Posts by lasvideo

    I have upgraded to 3.0 and it seems to be working fine for all I need it to do. My existing studio profiles sound the same to me. I'm assuming that with the new firmware, the new studio profiles won't be compatible with older firmware, so even those that want studio profiles will eventually have to upgrade. I think the benefit is that the studio profiles will sounds the same but will be more realistic when switching cabs between rigs, which is a plus. I'm not sure how feasible or beneficial it would be to go back and restore to older f/w to do basic studio profiles. I think the quality even on those will be slightly better with the new system.


    As for making DI profiles, I have to be honest. It kinda scares me a little. Without any control over what the finished product is going to sound like, it's hard to "tweak" to what I think sounds good. With everyone using different amps and cabinets there's no way of knowing if any tweaking I would do would be helping or hurting compared to how someone else is running their rig. With the studio profiles, I feel I can kinda tweak them to what I think sounds good. I can't listen to a straight DI profile and think it sounds anything other than heinous. All I can judge it by is the finished merged profile or how it sounds through my power amp and speaker, so it's going to be a little iffy at first, I think.


    And to my ears, the merged profiles don't sound the same as the studio ones. There is a mid hump in the merged profiles that sounds like it's some sort of summing or phasing. The low end also sounds a little different. The merged profiles aren't awful, but they just aren't the same. I haven't settled on exactly how to put out profiles in the future. Should I just concentrate on studio profiles or put out separate packs with DI and Merged profiles? I like the size/variety/price of the existing packs because, to me, they are affordable and there is enough variation in each pack to appeal to a lot of different styles. I'm not sure how many guys want the DI profiles and how many just want studio profiles or if I will have to include both kinds of profiles for each amp/setting, which is a little more time intensive. I'm open to suggestions at this point.


    I see. Well to tell the truth, with 3000 profiles and all your wonderful packs, Im fine staying with 2.7. I see no real need for more profiles and since I go thru a CLR and dont need their FC, I see no real benefits for switching to 3.0. Im not one of those guys that has to compulsively upgrade all the time. Especially if there are no good reason to do so. If it aint broke....

    You misunderstand my request. I am requesting he continue making the "basic" profiles we've been using up until the release of 3.0 in addition to whatever else he chooses to do.

    mbrown3 I respect and applaud your desire to research a major investment that will be a key device in your music making.


    Lets face it. The internet attracts all types of folks. Many are helpful intelligent kind successful folks. You can tell that from the way they respond to your thread. Then there are the mean bored frustrated insecure immature hostile types. Again, their posts are immediately identifiable. Its a shame that in order to get access to the former types you must make yourself vulnerable to the latter types. Unfortunately blocking is not a recourse at the Kemper site.


    I just wanted to validate your experience and wish you success in your future choice, whatever it may be. ; )


    The difference is, it can take a Fractal pro hours to ring in a preset to sound like your actual amp on a setting, the Kemper can do it in 20 seconds.


    This is a patently incorrect statement, most often made by folks who dont currently own the Axe FX system. I can scroll thru (or load up thru software) a patch that is exactly the tone I am looking for. In exactly the same manner and process I can do with the Kemper profiles. With no adjustment necessary. Tweeking might have been an issue in the past, but not for most with current FW. The Axe FX currently exhibits the same authenticity and simplicity that Kemper is known for.


    Do you currently own and use FW 17.04 or FW 18 beta? If not...case and point. If so, what do you find so difficult in finding a tone you like from the vast libraries available from Yek and other skilled users?


    Here is an example of FW9 in skilled hands.

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    And likewise with Guthrie Govan using the Kemper.
    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.


    Just something to use as an OLDER point of comparison. Like I said, I will keep and use both because they both ROCK!

    In my experience the following is true.


    The Kemper profile sounds like the profiled amp with all the knobs in 1 certain position. Thats the snapshot concept refereed to here very often. Michael Britt creates some amazing ones!


    The Axe FX treats the sounds like the circuits in the original amp. Therefore its not a snapshot of an amp with the dials in a particular setting. Its more like having the real amps ability to have a variety of knob settings and generate the appropriate respective tones .


    Apples and oranges. Both are great. Talking wont resolve it. Playing might ; ) Good luck!!!