Sometimes I will use eq to low cut post, after the stack on certain profiles that seem a little beefy in the low end.
I assume this is guessing ?
What is called "interaction", is exactly captured in the DI profile.
I don't know who in history brought up that meme of "interaction of tube amp and speaker". But it was then taken over by everybody and abused.
There is no "push pull dynamics", that don't occur.
The truth is, that tube power amps interact LESS with the speaker than a SS power amp.
SS power amps interact heavily in a very determined way.
Here is the technical background:
SS power amps as well as class d power amps measure the voltage at the speaker output and compare it to the input signal. Any deviation will be corrected.
If, e.g. at a certain frequency the output signal is double as high as it is supposed to be, then the input signal is cut in half, to correct the outcome.
This is called "negative feedback", and reflects the maximum interaction possible. The output impedance of a SS amp is virtually 0 Ohm.
Tube power amps do not feature this full feedback due to certain reasons, the interactions are limited.
When the speaker emphasises certain frequencies such as its resonance frequency, then the input signal is not fully corrected and a higher voltage remains in the speaker output.
When you create a DI profile, then this higher voltage is measured or profiled.
When you play said profile through a SS amp, than this voltage gets fully compensated by the amp.
But the higher voltage is played to the power amps input by the profile as well, with then does not get compensated, since it is the input signal and not the negative feedback signal.
This way, the effects of the lesser interactions of the tube amp are printed into the profile and then reliably played back through the SS amp.
I hope this was an understandable explaination.
It wasn't a guess My guess is that I'm not making my point very well, so that's my fault. I completely understand and agree that the "interaction" is captured in the DI profile. That isn't the issue. The issue is trying to replicate that with a SS power amp. With the with the kemper, and any SS power amp, you are essentially reamping a profile of a tube amp rig through a SS power amp and guitars speakers. Since SS and Tube amps do not react in the same manner to speaker loads and impedance changes, the feel(and/or "compression" as stated by the OP) will not be the same. It is impossible to replicate that in this scenario. Simply amplifying that interaction is not the same.
I personally don't mind this sense of extra compression in the profiles. I find that it is present to varying degrees in all digital amps/modelers. Actually the Kemper does a great job of capturing a lot of nuances that some modelers miss. Assuming the profile is well done, the KPA is great.
again, the interaction between power amp and speaker is captured during the profiling and is part of the Profile.
if you use a tube amp to amplify this, you'll end up with both tube amp signatures in series.
to get the authentic sound of the profiled amp, a linear solid state power amp should be used.
Don, I totally understand what you are saying and absolutely agree. The OP (and me) weren't talking about sound, we are referring to "feel".
All I am saying is the effect of the profiled interaction is greatly diminished with a linear power amp feeding guitar speakers. It is impossible for the linear power amp to interact the same way causing the change in feel because the amp isn't reacting. Although the kemper does an admirable job of profiling this interaction IN the profile, because the linear power amp is AFTER the profile, the profiled interaction can be lost to a significant degree.
Yes, which is why all IR's are not created equal.
The profiling world will be very muddy very quickly. It starts by substituting the IR for a real mic and cabinet then profiling a Helix...then an Axe and because people can produce good tones from them they become indistinguishable. Then you have no idea what you are getting unless you do your own profiles.
Some people will do crazy stuff to make a buck.
Couldn't agree more. I think the profiling world already is a little muddy..
This is a shame if it is not specifically noted. People assume they are buying the "art" of micing up a cabinet with stuff they don't have or can't get and paying for it. Making profiles with an IR will not produce the same result as a dynamic mic and cabinet. The Ox is pretty close since it is supposed to be dynamic, but an IR is a static representation and that is contingent upon the load put into the speaker (by the power amp) at the moment the IR is taken.
I just think the commercial profile sellers should be up front up about it if they are using these methods. Again, I have no proof that anyone in particular is doing this, I just would imagine it is happening based on the fact that the tech is there and it offers a lot of options for profiling with less cost and possibly effort.
I kinda disagree though about the IR not sounding as dynamic. True, an IR is a static eq curve, but If a good reactive load (Ox, Waza TAE, Suhr, etc.) and a good IR is used there should be little to no perceived difference in the finished sound. All of the dynamic interaction occurs between the amp and the load, not in the IR. Since the reactive load is acting as the speaker, the IR is only applying the inherent eq curve of the speaker/mic/preamp/environment used when it was captured. In theory, it's no different that what the profile would capture in a traditional amp/mic/cab profile.....A momentary snapshot of the amp reacting with the speaker coil and the inherent eq that speaker/cab/mic applies.
That being said, everyone's ears are different and some may be able to hear a difference. I think that if a person profiling via load box and IRs were to have the proper knowledge, they could make a profile that is indistinguishable from a profile made the traditional way. Just my opinion though.
One more thing to consider. Wouldn't the "art" of micing up a cabinet also apply to shooting IRs?
yes, but all the characteristics of the power amp signature were captured in the profiling process and are part of the Profile, which makes it necessary for the power amp stage to be as linear as possible to deliver the authentic sound of the amp.
Yes, those characteristics were captured in the profiling process. The caveat of the linear power amp (especially at higher volumes) is that because it is linear, it doesn't interact nor can it replicate the interaction of a tube power amp and speakers which is what the OP is lacking. The "push and pull dynamics" don't occur. Linear SS power amps into non linear guitar range speakers will always lack this interaction. It's simply the nature of the beast. Kinda like how a germanium fuzz pedal needs to be directly connected to a guitar for it to perform as intended. Put a buffer (a linear device) in between the guitar and fuzz and you lose the interaction, dynamics and the sound is changed. MOre or less the same phenomena.
I think I know what the OP is experiencing and it is more than likely the difference in power amps. I've actually run into this myself.
Running a tube amp into a speaker produces a reactive load back onto the power section of the amp. This relationship between power section and speaker is dynamic and constantly changing based on volume, gain, eq, attack, how hard the strings are hit, etc. Solid state power amps do not have this same relationship with speakers. By design most are very linear and don't demonstrate the same reactive characteristics. The Kemper power amp is this way because it has to be..it's job is to amplify the replication of an entire rig from amp to mic/mic pre and needs to be very linear and flat response.
So to my point, I think what the OP is describing is due to the fact the he is ("re") amplifying with a flat, linear power amp which by design can't replicate the feel and response of a tube power amp. Basically, the push and pull compression-like feeling isn't there. At lower volumes through studio monitors the Kemper can simulate this pretty well, just not "re amped" through guitar speakers/cab.
Of course, I could be totally off base with what the OP is talking about....
I don't have any inside info, but I'd be willing to bet a fair number of profiles are made incorporating IR's, using reactive loads and the such. This technology is becoming more and more prevalent now and it would be hard not to use it considering the options this can offer, not to mention it can make getting good sounds easier and quicker.
IMO the grey area is using 3rd party IRs from company "X" in paid profiles and not divulging that info. All the EULAs I've seen state that the purchase of IR's is a single license to you the buyer, and you can't sell them again. On the flip side, if you create your own IRs and use them to profile, on paper, it is not a conflict since you created the original IRs.
I agree that more than 1/2 the overall contributing factor to a profile is the cab/mic/recording environment. Assuming that is true, and knowing the controlled environment and all the options IRs provide, I would not be surprised if it became common practice.
Place studio EQ in a the first post stack slot. Low cut 80-110 dpending on your guitar. If you still want more, adjust the low frequency parameter to around 140-150k and reduce the gain.
Is it me or does this just look like a "profile" loader/player, like an IR host utility....... that allows the user to tweak the profile with additional tools? Kinda like, load a kemper profile, change the preamp and output tubes. change the cab via a third party IR, play with mics and mic positions, and add in Overloud effects.
Interesting concept, but at first glance it needs a kemper profile to work. Could be wrong but just seems like a profile editor on steroids.
Exactly! That's why I was curious. It would save a lot of time.
I assume some commercial profiles are/were made with IRs and no one is any wiser. The question for me is do they shoot their own IRs from scratch?? Or, use a commercial, third party IR.
I've shot a lot of IRs and it isn't just slap a mic in front a speaker and get good results. It is an art form in of itself. But, so is creating good sounding profiles. I think the two are very similar in the fact that they are both garbage in, garbage out. Seeing that there is a niche market in commercial profiles, I just wondered about this subject.
I won't go down the rabbit hole of the thread you shared above, but I do think there are ethical, moral and legal questions around this subject and a very large gray area that hasn't been dove into.
I personally wouldn't have an issue with this if it was the person creating the profile that created the IR. But....How do you truly validate that? You can't.
I heartily second that! I went through a number of Line 6 stuff but never could warm up to it. Part of it was the "not quite there yet" sound, which gets better with each new product, but a large part of it was really down to modeler versus profiler.
With modelers I had to spend a lot of time in software fiddling with tones, which I don't enjoy. With a profiler I leave all that to more talented people, pick a profile and just play guitar.
I hear you. I just always want my toolbox full of tools. I don't care if it's analog or digital. If it helps me make music, its good. No doubt the Kemper is a great tool for performing and recording. I've used and continue to use the Fractal gear and Helix as well again, because each thing brings something to the table. Its too bad that this kind of gear was around when I started playing!
I found this after I asked. Guess I should have searched a little better before asking. Thank you!
Hi everyone. I've lurked the forum for a few years since I got my profiler in 2015. Lots of good info and good helpful people. I've always enjoyed the Kemper, and it has really seemed to develop nicely over time with solid firmware improvements.
I was an early adopter of digital guitar tech going back to the original POD days and have always loved having more tools in the toolbox. I own a slew of amps as well as other digital guitar gear as well. Gotta say the Kemper is a great piece of gear that makes performing and recording easy and fun.
Looking forward to the future of digital tone-dom! Anyways, just wanted to introduce myself.
I'm curious about this as it seems like it may be a good way to easily switch up the cabinet/mic when profiling. Just wondering if any of the profile producers do this.
Thanks for the theory explaination. Have you actually tried it on a III? There are some comments there by some who feel like it actually does capture the amp in a room sound but I would expect some hyperbole there!
I've tried it as I have the III. It doesn't capture the amp in the room (nothing can... except and amp in the room), you just can't do that with a static IR. What it does is allows one to adjust the phase of the IRs in relation to each other which can have quite a dramatic effect due to comb filtering and phase cancellation. It can mimic to a certain degree the sound you may hear if say you were sitting 6 ft away and off to the side a little from a speaker cabinet. But it's only that one static position. The effect doesn't change when you move.
I like the added flexibility of this feature because IRs are such a huge part of the overall sound. It can make it easier to really fine tune the IRs which is great, but that can also be a rabbit hole in itself.
Even Cliff from Fractal has said many times...If you want amp in the room, put an amp in the room!...