Posts by Dimi84

    Hello :)


    Uhm -- for me, VSTs can include tweaking the amps quite well, but of course it depends on what we mean by that. Surely if external hardware is required for a particular barometer of "tweaking well", yea, VST will be subpar, considering what VSTs are. If however the standard would be tweaking that is more faithful to the amps, for example, that may be another story, depending on the VST -- but of course it's not like this has to do with something in particular about "being a VST" or "being hardware", considering what modelling units aim to do.


    For me, the EQ controls on kemper don't get used much. Yes, they are easily accesible in a hardware format, but tonally tend not to do what I'm after. Usually it's a studio EQ that I'll use. That's convenient in kemper for sure, relatively speaking to some other solutions; but depending on the task at hand, for me, EQ corrections in daw can also be more convenient in other cases, some times going full-on VST anyway.


    But in any case, I get what the main point is in terms of hardware vs software, even considering VSTs surely need some hardware to run (things being more about "some types of hardware vs other types of hardware" if I try to be as exact as I can).


    If I was able to get the latency I wanted out of VST easily enough, and there was a portable unit running VSTs and offering few assignable controls, I'd probably use VSTs for way more than I do now. Usually hardware such as kemper offers a good mix of portability and other qualities I wont get with VST + PC. Other times, even kemper is too much to carry, and using VSTs is a god sent.


    For tracking guitars ideally I much prefer hardware, kemper included, certainly, whenever possible. But if kemper was offered as a VST I know I'd certainly use it for quite a bit too, including for re-amping purposes, which would just be much faster that way. But what "hardware" unit offers would still be hard to let go.

    Much as we tried early in this thread and also at GearSlutz to get proper clarification on how this capture process of theirs differs from the Kemper one, and how, as has been alluded to, THU can, as a paid-for service to the customer, create captures from Kemper Rigs, we failed. Everything's being kept super-secret for now.

    Will be interesting to see what this ultimately amounts to.


    Bias 2 has automated more than EQ matching in their "amp match" function. I've had some success with that, both matching my amps and kemper profiles. Some success also been had using Axe Fx... but that's less automated, only involving EQ, so typically involves some more manual work tweaking amp sims (though results tend to be better than bias for me).... Never mind that bias updated amp matching has not been as consistent as kemper for me, and still "feeling like bias"... which I can see why some dislike.


    Now I haven't researched enough on the "profile to TH3" bonanza, so may be missing some info... But assuming you have quite flexible amp sims, I can see how even just shooting IRs to be bundled in presets, in one way or another, could get close to some kemper profiles (or real miced up amp tones, for that matter). It's not so surprising considering what a big part of the tone cab and micing are. I'm not saying this is all TH3 does/will do. Just seeing this over and over again, for years, doing stuff like this a hundred times over, I'd be interested to see just how they emulate the profiles and what's genuinely novel, in what way, ect, ect...


    ... As well as conduct tests... Because... "close enough" will not be exact, if that's what it could possibly come down to, either. Even if I can make bias sound quite close to some of my best profiles and amps, there's often meaningful-to-me nuances that let it down. It's not always the case, but often so, comparatively speaking, even if usage scenario comes into play as well. Just using bias as an example. And I'm not considering issues having to do with latency.


    This is not to ding TH3 either. I'll probably throw together a few attempts at matching my own amps with the VST, anyway. But skeptical Dimi is skeptical about the profile-to-TH3 tone bonanza. Waiting to see details.

    It sounds and looks like an ampsim and that is what it is. Nothing more. I tested the demo and for being an ampsim it was good. But no ampsim comes close to the kemper. It's just not possible with only software. All ampsims are emulations and nothing more. We have seen many dev's claim their ampsim(s) sounds just like the real deal. Some of them comes close, like 50-60%. Some less and some of them don't sound like the hardware at all.

    Why is it not possible with software alone? Apart from considerations about latency or hardware power amps, kemper could easily be a VST and sound super close to how it does now, recorded. In my experience, Helix native sounds like the hardware unit.


    I've also done tests using things like amplitube, s gear vs profiles of comparable amp models vs similar real world amp models, using the same IRs, where very few could tell the difference. Even then, it hasn't always been a case of "this or that is clearly better". At times, I've found such judgement to be more in line with what's shown on the screen and where a test is shared compared to sound alone. Of course, that's not the whole story either.


    I tested the TH3 VST. I didn't think it was too bad, actually. With similar IRs to what I use with direct profiles, I got relatively close to my kemper tones. That said, I still preferred profiles of my amps.

    1) My responses were based on at least trying to clarify a point that wasn't understood. It's easy to take the point to mean something more than it does, in a negative sense; hence me bringing up what this is/isn't about. Full quotations would show that context.


    2) I often talked about this kind of set up being relatively rare -- or not desired by many, and how to get usable results quite a few times. Some relevant talk in this thread too.


    3) That said, point taken, even though I don't really see this as a crusade. I won't post like this again.

    I mean the kemper makes snapshots of the amps settings so while a model can simply increase mastervolume and then has the characteristics of a poweramp compressing and saturating more, you have to make another profile of the amp at the setting. if you want the same effect on the kemper

    That is why i recommend making profiles at any relevant mastervolume setting an gain setting. as long as you do not use pedals in front of the kemepr that solves that issue pretty well ... more distortion stages react a bit different when a pedal is in front ... i think the kemper handles pedal very well though but yeah it is different ...

    If I set Master vol where I want it with orange, laney for certain tones including preamp and power amp distortion the result will be big cocked wah from kemper, even without pedals. In order to counteract this, I have to keep the master vol of the amps below distortion. Some compression can be ok, but usually what we call "distortion".. not really.

    Mhhh... I would disagree.
    It's a common experience with the KPA that people unsatisfied with how the unit sounds have changed their mind after profiling their own amps.
    Your (negative) experience may well fall under the same general issue of not being satisfied with others' profiles.

    A reason why CK included green scream is due to some combinations of amp and such pedals not working well due multiple distorting stages. To the best of my memory, he's talked about that.


    As mementomori mentioned, clean-ish boost tend to work better -- even though I've had cases where even a classic ts pedal with the settings of drive 0, tone max, volume max brought up the issue to a degree.

    Dimi84 when we DI'd the JJ we did the preamp stage we thought knowing we would be using cabs.


    What type of amp profiles have you done? I have a few that I have also been using just the DI that are low gain to mid gain.

    I've done premap only profiles, profiles of preamp plus power amp (so no miced up cab in the sound other than cab acting as load), and studio ones.


    The majority of the time I've used direct ones with IRs. But some times people asked for studio ones more, and then got into that more at a given point. Generally prefer direct profiles for my own uses (especially since Kemper introduced that as an official feature).

    Like I said, we have gone back to back with the real JJ with a few guitar players at our rehearsal spot. All of us couldn't tell what was what.


    Your profiles on the rig exchange? Would like to try and hear what you mean.

    It can be your source/amp tone did not include multiple distorting stages, preamp and power amp distortion.


    That's likely the case with this particular amp unless you really really gunned the volume. In case not, the above issue would be much less likely to apply, and chances are there wouldn't be a super emphasized cocked wah tone to hear (even though a few amps, settings can cause something similar even without premap plus power amp distortion).


    I am referring to multiple distorting stages instead.


    I do have profiles on rig exchange, but not ones like these, considering they don't sound or feel right to me/are not representative of the source tone compared to profiling working at its best, not being confused due to such a set up.

    Well I am not trying to dissect the manual, I know what my ears say. Lol. If there is a limitation of tone, then I haven't found it. I have found some profiles that are not up to par. I am not one to dissect like I said, I play and look and judge the unit I use or try based on ears.


    What profiles are you using that are limiting in tone for you? What is your setup? Are you a tinkerer or a player? Has your limitations been in a full band mix?

    Judging things according to one's ears is cool -- but again, I am talking about multiple distorting stages. In the scenario that you have not made such profiles, it's not surprising if you haven't faced the issue at hand. Or have you made such profiles and talking about these?


    I use my profiles, for the most part. Comparisons are made with same monitoring as the real amps in order to narrow down things to profiling accuracy and get the best out of that aspect of things. I am a player, sure. But I don't view that as against tinkering per se -- especially not considering that's how profiles are typically made, me being a kemper user as well.

    I don't know what about this cocked wah tone. My profile doesn't have that characteristic at all. Many the DI profiles I have been using are fantastic. There is some that are dogs of course.


    What are you running through? Whats your setup?


    He's running through a Fryette power amp with mesa 412.

    I am referring to profiling amps with dual distorting stages and direct comparisons to the profiled amp through the same monitoring. Vast majority of profiles are not made in this manner. So I would not expect them to illustrate such a behavior, on this level. This "multiple distorting stage" thingy is a limitation mentioned in the manual of the unit.

    I am using a DI profile though my cab. When I am recording, I use a merged profile with a favorite cab sim.

    Ok, what I mean by "multiple distorting stages" is situations where you profile an amp with preamp and power amp distortion at the same time. Kemper isn't really designed to do that/often gets confused and you get a very strong "cocked wah" focus. I have found some cases in which it did work surprisingly well, perhaps due to differences in how the amps worked.


    But yea, Helix and Axe fx modelling the components separately still has brought better results most of the time. Of course, that's not important to everybody either. Many tones people assume use distorting preamp + power amp.. but in reality, do not. Heck, plenty of people, when actually faced with this kind of combination really dislike the tone, even if they assume that's how a tone they like is made... which often isn't true. So this is not as important for every user (and that's perfectly fine).


    That aside, if you were using your direct profile through guitar cab, how was your friend amplifying the axe fx?

    last night was quite the opposite again with my other guitarist and his Axe3 versus my Kemper. We are working on a project with heavy distortions and I was cutting through the mix more than him and it was heavy. I was using my JJ100 Profile and he was kept on going through his rig to find something to keep up. Last night was final night I think with the Axe. He said he was going today to pick up his Kemper. His tone is not bad but it gets lost with whatever amp sim he uses. It's weird. We thought it might be his guitar maybe because I am using a couple guitars with more mids and highs with ebony fretboards. So we switched and it still didn't help. The Axe is cool, was going to buy one prior to trying out the Kemper. I am glad I went with Kemper, so much easier to dial in and play for me.

    Your profile includes multiple distorting stages, as in preamp + poweramp gain together? Asking due to the sentence quoted.

    personally i think they are all great and all have weaknesses and strengths but they are so similar

    soundwise that the most differences in the future will make features imo


    what do you think

    In the future, I believe the lines between "profiling" and "modelling" will be further blurred. And yes, I agree that there will be a big emphasis on "features", even though I am sure fractal's firmware will keep changing the amp tones measurably... even if only in terms of consistently telling the difference by "feel". Maybe the same happens with kemper's profiling at some point. It wouldn't be the first time, anyway, that there's such an update.

    I think all 3 can sound quite close in many cases, with Fractal giving you more amp sims than Helix.


    But 1) when it comes to multiple distortion stages both Helix and Fractal are above kemper by a big margin for me (even the unit not being designed with that in mind it'd a legitimate extension of what kemper can do, at least for me) and 2) even though the differences may be hard to hear, playing through the unit can give off quite a different impression about "what is best".


    On this end, I've had cases where I cannot consistently tell the difference just listening between similar amps.. and yet playing through both.. I preferred one to the other by a meaningful margin. Much the same with Axe fx 3 vs kemper. I've had cases where profiling an amp the kemper mids just didn't feel right, especially annoying with some pickups perhaps making differences more perceptible to me. That, while Axe Fx didn't seem to suffer from the same stuff. It just felt better to play through, more like my amplifier.


    I've also had cases where a real amp had something quite particular about it that was difficult to emulate with a non-fitting axe fx amp sim... but with kemper I was able to get closer, faster provided the real rig was already set up. There's something about how profiling works that always appealed to me, assuming I have the amps and space to get dirty. In the lack of this possibility/space, it'd be Axe Fx every time, no doubt.


    So for me it largely depends on what situation, what device allows me to be creative in that manner. And of course the fact that the units can sound as close is telling, even though amp modelling itself has been pretty good for a relatively long time imo. It's tough to generalize about "what sounds or feels better" too, considering how many different tones the units can do, and how "feel" follows these changes at large.

    It took axe 3 four years to catch up to kemper but they finally did. The tone is actually just as if not more accurate than all the mesa and plexi I’ve tried. Kemper is nearly identical to mesa, and this is like a blind test where I think it is mesa. I think its going to be the kemper killer, the FM3

    Is this observation based on conducting tests targeting the real amps? If you conducted the tests by yourself, it would probably be useful to hear details about how exactly, what was being compared, what were the steps to get axe fx as close to the real amp, ect, ect, whether this involves cab emulation or just direct amp tones.. All that would be valuable info.

    Anyway, I didn’t believe in fractal before. I didn’t like or want axe fix 1, 2, ax8 or anything .....this however is so amazing that I have to get the FM3 when its finally out in a few months.

    I do think "Ares" in Axe fx 3 is meaningfully better than the software in ax8 in terms of amp tone. That said, I am not sure the difference is big enough to where I would think ax8 is that much behind, then be as surprised about Axe Fx 3 (well, fm3 but it shares a version of Ares) being as good. Surely your experience may differ, which is fine. And I don't share the sentiment some do that it's "all the same" either.


    I just wonder what tests were conducted in this case to develop this preference? That's all assuming the sentence was about sound, whether amp tones, other tone-influencing parts.. what could have been the case.. In which case, also, is there some extra function you felt made such a difference?

    Especially with the axe 3 out, the kemper is now “old”, still amazing and good and the best/most True Tone matching you can get on the fly, but for $500 less than what most people ask for used (I’ve seen some people even ask near full price used) you can get axe

    This is probably only semantics, but "tone matching" refers to Fractal's eq matching. Profiling may share some similarities but isn't EQ matching alone, even if that being part of the game... That's probably worth mentioning, even if just for the sake of completeness.

    In my opinion, this is one area where the KPA has an advantage. With profiles, you know exactly what type of tone that the mic'd cab was designed for specifically because a profile is a snapshot of the entire rig, not just a single component of it(a la IR's).


    Unfortunately, when it comes to IR's, I often feel like I'm groping in the dark

    I agree that it can be an advantage in this particular sense described.


    That said, for me there's other challenges that come along with kemper. Some have no issue finding many profiles they like and hence use. For me (and plenty I know), profiling rigs is the way to go.. almost entirely, with relatively few profiles as exceptions. That can be quite time consuming.


    With axe fx I have much more possibility to get what I want without that much "real world" work. Before, it was more possible for me to put in that "analog work" to get the profiles I need for a given purpose, using particular pickups, tuning, right level of gain and all, as I was in an environment that could accommodate this.


    But the less that has been the case.. the more I've liked using axe fx, I would say.. ease of use, convenience has become a big thing for me, for my needs and what I want to achieve. At that point, I have quite particular IRs in mind too, so the issue described is not so much a problem for me. Even with kemper, from some point on, I've most often used IRs, I would say, and direct profiles.


    On Axe Fx, part of the challenge has been firmware updates changing some tones too much... But I tend to create a lot of tones over and over, so that's no a deal-breaker I would say; and libraries of profiles have been less convenient for me overall. Of course, I still like kemper quite a bit for what it does too, for sure, and see myself using it more when closer to amps again, especially for keeping certain tones intact.

    "...has devoted much of his time in the past 6 months to recreating Mark’s unique sounds has done an amazing job".


    That doesn't mean automatically that they made all new profiles. Could also mean they just used existing rigs and tweaked them to recreate his unique sound! Who knows?


    And much time in the past 6 months is not every day - could mean anything. It had to be ready before the tour start in any case.

    Yea. Or overcoming challenges when switching to digital overall, which do come up for many, just getting acclimated to monitoring possibly changing, and all that comes with that.

    In the time it usually takes me to create a fantastic sounding Axe-Fx III preset that's on par with my favorite KPA profiles, I could probably find 20 or more outstanding KPA profiles on the Rig Exchange.

    Considering I play mostly my own profiles, I would say my approach has been quite similar between kemper and axe fx. It's just that for kemper things are done in the "analog" world more so before profiling, and axe fx more in digital domain, working with models of amps. It's not as clear cut either, as this may involve still making IRs or further matching axe to a "real" tone too with tone matching.


    About the IR vs kemper cab issue -- IRs can vary massively in how they are made. I do not see superior quality (well, depending on what we mean by that) with kemper cabs when IRs are made the desired way. For me, it's just that kemper provides quite a "stock" way to shoot profiles, where as with IRs you'll find more differing approaches overall, and perhaps hence more chance for an sub-par result.


    IRs made the right way have probably been even harder for me to distinguish from analog equivalents compared to blind tests targeting amp only, quite a few times at least.