Posts by ckemper

    We talk about several topics on this thread, but all about tap and tempo and timing, so let me bring some structure into this discussion.

    The Profiler has an advanced tempo and timing engine, inherited from the Access Virus Synthesizers. Keyboarders have very strong demands in the timing machine, especially to run arpeggiators synced along a DAW.

    The tempo engine receives information from the tap button (hardware or midi CC) or an incoming midi clock, or the BeatScanner.

    Effects like delays or the tremolo run on the tempo engine.

    Delays are easy, because they only need the right tempo, the timing is made by you playing your instrument.

    You might be used to tap four times to set the tempo on other devices. However, it's a good idea to tap more often. The Profiler adapts to your tempo with every tap, for an infinite time. It will even follow tempo changes quite smoothly while you tap.

    When synced to an external midi clock, you might observe tempo deviations. What you see is the timing engine constantly adapting to the incoming tempo. The visible tempo variations have no impact to the audible result. If you have experienced that other devices don't show tempo variations, than those manufacturers hide it by showing a highly averaged tempo. The result should be the same however. If you see the tempo deviate by small one digit numbers, then everything is ok. If you see two digit deviations caused by incoming midi clocks, then your midi interface is of bad quality and causes timing jitter of dozens of milliseconds. It is worth to be mentioned that today and since 20 years, the majority of midi interfaces have a terrible timing, unfortunately.

    The tremolo effect is a different beast. Here it's about the tempo AND the alignment to the beat, similar to an arpeggiator.

    The tempo engine has a special feature for realigning the tremolo: Whenever you press TAP after a certain time on a downbeat, the tremolo will shift to the timing of that tap smoothly. But don't tap too often, as it would sense it as a new tempo. Perfect is to place a single tap sometimes at the beginning of a new bar, even every bar is fine.

    Now this goes to hackowl . In many years we had no user syncing the timing of the tremolo to an external midi clock and reporting problems. But it does not work right the way you use it. I just took the time to look into the tremolo code and was happy to have fixed a quirk a few minutes ago. While the tremolo always played the correct tempo, it was easily going of beat, as you have showed up. Please check the next upcoming software update and tell me your experience!


    Sorry but I don't agree: pure cabinet isn't an eq, it softens the sound.

    Lower the HF has not the same result than use the pure cabinet.

    "not easy to add" isn't "it's impossibile to add": I hope you'll choose it for "improvements/upgrade to do"

    Thanks for the attention! :)

    Yes, you are following my arguments exactly.

    Pure Cabinet is not an EQ.

    It's made for changing the character of a cabinet sound.

    But if a rig sounds good on one a first reproduction system such as your PA, but not good on a second system, then it's not caused by the character of the sound, but by disadvantageous aspects of the second system, a frequency responce issue.

    It's obviously caused by your monitor producing too much high end. Thus a classic case for an equalizer.

    Pure Cabinet modifies the sound of the cabinet. Having different settings per output would require calculation two differerent cabinets simultaneously, which would add an unsuitable amount of calculation power to the system.

    For that reason we will definetely not implement this feature, even though we were asked for it two or three times.

    There is another reason:

    By using cabinet simulation, digital guitar amps make it possible to monitor the exact same sound that you will present to your audience, which is a huge advance over tube amps. We do not aim to implement features that would purposely counteract those advances.


    It's definetely not easy to add.

    I my point of view pure cabinet is not a substitute for an equalizer, and should not be seen as one.

    When the monitor is too harsh but the PA is fine, then the monitor needs to be equalized by lowering the HF.

    On the other hand, a Pure Cabinet setting that make the monitor sound good should also be good for the PA.

    Some believe that Pure Cabinet is not made for the PA, but it is made for it!


    Just a late resolution to your problem:

    You have obviously changed some of the Output Sources to values other than „Master“, or even „Off“, accidently.

    This will purposely cut your effects, or disable an output.

    Have a look a at the manual and also take a look at those settings in the Output Menu, now, that the are reset to good values.

    I did not change the sound of the Profiler towards to digital. I was on summer vacation.

    No jokes: It takes some efforts to change the sound slightly in a digital amp. This is not possible by accident, as it would probably in an analog device. You might agree that we have no need to make such changes.

    However, we get reports like that for every single software release...

    The Stereo Widener is the worst effect on the Kemper Profiler, imho. By using this effect you run into serious phase correlation issues. Not only does the Stereo Widener effect sound terrible (phasey and unbalanced) but it also kills mono compatibility.

    With the "new" reverb types, you have access to the parameter "Stereo" where you can boost the stereo width up to 200% without these serious phase problems. So you rather use this instead of the Stereo Widener. :)

    The stereo widener for sure lowers the stereo corelation. So does the stereo parameter of the reverb.

    The width of the stereo widener should be set carefully for a good stereo image that does not fall apart. This is similar to known MS-effects known in DAWs.

    However, and in contrast to what you say, the stereo widener does not harm the mono compatibility at all. When mixed to mono, the widener has no effect independent of the setting.

    The video has some misleading aspects. He could have opted for any other delay rather than the single delay, to obtain a stereo effect for the delay.

    With the Peterson StroboPlus HD, I'm able to define my own sweetened tuning that I've customized for EVERY pitch available on my 12-string extended E9 pedal steel guitar. Pedal steel uses pedal and knee levers to change the pitches of some of the strings, and those changes are tunable. So each open string has a user-defined value, and each tunable change also has a user-defined value.

    Ultimately, it would be ideal to be able to take every pitch (C-1 to G-9) and define a custom offset. That would be saved as a user sweetener, and then it could be shifted up or down for use with a capo. I think that would cover just about every possibility, for just about any instrument with strings and a pickup?


    We might need a preset management for tunings then. This requires some coding.

    Might take a while, as we have some higher priorities, unfortunately. Or fortunately ...

    Mr. Kemper, I think I understand what you are saying, when you specify doing this on a single Kemper. But two Kempers in parallel would be able to do dual amp and/or effects routing. The only potential issue I see would be some sort of phase issue between the two Kempers. I note that the Stage can be set as a slave when used with S/PDIF I/O. If you used S/PDIF to connect a Rack or Toaster (set as master) to a Stage (set as slave), would potential phase issues be eliminated?

    And of course with two Kempers, a dual output guitar can have a set of parallel effects.

    Phase would not be a problem.

    But I think a dual (parallel) full Rig topology would not meet the requirements of most users that want to run dual amping, because you want to plug both amps into the same studio effects most of the time.

    Am I right?

    Do you want to avoid swapping your guitars on the same cable or do you simply want to avoid switching rigs dedicated to the guitars?

    Also, how does it profile? I don't see a direct out or mic return. Perhaps you need to internally change the I/O, but the 30 min video & the Quick Start guide on the site doesn't touch on it. The video also said there were 2 modes, Browse and Performance. The Stage page does say you can create profiles and earlier in this thread the admins said it was a "fully functioning Profiler".

    Would like to know if this is possible or a limitation of the Stage because it hasn't been touched on.

    The XLR input has never been the only input for profiling. The TRS return input is in parallel to the XLR on Head and Rack. On the Stage we have the TRS only, but same functionality.

    anyway, why not DUAL AMPS??

    Talking about dual amping or parallel effects routing. We have a unique feature set that is relating to the serial signal flow as it is. That is „condition-free spillover“ of the DLY and REV module, individual output sources such as Stack, Mod, Dly&Rev wet - and especially MonitorCabOff, to switch off the cabinet solely for the Monitor Output and run a real guitar speaker through the power amp. Those features can be set globally, without tweaking every individual rig.

    We know that a very large part of our customers utilize and enjoy these features. With dual amping or parallel effects routing those features are not possible, because there would be no determined points in the signal flow any more.

    What do you think?


    Hi Tuner fanboys! :)

    I am thinking of implementing sweetened tuning sometimes in the future.

    However, we have higher prioritized thinks to do at the moment.

    However I ask about the best practice.

    We needed tuning presets, that can be stored and recalled.

    We needed fine tuning values for up to 8 strings.

    Per string we needed two values, one for the target string and the fine tuning value.

    Target strings should be detected automatically when played, and displayed accordingly.

    When strings are played that are not one of the 8 strings, they should be tuned with no offset.

    Is this about how it works on other tuners? Or is there a simpler approach?

    Btw: What‘s wrong with the TC Polytuner?


    For sure you can use pre amps or channel strips during profiling, in hardware or software, for equalizing your amp. But if a channel strip causes the profiling to fail, we must suspect a hidden „ear-candy“, a compressor or something else not under your control. Have you tried another equalizer from your DAW that doesn‘t call itself pre amp?

    It‘s fine when you post comparison clips, but i am afraid that this time it wouldn‘t help analyzing it, because you cannot hear the existence of a compressor by the outcome of a profile.

    Does your preamp plugin alter the sound, when all controls are set to neutral?

    I'm going to carry on doing experiments. I don't know why the Kemper vs the Amp when re-amped would have different volumes. Nor why they wouldn't match up perfectly on frequency response. I also don't know why I lost all of the top end in the first profiles where the mic was plugged directly into the Kemper return, while now I'm looped back through the Apollo (no plugins are involved by the way) I'm getting slightly too much top end in the profile, although that last one I believe may be down to the rooms reverb.

    At the end of the day I just want to be able to make a good example for the Gearslutz thread to demonstrate that the Kemper does in fact match (or even exceeds) the real amp when it comes to pick dynamics, and to not show the Kemper in a bad light.

    As I said in my first post, I am sure that you haven‘t lost top end while profiling. But for the A/B comparison you have left the profiling mode, resulting in the background noise being discarded and probably the volume being normalized by the profiler. The missing background noise makes sounds duller by psychology, a widely known effect, and the reason why we recreate the noise during the initial A/B comparison. We even simulate the latency of the reference amp, caused by DAWs or whatever, for creating the same feel. Of course, the latency is also discarded later.

    We have no plans or technic to capture the room response while profiling, and as you know, it is not a major part of the majority of profiling situations. I would strongly recommend to use the Natural Reverb to recreate a desired room, where you have the mix and time of the room in your hands.

    You‘ll be able to make good profiles and demonstrate them simply by following our standard route, which I am pushing since days on this thread :)

    I have listened to the A/B clip.

    While i cannot judge the first half, since the reference amp has (again) a different level (you can tell by the background noise level), the second half seems to be a valid A/B comparison.

    I think the profile is spot on. The biggest difference I hear is that the reference amp is mic‘ed in a quite reverbarant room, the mic catches lot of room reflections. The profiler does not catch those, still it will take their frequency response into account. The high frequencies seem to equal beside this. Especially the highs of the cleans are perfect IMHO. What do you think?

    By simply bypassing your software channel strips for a minute you could have tested that they do no good for profiling.

    Why would channel strips make profiles better? I am sure professional profiles only required a good microphone placement and a bit of EQ. But ask the pros, they know better.

    And of course channel strips will work in the signal chain. But at least you will have to deactivate compressors included.

    In any case, profiles will never catch what you hear in the room, they will only catch what comes from the microphone, unfortunately. That‘s physics, even in with the pros.

    You can tell by some actual threads on this forum that me and my company do care about profiling issues.

    And you can trace that, after several days of communication, we still have no valuable comparison clips, where we can make a clear statement. This is quite a time consuming business. We were only able to resolve a handful of cases, due to lacking proper A/B clips.

    I always ask for clips in public, so we can discuss and solve the problem in public. I never send users to our support for these topics.

    Beside the complaints, do we have heard clips from you yet?

    It would also be helpful to send a link to those „cold cases“, so we can do a follow up. I have mentioned this numerous times a couple weeks ago and even before, but no one came up. Now I am answering on a thread, where people know people with problems, but no single clip yet.

    Talking about a profiling video: our profiling guide exists since many years, merely unchanged.

    All constraints for the signal flow including multiple distortion, compression or noise gates are mentioned since then. I doubt that producing a video with the same content will lead to better profiles. We cannot anticipate every type of equipment being used and give a recommendation for or against it.

    If someone utilizes a sophisticated tool such as a software preamp and the profiling fails, I think it‘s fair to expect said user to bypass it for the next run and see if profiling works, and draw conclusions from the outcome.

    I have replied to your posts a couple times now. I would ask you to show up or link to a specific case. This would make you look less like a troll.