The way I see it with patents is what happened with Overloud and their profiling tech. They may have got around it by not giving the customer the means to profile and selling them profile packs instead. I wonder if Neural have something similar? I envision issues if they pack the tech into the Cortex unit... could be wrong though.
Users will certainly be able to use the capture function themselves. About copyright, their approach is different enough, it seems to me.
Watched the capture video. Hard (for me) to say much with a high level of certainty considering the quick switching, playing variations, ect, ect...
.. But I'm a little skeptical about how close this is to the source tones. Can be wrong, but I think I'm hearing something that may translate to a difference in so-called "feel" for quite a few. I'll need a unit here to test properly. May do a cortex vs kemper vs amp video at some point.
I'll likely sell the kemper if I feel cortex is more accurate (even for non multiple distorting stage tones) in the low mids, some bass frequencies, without exhibiting something that may potentially be more problematic for me.
Not sure what conclusions I'll walk away with though.
In my experience, there's cases where a pedal in front profiles similarly to a non-OD set up; and there's others where it doesn't. It's difficult to predict what happens.
Typically so-called "multiple distortion stages" can cause problems. But it's not a given. I've had cases where there's significant distortion across multiple stages and the results were comparable to profiling the set up with a single distorting stage, whether from pedal or preamp.
I've also seen people profile set ups with OD pedals in the chain, get less accurate results than otherwise, and call it "close enough". The results would certainly not have been acceptable to me. I'd instead use the pedal in front of Kemper + non-OD profile, in some such cases.
In other words: there a "personal" element that comes into play. Considering this, if I were you, I'd experiment profiling this set up.
If I felt the results are as accurate as profiling without the OD, I'd use the OD profiles. If I felt there was a sacrifice in accuracy, I'd pin the 2 profiles (screamer + profile of amp vs profile of OD plus amp) against each other to evaluate which approach is best.
The reason for this is simply that it's possible to have a less accurate profile but nonetheless prefer it to the screamer plus profile solution (and that's happened to me in some instances as well). One way to found out what works best for you 
I agree MPescuma
That was my experience when working with the Axe III FX and the Kemper. On the Kemper, more time playing and less time tweaking.
Are you making your own profiles or more so using those others have created?
In europe the FM3 is1266€..add to this 633€ for the FC6.
2000€.That's to much.
I mean not only for me but for most potential customers in Europe..and from what I have read during the last weeks in several gear blogs the FM3 is faulty with many bugs.They should have stayed with the Ax8 and evolve it as they do with their rack stuff.
If you need the FC6 it's quite a cost for many surely. Personally I've been after a small unit so the fm3 is attractive for that reason (no need for FC6). But I think we may see a more direct successor to ax8 at some point.
Display MoreI think it's harder to argue semantics with equations - does the following sum up (at a very high level) the different techniques?
Axe
[Digital version of Amp A, Component 1] + [Digital version of Amp A, Component 2] . . . + . . . [Digital version of Amp A, Component n] = Digital Model of Amp A
Kemper
[Generic Digital Base Amp Model] + [Phase 1 Profiling of physical Amp A] + [Phase 2 Profiling of physical Amp A] + [ Phase 3 Profiling of Physical Amp A] = Digital Profiled version of Amp A
I don't think anyone is claiming that the two systems use the same techniques.
Whether you prefer one over the other, both the same, or you believe each has its strengths and weaknesses should be informed by your use case and experience of using both.
However, as not everyone has cash to spend on both, enjoy using the one you've got, but if you are tempted by the fruit of another - don't feel guilty if you end up running off with it . . . unless you were just after something shiny and new.
The same exactly no, but I certainly think there's some overlap, even going by the claims of both Christoph and Cliff, the way I understand them.
Agreed with the fruit point certainly
if you ever profile an amp of your own, you will understand what the profiler does when you turn up the gain higher than initially intended, it does an stimation of the gain increase. In real amps, and models by that matter, the increase of gain is non linear, and also changes some other characteristics of the output, specially the compression and the low end are affected in particular ways from amp to amp.
Yea, profiling Amps for a long time. The point was relevant in so far as Kemper (even if post profiling) achieving something the original amps don’t.
Whoever cracks being able to profile chorus and modulation effects will be my hero. ?
Per latest neural DSP video I saw, cortex will be able to “capture” specific pedals themselves, which can then be used as blocks. But I don’t think this pertains to such effect pedals.
Here's one thing though that could be another consideration with axe FX 3 vs fm3... Cliff has said he's waiting for a patent on some "super wow" tech. What that is, whether it'd be useful to me... I know not. But I also don't know if that would require new hardware, be available in both FM3 and axe FX 3, or not...
My point is with Modelling it doesn't need to stop at the reference amp, profiling can only ever mimic what its presented. Yes I know true modelling is to create an accurate copy. I didn't say accuracy wasn't important but you can make improvements e.g. more gain available than the real amp or less noisey etc.
I also added " in my opinion"...
With Kemper also, gain can be increased above the amp's regular range (not that you don't know this -- and cool things can be accomplished with KPA that way) at least after profiling. Or with axe FX you can modify the amp sim in such a manner to get more gain than the stock model left untouched, certainly.
I totally agree with what you've said except about KPA users not wanting improvements. Would I want the KPA to sound better?
I mentioned people not minding/caring about possible improvements to profiling itself. So I don't necessarily disagree that a law of diminishing returns applies, for many. It surely does, yea.
But in so far as technical limitations, I don't know if what CK meant at the trade show is that he recognizes some area for improvement, but that there's such limits (not considering profiling multiple stages)... or whether he seems some minor possibilities, without this being a road worth treading on, like some improvement on kempers' EQ matching tech.
We could surely go into more detail about profiling. But that's been done a gazzillion times in the past. There's quite specific areas people have pointed to, with tests and considerable detail.
That aside, on the modelling topic, I think there's many areas where fractal models have sought more accuracy. Modelling is meant to accurately replicate mostly the analog world, right? That's a big part of their focus. I've had amps where the respective amp sims get closer in terms of tweaking in digital vs analog world. It's some times hard to test, considering fractal uses their own amps, but I've seen notable cases of this nonetheless.
A problem for me -- when it comes to replicating a source tone -- has been that EQ is a weird animal, amp tolerances are a real thing, potentiometers are voodoometers, oftentimes in their variance... And ax8, FM3 have no automated way to bridge that gap akin to profiling. (Well, shooting IRs can go a long way, but EQ matching has several advantages, imo, and profiling does considerably more too).
Money not being an issue, as well as portability, I'd myself go for axe FX 3 over FM 3 largely due to the EQ matching option. It's just that FM 3 modelling (haven't used an FM3, but axe FX 2-3, ax8 yes) is probably good enough to where shooting IRs is usually sufficient for me.
Still hard to let go of Kemper though... so I don't think that's going to happen, even if I've gone through quite a gear unloading phase, from gazzillion guitars to Amps, mostly keeping gear that's proven essential to me.
It's my impression that few people have had both axe FX units and Kemper and properly tested them before forming opinions.
Personally, I don't treat fractal units much differently to real amps. It's pretty easy to get great tones, that way, at least for my taste. With Kemper I typically profile the analog counterparts of similar signal chains. The cool thing about fractal is I can tweak fine details that typically require a lot of work in the analog world.
Also, I can understand possible frustration with the core amp sound of fractal units changing. But the upside is changes that are often improvements to most. Not that Kemper hasn't had its own improvements. They just typically don't involve amp sounds (even though you could argue aliasing improvements did improve core amp sounds, I guess).
Additionally, there's certainly big numbers of people who don't mind/care for possible profiling improvements (which maybe wouldn't even have to affect old sounds). But if I can EQ match Kemper profiles to source and get measurably closer -- feel this in my hands, too, playing the guitar, prefering the result -- I'll surely be happy with improvements where technically possible. I just don't expect them, neither think sending tests would contribute to much.
On that end, one reason I'm on the fm3 wait list is fractal's push for improvements in the amp modelling section. There's always going to be some EQ deviations from amp to amp, fractal modeling their own amps, not yours, but I find this kind of development-constant push interesting, somewhat like in the analog world. Certainly there's no moral obligation to feel similarly.
If it comes to fm3 vs axe FX 3.. if money wasn't an issue, my decision would be based on how much I needed EQ matching, personally. The eq matching of axe fx 3 can narrow the gap between built in models and other examples of these amps nicely, provided the differences are mostly EQ based.
And yes, updates don't often radically change the amp modelling either... But stacking up developments can add up. Amp modelling improvements have made a very real (and positive) difference in my use of axe units. I'll also be interested to see what happens with neural dsp Cortex too, as I like the workflow of profiling amps as well.
Display MoreI have kind of given up on this whole discussion because of how unwilling people are to really listen and think despite actual evidence proving what we're trying to say.
I wish this discussion could be had without people getting defensive about the Kemper.
All we're doing is trying to spot a problem and solve it.
But fandom can make people cover their ears.
However, I'm still prepared to laugh at the "skeptics" once a new Kemper (or even firmware update?) with improved profiling process comes out.
Are you reffering to some issue with direct profiling in some circumstances or profiling in general?
Let me put it this way ... it's not unheard of in this and many other industries that (some) publications have clients frequently booking ads and in return they publish articles/reviews to please these clients.
There's many subtle ways to "pay for publicity" other than the direct way.
To say it with Shirley Bassey:
So let me get right to the point
I don't pop my cork for every man I see
Hey big spender,
Spend a little time with me
Absolutely. I mean, no human soil.
Which is something people have been doing on the Kemper side. I've also profiled some neural plugin -- just not too happy with the results compared to the plugins themselves, but that's a different story.
Ok thanks, it becomes very pricy if you want those sounds !!
Well, I'd wonder if you can just "capture" the plugin tones you want into the cortex -- that is, as snapshots, using their capture function.
Of course opinions are highly swayed by the person programming and demoing the unit. However, in all the clips I am disappointed by the top end on distorted tones and there is a cheapness to the sound.
The plugins are a lot more convincing in tone, so they need to port them over.
Well, the plugins have been tested by plenty of experienced guitarists on YouTube, giving a wider impression of what's tonally possible with them -- never mind being created via collaborating with particular artists that also have substantial audiences. Main cab/mic sounds are probably also highly influenced by such collabs; and then there's also a substantial chunk of guitarists after tones illustrated in videos even when somewhat faithful to the artist's tones, whether a user gets close using the plugin or not.
My point is: I do not know yet where the plugins stand against the Cortex tones -- even considering amp sims alone, for me.
Rabea's clip sounds great to me, better than previous clip.. But that's not surprising. Drawing conclusions (or even strong inductions) from a single clip of someone playing through a unit, at least like the video posted earlier, is certainly premature. There's tests on youtube with kemper against axe fx where axe uses similar IR all throughout some high gain amp sims -- and people who dislike this cab/mic sound be thinking that "well this is how Fractal sounds; kemper has much more variety.. I can hear the same character in all the Axe clips!".
Yea, Sherlock. If you put the same or nearly the same IR over a few (relatively) similar sounding amp tones, what do you expect will happen? What do you think would happen to the end-sound of direct kemper profiles of the real amps?
On which end: yes, some will dial in the amp modelling of Cortex to sound better to many... then people will also use different IRs, eventually... and some will emulate different source tones using the capture function. Point being: Cortex will have a lot to prove certainly. But it makes sense to think about what a given test, illustration, demo, whatever, shows or doesn't show -- what observations can be reasonably made.
But yes. I certainly want to see the capture function tested for stated reasons. Kemper already set the standards for such tests with their Kemper videos early on -- and if one is confident in the results of their unit, I don't see how/why they wouldn't go a similar route. If I were them, I'd already have been testing against Kemper regularly through development. It's likely part of what they've done, I would think.
And they likely will publish Kemper style videos; not saying they won't. If they somehow wouldn't though.. I'd be way skeptical at that point certainly.
Next point: you need the same "amount" of tweaking for an amp like for a Helix???
I don't think modelling inherently requires radically more tweaking, no; hence "some of the same". If the amp sim is far from accurate, perhaps more so in that case. But if it's close enough to the real amp overall "tweaking" may not be far off.
Of course having many more possibilities than what is available for some in reality, smaller requirements of "how to" hardware technical knowledge, ECT ECT, means they may feel like a kid in candy store with something like an axe fx -- or even quite lost, heading down a rabbit hole they may not even need to for "good tone" alone.
But overall with the best modellers I can't say it's much different for me compared to analog gear, provided the use case is similar, and not about getting an frfr sound like a real cab or some such issue (a rather special case).
On this end, it will certainly be interesting to see if this new device seeks to mimic real amps as closely as possible, which may not always be the case. I'm rather confident in fractal's amp modelling, and this will likely require some hands on experience to see how accurate it possibly is (considering how people online tend to test modellers).
