Posts by ColdFrixion

    Saying all this..nothing comes close to good Kemper rigs. Not even close.

    The Axe-Fx not only comes close, I've been able to perfectly reproduce a number of my favorite Guido Bungenstock profiles using the Axe-Fx II. The III, on the other hand, is on a completely different level than the II.

    It s interesting that Axe FX manage to improve their product continuously... and yet never really get better than Kemper lol

    That means clearly that Kemper has always been better than Axe FX :)

    Sorry had to... i just look at Axe FX as a draft product that tries to immitate tube amps and keeps getting closer... whilst Kemper is already as good as a tube amp.

    Christoph has said profiling is close but that there's no room for improvement, and as good as it is, numerous users (myself included) can often hear a difference between a profile and the actual amp. Sometimes the differences aren't trivial, either. So, I'm not going to knock Fractal Audio for actually continuing to improve the modeling and strive for 100% accuracy.

    Maybe my point was badly put, but it was not intended as a criticism; they both sounded good. I guess the amp and cab don't really need a hardware update to sound better. Maybe you are talking about effects.

    I didn't interpret it as a criticism. I was referring to the amp modeling algorithms. When the III was released, the audible differences between the II and III were somewhat negligible, in my opinion. Since then, the algorithms in the III have been updated several times and the audible discrepancy between the two at this point is significant to my ears. Of course, it's not just the modeling algorithms. The speaker impedance curves have also been updated.

    I watched this video and found it hard to hear the difference. We are talking about a guitar signal that is a relatively limited frequency response anyway.

    The real differnce is the IR response with modellers in my experience:

    The video in question was recorded a month after the Axe-Fx III was released, and the sonic differences were somewhat negligible at the time. However, that was almost 2 years ago and there have been numerous updates and significant sonic improvements to the amp modeling since then. In fact, many of the effects have been completely overhauled.

    What are you guys going to do when this editor virtual tailgate party is no longer relevant? I honestly think some of you will miss the play-by-play speculation as you've grown used to it in a Stockholm syndrome kind of way.

    I'd much rather be using the editor than speculating about it.

    I've profiled some of my tone matched presets, and while they usually sound really close, they're not 100% accurate. That said, since tone matching is basically EQ matching, every tone match is based on the frequency response of a specific guitar. Thus, in order for a tone match to translate to your guitar accurately, I'd recommend recording a DI of your guitar and have someone tone match that to the recording, then save and profile the preset. If I had more time, I'd give it a shot.

    For me, it's largely about where kemper sits in the room. This may seem absurd to some, but it isn't always easy to keep such devices at reach.

    This is the primary reason an editor is essential for me. I literally have no where to situate the Kemper within arms reach, and having to walk over to it every time I need to tweak the thing is completely impractical.

    No, you show me that all the studies and research that prove that smart phones are by far the most used device to access the internet is somehow not relevant to this forum.

    There's no evidence to suggest that each and every website is accessed by 78% of smart phone users or even that any specific website is accessed primarily by smart phone users. The 78% figure refers to total smart phone usage and fails to break down the percentage based on specific websites, nor does it imply that such users access the web exclusively using a mobile device. Many people use both. Statistics show that specific types of websites are viewed by smart phone users at different rates.