles to replicate the eq interactions


    Should they implement one? Allans point is a 5 band based on the Mesa's won;t be exact as the amps are not exact. So why not have a fully variable e.q. ( 10 band for example) which seems to be your request now?


    If you want specific sounds eq'ed, then profile at that point from your triaxis. Why would you need more than one unless you want to make specific changes on the fly?


    Why have you switched to talking about IR's? This is one way to adjust sound and ( to me) an unnecessary rabbit hole and carry over from Helix and Axe because they don;t profile.


    Is this for live or recording? If recording, outboard EQ would be more effective anyway.


    Hope you get a solution.

  • I have three Mesa Mk3’s in my studio. One from 87 and two from 88. The graphics EQ’s are pretty much the same on all three. Graphic settings from one translate to the others although the red stripe version of the amp from 87 is slightly different texture wise than both the blue stripe versions from 88.


    So, I would personally love this graphic being available as an EQ block. The same with the MXR 6 band pedal that has been used by so many guitarists to shape the sound into their amps.
    Wasting two whole eq blocks just to emulate a simple 6 band pedal (in the case of the mxr) just seems silly and the one in the Kemper doesn’t have the right bands to emulate the pedal.


    Both the Mesa graphic and the MXR 6 band pedal are really great for tone shaping.

  • Setting aside that asking for a 5-band EQ to emulate a feature in a specific line of a manufacturer's amps sounds like modeling...


    This is from the Mesa Boogie site describing their 5-band EQ pedal

    Quote
    • Slider Controls provide Mesa’s legendary tone-shaping power with +/- 12dB of boost or cut at 80Hz, 240Hz, 750Hz, 2.2Khz and 6.6Khz
      Source

    Although you can't directly map the Kemper 4-band Studio Equalizer to the 5-band, I wonder if you couldn't come really close considering that you probably don't need to do anything extreme at the 80 Hz or 6.6 Khz ends that you couldn't do with the low-cut and high-cut in the OUTPUT section of the Profiler. So you could focus on the middle four.

  • considering that you probably don't need to do anything extreme at the 80 Hz or 6.6 Khz ends that you couldn't do with the low-cut and high-cut in the OUTPUT section of the Profiler. So you could focus on the middle four.

    Actually many people (particularly metal heads) often push the 80hz and 6.6k to close to maximum boost. Then they scoop 750 massively. Subtly isn’t a common trait with Mesa EQ settings.