I don't want to form the defence council for HW but feel someone needs to;
HW stated that the profiling process appears to produce more accurate amp sounds (in comparison to the real amp) when reducing rather than adding gain and demonstrated this process in the clip.
HW did not state at any point that anything sounded 'bad' - just that the difference between a dirty amp cleaned up is far less than a clean amp dirtied up with the gain control
HW also stated that turning the gain up a couple of clicks is OK but that the further you increase gain the greater the difference between the KPA profile sound and the real amp at a similar gain level
HW also stated that profilers tend to produce lots of profiles at different gains so that we can choose the most appropriate gain levels without having to resort to adjusting gain necessarily.
Nobody is suggesting that the gain control is not tonally transparent - just that when using a Kemper increases of gain will produce a greater disparity between the real amp and the sound emanating from the KPA. This is probably to be expected as this is a profiler and not a modeller.
In the spirit of democracy I suggest a vote to anyone who fancies it. You can only pick one;
1. The KPA produces a more accurate representation of the real amp when gain is reduced
2. The KPA produces a more accurate representation of the real amp when gain is increased
By the way I have spent thousands of pounds on my KPA, Remote & carrying cases. I use it exclusively for gigs and my thousands of pounds (weight and value!) of valve amps are there as keepsakes and reminders of what the world before my KPA was like. It's utterly brilliant and I tell everyone that and have demo'd it to loads of people, all who think it's amazing and some who will purchase.
I just take issue with the fact that a demonstration of what some may perceive as a weakness (I don't consider it one) is responded to in this dismissive way
By the way my vote is for 1.
Regards,
Si