The same thing happened to me the first day I tried the Kemper and I didn't realize the power until the next day when I started profiling my amps and realizing how scarily close the Kemper sounded and felt. The first day couldn't understand what the hoopla was about and what every body was talking about, but I couldn't argue with the great results others got. I said to myself, if others are making it work, then why not me. I decided to give it a serious attempt.
I think what happens is that we all come with so much expectations above and beyond what the reality is. The sound coming from a mic in front of a tube amp will not always mean that as soon as you hear, angles will sing and rainbows will appear etc. The magic comes in a different form and there need to be some effort to make that magic happen. Think about it, on the surface, what's really magical about the sound of a miced tube amp.
My advice, give it at least a week, try different profiles and play around with it. It's so damn close to the real thing that it will save you from the hassle of using microphones forever and you won't be sacrificing much if any.
Valid opinion when it comes to people who are not familiar with what a mic'ed tube amp sounds like. In these instances profiling your own amp can potentially be eye-opening. And either way it is neat to see the KPA work, the whole premise of profiling is really cool. However, the tonal result too often has issues in the gain realm, as has been demonstrated and experienced. Based on tonal results alone, IMO the KPA is more akin to a self-configuring modeler than an actual ground-up profiler. Just like the POD or other modelers have a unique tone signature baseline, so does the KPA. But it also extends into the gain/dist structure. Tremendous potential if this can be fixed, or at least greatly improved.