I don't see that as a similar comparison at all. But to each their own...
You're saying i'm not entitled to complain about Kemper allegedly misinforming me on the technology involved.
Not un-informing. MIS-informing.
Am i getting you wrong?
The fact that they've claimed it's not just IR+EQ is good and well, but i've just looked at "proof" that this is not true.
Granted, the apostrophes are an integral part of that statement - but that's why i want clarification.
I don't see that as a similar comparison at all. But to each their own...
Yes, this is indeed not a valid comparison.
And on the original topic I repeat: Kemper already stated it is more complex.
We have no reason at all to doubt this, especially as the KPA delivers like it does.
Let the others spread their hearsay and let them play the 'on paper' game.
In the meantime I enjoy my profiler.
Let me add this: This time there is not a shitstorm over at the FAS forum as usual. It seems that the FAS users have also gotten a bit tired of all the redundant posts about a 'theoretically superior' Axe. A lot of users admit that the KPA delivers and one can get awesome results with either unit.
Finally the discussion matures a bit, so it seems.
You're saying i'm not entitled to complain about Kemper allegedly misinforming me on the technology involved.
Not un-informing. MIS-informing.
Am i getting you wrong?
The fact that they've claimed it's not just IR+EQ is good and well, but i've just looked at "proof" that this is not true.
Granted, the apostrophes are an integral part of that statement - but that's why i want clarification.
You can believe whatever you want.
The Kemper "promise" is it can recreate a miced amp sound. Whether it's implemented by a mouse running on a wheel or a million point IR isn't consequential as they never revealed their means and aren't selling the means but the results. And "more complex" is a purposely vague descriptor which could mean anything. The car comparison would be more applicable if the profiling concept didn't work. Your comparison is more like saying you bought a car on the promise it can go 100kmh and it does but it employs a serpentine belt rather than multiple dedicated belts and you demand to know why the engine was designed this way.
Quitty, would you be satisfied if Kemper posted something like, "I've seen that analysis, and it's wrong/incomplete, but I won't go into it for trade secret reasons"?
Quitty, would you be satisfied if Kemper posted something like, "I've seen that analysis, and it's wrong/incomplete, but I won't go into it for trade secret reasons"?
Yes, that was the point.
Again, in case this wasn't clear -
i don't want to know what the KPA does.
I mean, i do - but i don't think i'm entitled to. Never have, never will, full stop.
I do want to feel absolutely certain that i will never be misinformed by the developers, and that's what i feel i'm entitled to - me and the rest of the 'trouble-making' lot.
This isn't about the XFX and i don't trust Cliff's statements, because he's proven un-trustworthy in the past.
I do, however, believe hard evidence. I also believe the Kemper team, because i've no reason not to.
The only thing that ever seemed fishy (for those who recall the good ol' "where's our features" thread) was the KPA team's unwillingness to involve themselves in pointless debates that could have been ended with half a line of text.
So Cliff is continuing to spread assumtions about our product.
I never commented that, I thought it would be ridiculous.
Now that he is repeating similar statements, and it makes its way to other forums, It's time for a statement.
I think I have never stated that we do not use IRs.
It requires IRs and several other methods to achieve the sound of the Profiler.
If the accuracy was not top notch, you would clearly notice it in the A/B comparison. We were the first to implement such A/B comparison to show how close we get to the original. We have nothing to hide soundwise.
We have two scrambled data blocks in our rig files. Those contain frequency responce information as well as parameters for the dynamics that have been profiled.
Cliff has simply counted the number of bytes without knowing what they respresent, and concluded we use a 256 point IR. As a world class engineer that he is, he must surely assume that there is more information hidden.
I am absolutely with Cliff that a minimum of 1000 points ae required to accurately reproduce a guitar Cabinet. Framing a shorter IR with simple equalizers - as he assumes - will fall short, when strange cabinets are profiled.
A 256 point only IR with equalizers might save some calculation power, would definetely not sound better and would be much harder to handle by code.
I will not reveal details of our methods, but here is a little math if we was using plain IR convolution only:
Our processor is a dual core at 200 MHz.
That equals to 400 million operations per second.
We run at 44.1 kHz sample rate (44100 samples per second)
Divide both numbers:
Result: We have 9070 operations available to calculate one output sample.
For calculating a 2048 point IR our processor requires 2048 operations (it's 1:1).
2048 operations of 9070 operations equals to 22.6% calculation power dedicated to the cabinet IR.
I am with Cliffs statement, that the amp sounds quality is happening in the cabinet by more than 50%.
Why would we compromise the cabinet sound, if takes less than a quarter of our processor to make it perfect?
A 1000 points IR would save 11%. Thats not a gigant saving.
A 256 points IR would require less than 3%. Why should we be that stingy?
Cliff has all these facts in his hand, this was an easy math. He clearly claims that we use less than 3% of the available calculation power for the cabinet simulation, and try to correct the shortcomings with equalizers. Sweet!
We dedicate much more calculation power and IR points to the cabinets, how can this be doubted?
I will also respond to another statement of Cliffs, he claimed that the Profiler Amp section runs at 22 kHz only.
Of course this is not true either. There is a bandlimiting prior to the amp, by minor reasons. It is not noticable and I might take it out in one of the next firmwares.
Again Cliff could have made an easy assumtion: How could we downsample our amp, while it's widely known that you have to upsample the amp to reduce aliasing?
Every frequency plot on the web made by the Profiler shows that it covers the full frequency range.
It was not my intention to make Cliff look like an amateur, but his frequent bashings over more than a year forced me to publish a clarification.
CK
Thank you!
Actually, the most interesting part to me, with regards to the cab section would be the cabmaker -
is it theoretically possible to have a converted IR that would be identical to a cab section profiled by the KPA?
Or is there information that would still be missing in a converted IR?
My experiences with standard IRs have been underwhelming compared to the cab sections the KPA produces, and i want to know if it's worth the effort to keep looking.
Regardless, Cliff is alive and well and yes, still marketing himself by throwing dirt around. I hope he loses credibility eventually.
I have a pretty high skill in mumbojumbo but i will shut my mouth. 
About the blablashit, it's blablashit and that's not the first time. He used to throw many wrong technical informations in the past so why this one should be correct? After all this time i came to the conclusion to ask myself what was true in Cliff's argumentations. I think it's more rare than what is wrong, unfortunatly.
I noticed that it's often a mix with blablatechnic and observations about customers opinions.He probably reads KPA's users saying that their profiles miss low end...so they know now that it's due to a 256 tap IR. lol
The GSP mustbebeta IRs use only 24 taps, i never heard GSP users complaining about missing low end with third party IRs truncated to 24 taps.
So again it's just wrong marketing.
By the way i'm waiting for the "There is a bandlimiting prior to the amp, by minor reasons. It is not noticable and I might take it out in one of the next firmwares."
Could i have a preview of this next firmware?
I'm 62 years old and I guess as a consumer , I JUST DON"T UNDERSTAND WHY IT MATTERS. I don't buy gear because of "specs" but because it "sounds and feel great" and does it's job. Sometimes these posts go on a neverending tangent that end no where important and that's all I got to say. PLAY GUITAR AND ENJOY THE SOUND 
I'm 62 years old and I guess as a consumer , I JUST DON"T UNDERSTAND WHY IT MATTERS. I don't buy gear because of "specs" but because it "sounds and feel great" and does it's job. Sometimes these posts go on a neverending tangent that end no where important and that's all I got to say. PLAY GUITAR AND ENJOY THE SOUND
That's what everybody say here IMO.
Trust your ears. 
So Cliff is continuing to spread assumtions about our product.
He would like to implement the profiling into the Axe but he doesn't know the maths. Perhaps he should go back working for a few years in another radar's company in order to learn new technics. That's IMO where he learned all.
Ok guys,
It's time to stop bashing here.
This is a severe topic. Talk about it, but be more serious, please.
He probably reads KPA's users saying that their profiles miss low end...so they know now that it's due to a 256 tap IR. lol
No, he clearly explains how he made his conclusions.
Mba, I conclude you are british because you write in english language, in a good style. 
By the way i'm waiting for the "There is a bandlimiting prior to the amp, by minor reasons. It is not noticable and I might take it out in one of the next firmwares."
Could i have a preview of this next firmware?
No.
CK: any chance of getting some feedback to my former question?
Is there information missing from converted IRs, or would it be possible to attain as good results as with KPA cabs with them?
That was a cool post CK on the simple math. Thanks!
Thanks for the response CK!! While some people aren't interested in technical details, I definitely am. Not because I think it makes the KPA sound better or worse, but because I am a techie and love this stuff (although, oddly enough, hate tweaking, which was one of the main reasons I got a KPA over an XFX).
Cks clarification is fun to read and it's justified. Yet, I doubt, that this will stop rumours and gossip simply because the main reason for the gossips on other forums can not be that the KPAs sound is not good. The idea is rather to spread doubt among those people who are potential customers of one unit or the other.
To me, my ears and the ears of others are what counts. I have never seen so many faces staring in absolute awe - almost bewildered - when they were confronted with the A/B comparisons in a studio profiling situation. I have never heard or felt anything that uses some tiny microchips and yet makes me believe I am hearing a warm tube amp. Everything in the sound and the dynamic response of the KPA is so close to reality that for me there's no need to really understand how it's done. (Comparable to taking a plane to take me from A to B. I don't need to understand everything about the on board electronics to be able to to taken from A to B.)
The success (and I hope we can call it a success) of the KPA has nothing to do with users sitting down in front of lengthy mathematic explanations of how the profiling is processed, but with the fact that in most situations the owner of the tube amp gets lost when he is confronted with A/B comparisions and cannot say if what he hears is his amp (that he may have played through for years and years) or the result of whatever it is the KPA does.
Honestly, we KPA users probably have owned some sort of a modeler before in our lives and never was there a machine that could bring smiles to our faces. Some were good in this or that respect, most were practical, but none really sounded like an amp. I don't doubt that the "other machine" with its latest updates may also be capable of capturing an amp sound - yet, I don't care because my ears are happy. One example: Yesterday I sat down and tried to get close to John Mayer's sound on "Gravity" for some reason. I chose a Two Rock profile, made some minor adjustments, added some compression, a reverb and in less than 2 minutes I had a sound that got so close to the CD sound (that surely used equipment that's worth many times more than the KPA) that it made me speechless for a couple of minutes. What more could I want?
Really, for the potential customers: If they have a look at the many videos on youtube in which you can observe a profiling session, there should be no question as to whether the KPA is a more than capable unit or not. Even if someone could prove that the KPA internally used only 8 Bit processing - the result would still be one that makes it hard to distinguish between KPA and the real amp.
Mba, I conclude you are british...
You should ask to cliff he knows me by heart. Ich bin ein Berliner.
I've been following this discussion (and similar ones earlier). I'm no coder but by buying into an Axe or a Kemper, I buy into a tech product that I like to think has something going for it in the years ahead. That's why I think it's important to debunk myths about the Kemper being technologically inferior to the Axe. It ceartainly doesn't sound like it's inferior, but it's good to know that there's enough stuff under the hood to keep it going for years.
But there are differences both between the technology in the boxes and in how to approach creating sounds. I'm sure there are elements of taste and preference here, but at the moment I'm able to coach far better sounds from the Kemper than the Axe. To my ears (and I've really, really been testing, comparing amps, the Kemper and the Axe, throwing sounds at fellow musicians with good ears) it's not only about finding the right combo of amp and cabinet etc, at the moment I'm hearing more complex details in how the Kemper reproduces overdrive and responds to the guitar. I'm even having more success changing the cabs around on the Kemper than on the Axe, despite one of the other myths being thrown around has to do with the Amp/Cab solution being better in the Axe. Also, the different parameters both in the eq and the amp and speaker stack really work, and they can do wonderful stuff to the sound. Again, in some discussions the flexibility of the Kemper is questioned, you're locked to one sound per profile etc, but it's simply not true. It's just as flexible as the Axe, but it takes a different approach. The exception when it comes to flexibility would be the effects and routing, which are in a different league in the Axe. That said, the Kemper's effects are good (I even like the Rotary better in the Kemper), but in the fx & midi/control department is where I'd like to see updates in the future
Anyway, thanks for clearing things up in a tidy and respectful way, CK.
Ich bin ein Berliner.
Now I know MBA stands for "Massachusetts Boy Always", Mr. President ! LOL
