Posts by alligatorlizard

Quote from mtmartin71

Fixed

haha, OK, by sight not by night! Yes, you just have to use your ears, numbers are nothing more than a reference point to help hone in on a sweet spot.

Yes, the Celestion IR's with Kemper profiles worked really well for me too - and I also got some really good sounds out of Matt Fig's profiles this way. It's funny, with both M Fig's and Guidorist's profiles I really didn't like the "studio" versions (all too bassy/muddy) BUT they were some of the best profiles I found when paired with Celestion IR's (the G12M65's, MD421 balanced 2x12 ended up being my favourite most times).

But again, here's what I found really interesting when trying a bunch of different IR's with a modeller - if you google "best IR's", time and again you'll hear complaints that Celestion are "thin"/"flat" - never really got this using the Kemper, as all the most popular ones, York, Ownhammer etc, were all unuseably dark and indistinct with any profiles I tried, whereas Celestions made them come to life. Nonetheless, the tonal balance was never quite right no matter what I did with EQ (including liquid) - but then, trying different IR's with a modeller, setting up amp EQ to suit each IR, I did start to see what people were saying - York and OwnHammer did start to sound much better, bigger, "3D" etc. once I could set up the amp to suit them! Hence why I feel like the Kemper is constraining in that I ended up choosing IR's more to fix the tonal balance of the profile than anything else.

btw, Helix is my 2nd choice after Fractal (which I still haven't actually bought yet... still busy...). Not sure I understand what you're saying about EQing by sight vs sound though?? As in, you have trouble dialing in amp or modeller's EQ stack at night, or was that a mis-type??

We chatted at some length about direct profiles a while back - sounds like you're still having very similar experiences to me in terms of trying to find the right tones, even with DI plus IR - and after several years of getting some great tones from the Kemper, but never quite the ones I was after, I have recently decided to go back to modelers... The final decider was actually liquid profiling! Had high hopes for it, but it still feels like post or pre EQ to a pre-determined snapshot to me - definitely more natural that stock EQ, but still not the same as simply adjusting the tonestack on a real amp or good modeler.

After realising LP wasn't all it was cracked up to be, I decided to load up Amplitube, which I'd used pre-kemper, and definitely doesn't sound as realistic or feel anything like as good as Kemper, BUT - I was reminded how super-easy it was to dial in a good basic tone using just the tone stack - and what really made me shelve the Kemper was this:

I was able to use a whole bunch of IR's that I'd never managed to make work before with Kemper profiles - e.g. Tonehammer and York Audio - generally regarded as some of the best, but the thing is you need to find a profile that works with them. What I'd end up doing with the Kemper was choosing an IR basically to fix whatever was tonally wrong with the DI profile - e.g. darker for a harsh profile, brighter for a muddy one etc. - as opposed to choosing the type of speaker or cab or mic I really wanted. With Amplitube, I was able to very quickly set up JCM800 sounds with a variety of workhorse IR's that I could never get to work with Kemper profiles (e.g. Tonehammer's studio essentials Mesa V30 and York Audio's Marshall M25) and hence get some of the basic classic rock tones that I've bought untold amounts of profile packs trying to capture.

Now I'm definitely not sticking with Amplitube... It does lack some realism overall, and the feel is stiff - so as soon as I've finished a current orchestral project and have some time to properly demo it, I'm going to order an FM3. But there's no question (after how easy it was to set up these sounds on Amplitube and how powerful the IR's became in terms of variety of tones when you could actually adjust the tonestack to suit each one) that I'm done with profiling or any other sort of captures. If you make your own profiles I'm sure it's great. If you happen to have pickups same or very similar to a profiler with similar sonic aesthetics to you, then you're probably good. But if you want a wide range of 3rd party tones to work with less common pickups... well ultimately it just became a very frustrating experience.

And as to why I'll still on the forum - well I haven't actually sold the Kemper yet, and do check in occasionally to see if there have been any new developments, or new profiles that may be worth trying. And while I know this reply isn't really that useful to the question you asked, thought it'd be worth sharing my conclusions - if you have access to any modeler, try what I describe, and when you see how easy it is to get the sort of sounds you're probably after via tonestack adjusting and IR choice, you may also conclude that profiles aren't the solution

Tesla's Frank Hannon moved from Marshalls to Hiwatts at some point over recent years, and after hearing the great rock tones he got out of them went on a bit of a HiWatt profile hunt - tried a bunch, and in the end Guidorist's merged pack (with Celestion G12M65 IR's) gave me exactly the sound I was after, and to this day some of my favourite Kemper profiles for any style.

Would be great to get a Hiwatt tonestack added at some point (and some liquid profiles), definitely great amps, and not just for classic The Who or Pink Floyd tones.

Quote from goldensheaf

Well how can you comment when you never tried? There is def a more realistic feel to the profiles now a immediacy that comes through the speakers, welll with DI profiles i use anyway. Kemper had that lower mid woof an the LP helps that i think. I just enjoying the bright cap control, it can really customise a amp. I profiled my old carvin valvemaster amp that i used to gig with eons ago an its very spatty an trebly but pulling back on the bright cap really makes it something else

I did make it clear it's a priori reasoning - if I change my mind when it's out of beta and I try it, I'll be happy to be wrong! But again, Kemper have not advertised any change the profiling process itself, or anything which would alter dynamics/responsiveness, so it stands to reason that if it "feels" better to play, it's just because of now being able to dial in a good tonal balance (and/or gain level) in an authentic/musical way.

Quote from lbieber

Or it's just in your head. I have yet to experience any difference in feel.

Well that's basically what I'm saying tho I'd generally describe "feel" as dynamics, responsiveness to picking strength - while I've yet to try Liquid Profiles, there's nothing to suggest there's any change here - Kemper has always had a pretty realistic feel in these terms. However a guitar sound will be more enjoyable/inspirational if it's a good tonal balance, you could also describe this as "feeling" better, even tho the dynamics/responsiveness hasn't changed - and I think that's what people are describing here. Always a problem with describing any aspect of music, inevitably have to use terms that are a bit amorphous!

Quote from Tony G

I'm a guy who always loved using real amps and for me LP is a game changer. But my reasons for loving it is because it allows me to grab a distorted amp and in a few seconds I can make it creamy and amazing and then morph the gain and it is back to screaming 80's sound and I love that because before we didn't have that kind of control. Also mix matching different amps with tone stacks allows me to create my own boutique amps and I have been getting great results experimenting, it works surprisingly well. And there are more reasons but I don't have time to list them all.

So for me it is a major improvement and remember we are just starting to get good at liquid profiling.

I totally respect your opinion, maybe for you it doesn't have the wow factor it has for me. I can respect that.

All the best to you my friend.

Yes - although I've yet to try it, the reason Liquid Profiling is a game changer (assuming it does work as hoped!!) is for the ability to authentically - and/or non-authentically if you like! - adjust a profile to suit your needs, as opposed to before when there was really only so much you could do it if didn't sounds pretty good already. e.g. if you know how to get a good sound out of a particular real amp, it sounds like you should now be able to do this on a liquid profile of that amp. I think the whole discussion about feel is a bit of a tangent - Kemper haven't claimed any advancements here, and have made it clear the profiling process is no different. Unless they've secretly added some extra "feel ingredient", and for some reason don't want to admit it, then any perceived difference in feel is simply due to being able to dial in a tone that really works for your instrument, and this being more satisfying to play.

Quote from JohnnyBee

The tone stacks of the different channels ARE differrent. That's one of the cool feature of this Amp!

F.e. Channel 1 has a tone stack close to a Fender Amp. Channel 2 a typical Marshall tone stack.

So it would be nice to have the different Channels of this Amp as seperated electable "amps" in the Amp section of the Kemper.

Do you happen to know if the tonestacks for the JS model are the same as for the regular JVM?

I always check the cab character control early on when tweaking a profile, usually reduce it just slightly, tho sometimes is fine as is. Have never set it to a positive value so far - get's too spiky! Sounds like you've reduced it too? You say 0.8 to the left of the dial, so I'm guessing it displays -0.8?

I also routinely increase the cab low shift to 0.2 - most parameters I adjust on a per profile, but this one where I end up with the same value every time. I know technically this is raising the low freq's of the cab slightly, but even tho I like a good amount of bass, to my ears this small increase sounds better both on it's own and in a mix. Not make or break, but once I've set it to 0.2, I never want to go back to 0!

If there are any other parameters you haven't experimented with, try them - they're all useful, even if in small amounts and not every time.

Quote from goldensheaf

People say things like oh tones in the fingers an I dont agree. Im very sensitive to what I play, if i have a sound i dont connect with I can not play. I always feel embarrassed in guitar stores if they hand me a guitar I just dont agree with. I saw a interview with George Lynch saying the same that he can not play for the life of him if he does not have his gear.

Yep, people love to repeat that "tone is in the fingers" line but I think it's more accurate to say the playing style is - as in, yes, Slash is still going to sound like Slash thru a cr*ppy amp - but he's going to sound like Slash with a cr*ppy tone

Orange Rockerverb! I hear the "Orange Overdose" ones work well for it, but are they completely the same? If not, a Rockerverb (dirty channel) one would be great.

Oh, and very carefully set the tone knob on any drive you use! Can sound horrible particularly if it's too high. Of course it all depends, and there are exceptions, but on a tonally well-balanced profile, I always end up reducing the tone somewhat from the default 12-o'clock position - I think somewhere between 35. and 4.5 is generally where I end up.

I find a different drive might work depending on the profile. Green scream, Kemper drive and OCD are my favourites (well actually these are the only drives on the Kemper, the others are distortion or fuzz) . Sometimes one works on one profile, then a different one works better on a different profile of the same amp. Sometimes none sound right! And as said above, drives are usually used to further boost an amp that has some level of distortion already, without altering the sound of the amp too much. Distortion (e.g. DS1/Rat) tend to more completely take over the distortion character, and IMO work better with low gain or clean amps - tho of course any approach can work - but personally I prefer drives combined with an already distorted amp sound.

As for gain ranges to add it to - again, it can vary a lot - I've got some low gain profiles where adding a lot of gain with a drive pedal can result in a great lead sound - or high gain profiles where just a bit extra gain from the pedal is what's needed. Tho often, you might end up deciding you like the sound of the amp/profile better as it is, so don't worry if a drive pedal doesn't always sound good!

A lot of people will suggest (especially on green scream) setting the output level high but keeping the gain low (I think Zakk Wylde does this) - but this will also change the playing dynamics a lot too, could be desirable (even weakly picked notes sounds out clearly for fast playing), but pay attention to whether maybe it ruins the overall feel, e.g. if you want more expression. I prefer to set the gain first, then just add a small amount of volume, just to where it feels more alive and responsive but before it feels too compressed and un-dynamic. You've only got 3 knobs on most pedals tho, so experiment! Save a few different versions and see what approach you like better.

With liquid profiles, I believe the recommended positioning depends on the location of the tonestack in a given amp and/or whether the pre or power amp provide the majority of the distortion.

I've yet to try Liquid, but what I've been doing so far (with "regular" profiles) is using the generic EQ post amp for broad strokes, using a studio EQ in a stomp slot for targeted distortion shaping, and then doing much more detailed EQ in the DAW to finish it all off (another studio EQ, or 2, post amp would also serve).

Liquid profiling will probably change the amount of EQ correction needed (as you can authentically set the amp controls to your liking - so you should be able to do far more with the amp EQ alone without it sounding unnatural) - but I think there will still be a benefit to an additional EQ before the amp to further shape the distortion, and more detailed EQ (after everything else is done) to cut mud/boost sweet spots etc. will always be useful for polishing up any sound.

As far as I can tell from everything I've read/watched/heard on the subject, there's nothing different about how the profile is captured with LQP - if it feels better, I'd say it's as simple as you're finding it easier to dial in a good tone with the new Liquid tonestacks, and a good sound (even just the difference between a bad tonal balance and a good one) does inspire better playing!

While technically, yes, as others have pointed out, in theory you should be able to play with the same speed/accuracy whether unplugged or thru the best amp in the world, nonetheless, in practice, the tone does make a difference. I've noticed this when browsing profiles - when I find one I like, I'll start playing noticeably better - with ones that are tonally way off or whatever, my playing becomes scrappy. I imagine LQP has just made it that much easier to get an inspiring tone.

Quote from yeky83

I'd like to hear ckemper address this too, but practically speaking...

Most amps have distortion driven primarily by either the preamp or power amp.

In case an amp's tonestack is located between pre and power amp stages and it's a preamp distortion amp, you'd set the tonestack to Post.

In case an amp's tonestack is located between pre and power amp stages and it's a power amp distortion amp, you'd set the tonestack to Pre.

And... just checked the manual and it says the same:

✓The position of the tone stack in the signal flow is influenced by the selected Amp Model. For Amp Models of vintage amp designs, which have no master volume control and only power amp distortion, the tone stack is positioned before the distortion stage. For Amp Models of more modern designs that feature a distorting pre-amp stage and a master volume, the tone stack position has been set by the creator of this Liquid Profile. Usually this is the “Post” position. If the PROFILE has been captured with predominantly power amp distortion, the tone stack is positioned “Pre” – that is, before the PROFILER’s distortion stage

Display More

Makes sense. From that quote from the manual though, it suggests the liquid tonestack is simply a custom EQ (with freq's and curves matching the original amp) placed either before or after the Kemper's "Amp" section. Not saying this can't be effective - and as I'm waiting for the official release, I'll of course have to try it before passing judgment - but it does suggest that liquid profiling is still not completely accurately simulating how a real amp reacts to tonestack changes.

The big question I've had since Liquid Profiling was announced is this: with a modeler, the tonestack can be placed anywhere in the modeled signal chain, so (of course depending on the accuracy of the model) should react authentically. With a profile, the captured sound of the amp can't be separated into pre and power amp stages. I'd thought they might have got around this by altering the distortion character of the relevant freq band when turning the corresponding knob, but it sounds like this is not the case. Again, not saying this means it can't still sound good, but it does seem like - at least in theory - a limitation to the accuracy of a Liquid tonestack. But maybe I'm wrong - maybe it is more than simply a custom EQ placed before or after the "Amp" section? Would be great to get a definitive answer here!

Quote from ckemper

I have considered it for a second or two.

But as long as I don't see the community of (digital) guitar amps using parametric equalizers - or even for a better start, graphic equalizers - placed before the amp (!) to sculpture the guitar sound going into the distortion in a very easy way, I have no hope.

Using graphical EQs for that purpose is known since the 80ies, I guess.

Now with digital amps, it is a no-brainer in terms of cabling and noise issues.

But it hasn't made its way in 15 years. Has anyone ever tried it?

I have been waiting for long, that this existing 80ies technology, still present and evolved 'till today, will find a place in the guitar community.

For sure it is possible to further parameterize the tonestack technique from the 1940ies, by using advanced computer technique from the 2000's and todays.

As a player of a digital amp, do you need the technical echoes from the past, but combined with todays technique to improve it, to find your tone? I don't want to sell snake oil to you guys.

Display More

These days, I do routinely place a Studio EQ in a stomp slot - graphic EQ works too of course, but personally I prefer the parametric. Takes a bit of time to set up, carefully chosen freq's and Q's make a lot of difference, but is worth it in any profile that'll be used a lot.

I didn't ever use pre-EQ before using a Kemper tho tbh - I figured I'd just go with the tone of the pickups - however with the Kemper I kind of had to do it in order to deal with the fact that 3rd party profiles are inevitably set up to sound good on someone else's pickups, so some pre-EQ can help alter the tonal balance of the input closer to what was used when the profile was created. Presumably liquid profiles (i.e. being able to set the amp EQ in a realistic way to suit your pickups) will mean this sort of "fixing" is less necessary, but I imagine I will continue using a pre-EQ anyway as another available tone-shaping tool.

btw, ckemper can I ask a specific question about Liquid Profiling:

In cases where an amps tonestack is located between pre and power amp stages, how does a liquid tonestack simulate this?

e.g. say the treble control on such an amp is set very low - this doesn't just lower the volume of the high freq's (as a post-amp EQ would), but it also alters the way the high freq's are subsequently driven by the power amp - so less distortion on them, or at least a different character. So, with a liquid tonestack modelled on such an amp, when you e.g. lower treble, does it also alter the distortion character of these high freq's?

Quote from mtmartin71

Interesting OP. I "want" to make the JCM 800 work for me but I find I much prefer a Super Lead or a modded Marshall sound, like the Friedman BE or JJ sound. I was trying to make some commercial 2203 and 2210 profiles work as the direct versions had all the settings so I could make them into LPs. However, whether it's the CM800 tone stack or the gain taper, anything approaching 7-8 on the gain made it into a wooly mess and nothing sounding like any of the classic sounds of hard rock and metal made with the 800s. Having never really played a real one, is that accurate for how they sound? Is it a case of needing the volume and mid gain to get to a tight and heavy rock sound with them? Not sure.

Have played thru many 800's, tho never owned one as it's not really one of my favorite amps - however it does provide a great workhorse tone, and probably most of the classic rock/metal tones involved a tubescreamer (or similar) upfront which tames the bass and means you don't have to have the gain so high.

Quote from Dynochrome

I wrote:

"appreciated the stock tone stack in the kemper that always seemed to me like everything was in the right place making it more like I was fixing it in the studio rather than that funky tonestack" Intending I like the tonestack because of it's profile "fixing" ability, not so much its function replacing an actual amp tonestack. But of course (as I have wrote ad nauseum) I would take it over the JCM800 one.

Yes, I got that, but I was giving reasons why personally I'd rather have an authentic amp EQ (i.e. a "liquid" tonestack) than the generic one (though it might be useful to have both in series!)

Put it this way - whatever the limitations of a JCM800 tonestack, I've played thru many JCM800's, and have always managed to dial in a useable tone with it's EQ knobs, no matter what type of guitar I've been using. However, most JCM800 profiles I've tried have apparently been captured with the amp's EQ controls quite a way off from where I'd ideally set them, and I've rarely been able to fix this using the generic EQ. Hence why I'd rather have the liquid tonestack. Presuming it works as advertised (like you I'm waiting for the official release) then I should be able to set the tone controls as with the real amp to get a useable basic tone, then refine further with studio EQ or in the DAW as needed. Again, in my experience, the generic EQ is only effective for very small adjustments - and it seems that Kemper have acknowledged this (at last!) by way of developing/releasing liquid profiling.

Quote from Tony G

This is what I'm thinking. I love tinkering with electronics and if you had something like tone stack calculator that can be interfaced with liquid profiling where we can experiment with the values of the resistors and capacitors this could be an incredible tool for electronic tinkerers and ultimately amp builders. You can hear the sound and feel the attack before building the amp and know when you have a winning situation. Has to be worth something to the electronics engineer.

Just a thought...

I don't think that would work, as I don't think it's component level modelling. For component level modeling to work, you'd have to be able to insert it "inside" the profile depending on where it's located in the real amp. As far as I'm aware a profile is not separable into pre and power amp stages (even a direct profile is a capture of the sound of the entire amp).

I'm guessing how a "Liquid" tonestack works is that it not only models the EQ points and curves found on the reference amp, but also alters the gain structure of the profile to simulate, for example, how a tonestack placed before the power amp will alter how each freq range is subsequently driven by the power amp. This is all conjecture of course... in fact if ckemper could shed any light on roughly what's going on under the hood (without giving away any secrets of course;) then it would be very interesting to know.