Posts by CelticGibson

    According to the manual...

    For Delay...


    Mix Location Pre/Post
    Determines whether the Mix control is positioned at the input (Pre) or the output (Post) of the delay. This option does not change the signal immediately, but it becomes relevant when the Mix control is morphed by a switch or pedal.
    In the "Post” position, a change of the Mix control changes the output level of the delay, and thus will have an immediate impact to the delay tail when modified. In the "Pre” position, the delay tail will be unaffected by fast changes to Mix, which will control only the delay input level

    For Reverb...


    Mix Location Pre/Post

    Determines whether the Mix control is positioned at the input (Pre) or the output (Post) of the reverb. This option does not change the signal immediately, but it becomes relevant when the Mix control is morphed by a switch or pedal.
    In the "Post” position, a change of the Mix control changes the output level of the reverb, and thus will have an immediate impact to the reverb decay when modified. In the "Pre” position, the reverb decay will be unaffected by fast changes to Mix, which will control only the reverb input level

    When I bought my profiler, all we had was legacy reverb fixed into the last position. It was either on or off. That was your choice. I still purchased it knowing these restrictions compared to other tech at the time because the sound of the profiles were so inspiring that it didn't sour the experience at all. Since then we have had the reverb unleashed from its end slot prison and set free right across all eight slots and complimented with some of the finest examples of reverb I have ever heard. Of course this came AFTER the fantastic delays that added crazy experimental effects that could only come from the Doc Brown of the music tech world with this green coloured DeLorean with constant upgrades that take us beyond back to the future. And he's still not finished. Genius seldom is...

    I imagine that it has come down to simple economics. The player already has a lot of the efx and features of its bigger brothers but at half the price. I'd say it's even pushing it to the point that it could interfere in the value of the others but that's my opinion. The unit may be able to process all the efx in the profilers but to give them away for half the price makes no business sense hence updated efx may have an after market cost associated with them. That makes the most sense since not everyone who purchases the player will need all these efx because, as the player was intended for pedal boards, those that purchase most likely have their own efx chains from preference already and don't need to purchase anything extra. But the option may be there for those that do later down the road.

    I would like to try some Liquid profiling with a OD stomp in front of the amp. Specifically, the BE-OD. Will the LP model loose any accuracy when adjusting the model's gain in the Kemper?

    The Kemper should, in theory, accurately reproduce the response of the profiled amp with a OD going in the front if you change the gain. After all it is profiling the gain from zero to whatever you set the original gain at. Of course this is theory until someone does it and compares to a sweet spot gain level on the real amp.

    Someone (who has the beta and is familiar with profiling) could quite easily do this test: create a regular profile on whatever they consider the sweet spot of gain - say it's 6.5 - then create a liquid profile (with amp on full gain) and use the Kemper controls to reduce the gain to 6.5 on the resulting liquid profile. Does it sound the same/as good?


    Same thing could be tested with respect to the tone knobs - i.e. regular profile with amp's b/m/t knobs at e.g. 6/4/7 (or whatever sounds good) vs. liquid profile (made with amp's b/t/m knobs at noon) and subsequently setting the the Kemper's modeled tonestack to to 6/4/7.


    While the general response to LQP seems positive, there do seem to be some mixed reports, especially from people attempting to create their own liquid profiles. The above test(s) would help to demonstrate whether (or not) the modeled tone stacks and gain controls really are accurately replicating what the amp would do. If anyone fancied making a video with these comparisons, I've a feeling it'd get a lot of views!

    "Someone (who has the beta and is familiar with profiling) could quite easily do this test: create a regular profile on whatever they consider the sweet spot of gain - say it's 6.5 - then create a liquid profile (with amp on full gain) and use the Kemper controls to reduce the gain to 6.5 on the resulting liquid profile. Does it sound the same/as good?

    Guido Bungenstock
    did just that here...


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    If the profile was captured at a sweet spot of gain (where the gain is not set at full) and then you turn the Kemper gain above the perceived max of the profile gain, then the Kemper is guessing what the gain should sound like and it won't sound anything like the amp. Liquid profiles are profiled at max gain setting on the amp and this provides the profiler with an accurate full range of gain for the profile thus allowing you to adjust the gain to any amount within the actual range of the amp while theoretically maintaining authenticity of the amp.

    From this video, it's clear that the LP is profiled with the amp EQs set at 12o'clock position and gain up full thus disregarding the "sweet spot" settings usually applied with a regular studio profile. This should theoretically mean that you don't need more than one LP of any amp going forward...

    These must be the LPs provided...

    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    I can imagine new liquid profiles are going to be much more accurate than existing profiles at accurately emulating the gain structure since you have to profile at full gain on the reference amp and 12oclock on all tone controls without focusing on the sweet spot. It seems LPs allow you to dial in your sweet spot instead of one static one chosen for you by a profiler. The existing profiles will have a gain limitation built in thus limiting the range an added LP gain stack can do. That's my take on it..

    I totally get that change is part of life but it is odd they seem to have completely stopped offering something that was already available, as you suggested. Maybe there is more to the story than we will ever know.


    I suppose I will just have to enjoy the ones I already have and forget about the others.

    I imagine it costs to maintain a website and the sales didn't meet those costs and be able to maintain a profit from existing profiles.

    It seems the usual hyperbole abounds whenever a new thing is revealed by Kemper.

    There was no mention of better tone. The team never said that the tone would change in any significant way and since this is a EQ update, why would it? As far as I can see, Liquid Profiles were specifically created to allow the user have the same tonestack control over a static profile that so many complained was lacking in the profiler. Now it's a reality. No more, no less.

    While some may allow some flexibility while maintaining the authenticity of the amp, Marshall tonestacks are crap and Kemper are authentically reproducing them, crap and all. 😎👍