Next Generation Kemper Idea

    Love the Kemper and am amazed every time I don't have a chance to play my electric for a week or two and then go back to it. Two of the best features for me are its profiling technology (vs. imitating) and its amp-like U/I.


    With that said, one of my personal challenges has been to use the Kemper like an actual amp. In other words, selecting an amp - e.g., Marshall JCM - and then dialing in the sound with the knobs. The problem is that I know the more that I deviate (with certain knobs - e.g., gain) from the original profile, the less likely it is to sound like a profile that was actually made at that new (e.g., gain) setting. Now I haven't A/Bd this to audibly hear the difference because I don't have the gear to easily do that. Please LMK if I am wrong here.


    So what happens is, if I want more gain, I need to select a profile that is closer to what I want (hard to do without a librarian of course) and then possibly adjust that one as well (although maybe less so). This requires me to think more along the lines of what "profile" I want instead of what "amp" I want.


    So I got to thinking, what if the next generation Kemper would allow the unit to dynmically adjust between different profiles as you adjusted certain knobs (again, e.g., gain). In other words, if you start dialing up gain from a clean profile it would eventually switch to a higher gain profile once the unit deemed that that was a better profile to use. Settings on the KPA that are not "profile" based (e.g., EQ) could be carried over into the use of the higher gain profile (certain settings could be locked in a profile of course so they wouldn't import from another profile). This would allow users to simply select an amp and then dial in whatever sound they like with knobs as opposed to "changing profiles".


    Now comes the fun part - the profiling. If the above were feasible, then profiling becomes a bit more like sampling. In other words, if you have a lot of profiles of the same amp with different gain settings, it is probably going to be more accurate (sound better TBD of course) than if you have a few profiles of the amp. You could even have one of the pre-amp slots be something like a "lead" vs. "clean" channel if profiles were tagged appropriately to simply do something akin to a flip of a switch (or changing the input) on an amp.


    Finally, the user could then crate "snapshots" of the amp at whatever setting they like for their guitar and then use those in the same way as a single profile.


    Thoughts?

    it is true that on tube amps the gain setting (besides distortion) also affects the tone.
    this leads to sweet spots in the amp's gain range.


    profile such a sweet spot and you can vary the gain later on in the profile without losing that 'sweet' quality that first attracted you to this tone.


    this is a huge advantage and previously virtually impossible to achieve in tube amps, even through an experienced modder. :)

    Yes, it's like it was with the keyboard samplers.


    1) One sample was used for the would keyboard range
    2) Some samples were used e.g. one for each octave - and the two samples were blended for all notes between
    3) One sample for each key was used


    ... I do it even today like this - by profiling each drive setting 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10


    And yes, it would be great to get only one 'multiprofile' as the result for all this.

    (All trademarks are trademarks of their respective owners, which are in no way associated or affiliated with soundside.de)


    Great Profiles --> soundside.de

    I like the thought process. You should check out Maurizio's backup (see http://www.wikpa.org/Rig/Prese…ement#Maurizio.27s_Backup). He determined a good naming scheme that will organize profiles similar to how you describe, so that you can easily browse a bunch of different profiles for the same amp brand/model. And he made a fairly up-to-date backup file with most all the available free rigs in that format.


    You can also order rigs by Gain currently, which sometimes comes in handy; but isn't as detailed as you mentioned.


    Of course, the analogy to sampling makes me wonder about interpolation. When you are using settings that are between two snapshots, you would only have the option to (a) load the profiles of both of the closest options, then mix them equally, or (b) load the closest profile, then use the current EQ/Gain adjustments to get it to the values dialed in. Obviously (a) would require a next gen device capable of loading two profiles simulataneously, and I would think (b) would too if you wanted no audio drop-out as you changed settings.


    Ultimately, I think this puts too much on the user. Either the profiling process would need to be done a large number of times, each time instructing the user to set the Gain/EQ to specified values; or users would have to enter the values for Gain/EQ they used for each profile.


    I don't like this analogy, since it conjures up the limitations and sonic shortcomings of early sampling and links them to profiling which is nothing like a static sample.


    pretty much all amps I played so far had what I would call a limited useable gain range (one of the reasons that multichannel amps have different designs per channel, not two, three or four times the same channel)


    even on my single channel amps, one sounds like crap with the gain below 3.5 and the other one sounds nasty with the gain higher than 7. Why would I want these limitations in a profile?


    Not all possible settings on an amp are desirable.
    This is an exsample of what I call 'borderline collector's thinking' ;)

    Don - this is assuming that the sweet spot can still be had without one of it's components - which is rarely true.
    An amp sweet spot with the gain on 5 will sound amazing with the gain on 5 - but that brilliant character is not necessarily brilliant for higher or lower gain sounds.


    Just try lowering the gain to a usable (to me) 5.5 on a profile that used to be 9.0 - the profiler's insistence on linearity makes it sound stiff, unresponsive and under-saturated.
    Good amp planning takes that into account and changes the tone as the gain changes, and the interactivity between EQ controls on certain amps is legendary as well. It would be nice to have, and should also be fairly easy to implement (just profile twice, on different gain settings or EQ settings to set a range).

    "But dignity is difficult to maintain
    stamina requires constant upkeep
    repetition is boring
    and you pay for grace."

    Quote from Quitty

    Don - this is assuming that the sweet spot can still be had without one of it's components - which is rarely true.


    sorry, I don't quite follow
    which component?


    Quote from Quitty

    An amp sweet spot with the gain on 5 will sound amazing with the gain on 5 - but that brilliant character is not necessarily brilliant for higher or lower gain sounds.


    sorry, can't agree here.
    profiling a simple single ended EL84 Amp, for example, at it's sweet spot yields a great crunch, but also lead and even clean variations that go way beyond what this amp could produce at the same relative gain settings can be had.
    it keeps everything I like about the sound and gives me a wider perspective of it, if you will.


    Quote from Quitty

    Just try lowering the gain to a usable (to me) 5.5 on a profile that used to be 9.0 - the profiler's insistence on linearity makes it sound stiff, unresponsive and under-saturated.


    well you ARE using less gain, so less saturated is to be expected, under-satured means you turned the gain knob to far down ;)
    The Power Sag parameter can really change the way a sound feels, if you think it's to 'stiff', give it some more Power Sag.


    :)

    Quote

    sorry, can't agree here.
    profiling a simple single ended EL84 Amp, for example, at it's sweet spot yields a great crunch, but also lead and even clean variations that go way beyond what this amp could produce at the same relative gain settings can be had.
    it keeps everything I like about the sound and gives me a wider perspective of it, if you will.


    A sweet-spot is a certain 'good' relation between parameters. The thing is that the amount of gain is a part of that relation - so while the profiler does (greatly) exceed what the amp can do, it often fails at doing what the amp can do, especially with greater variations in the EQ and gain settings.


    For example, i've tried many, many Bogner Uberschall profiles - i have a love/hate relationship with the actual amp and love many of the digital models of it.
    What the Uberschall does do, and the digital models emulate rather well, is maintain consistency in saturation across gain levels. Sure, it gets more saturated - but even at lower gain levels, it still feels like a high-gain amp. Something just feels intuitive with gain controls on well-designed amps.


    On the profiler, Bogner profiles dialed back to 5.5 from 7.0 or so sound much, much better than ones dialed back from 9.0.
    Dialing back 4 points on the gain knob makes amps sound unnatural as guitar amps go and you just can't get a natural sounding sound from a profile dialed so far back.
    At least, that's my experience. The power sag doesn't have nearly enough range to cover the problem.

    "But dignity is difficult to maintain
    stamina requires constant upkeep
    repetition is boring
    and you pay for grace."

    christoph I believe you once intimated that you would be amenable to profile blending/mix/lerp as a future feature. Personally I'd love to have this, but the question is, assuming you made your own investigations into this on a purely technical level and is it really viable? Does it make sense or would it result in weird phasing etc issues or sudden jumps/changed with bit/bool/int settings due to the way the profiles work/are stored? Is it something that we should all keep suggesting in various forms or should we put a definitive "nah don't go there" on this concept?

    I think that the phase issues can be avoided if the multi profile (whatever you call it) is taken with different amp settings but with the mic left in the same place for each profile.
    By the way i was aiming for a dynamic profiling at my first approach and i still think that it would be a great idea.
    It would be great if the profiler could take a shot of 5-6 gain settings (in fixed steps, so you have to profile with the gain at 1-3-5-7-9-10) and use it with the tone stack library which should still be on the works.


    P.s: i don't think that the KPA delivers unnatural sounds. No way. I think that it's the best option to take a certain sound snapshot everywhere, while i think it still misses something when you try to change that settings.

    I see what you mean. It would be impossible to exactly mimic amp's behaviour by profiling, at least the way it works now. I'm not even sure the original tonestack would accomplish the task.


    OTOH, what you describe is a plus to many: they find they can create sounds impossible to achieve with the original amps.


    :)

    Quote from DonPetersen

    it is true that on tube amps the gain setting (besides distortion) also affects the tone.
    this leads to sweet spots in the amp's gain range.


    profile such a sweet spot and you can vary the gain later on in the profile without losing that 'sweet' quality that first attracted you to this tone.


    this is a huge advantage and previously virtually impossible to achieve in tube amps, even through an experienced modder. :)


    Guys! we have to support this philosophy which is the real innovation of the KPA although currently not always get the result we want.
    The tips I read here are solutions but maybe bring in old technologies which are certainly not (in my opinion) in accordance with the KPA's philosophy.


    I like to imagine the KPA more like a genetic engineering laboratory in search how to get full control of a tube amp's DNA.


    My 2 cents ... :)

    I first read of the OP's suggestion in an interview with CK from a long time ago, like when the Kemper debuted.


    Don's concept of an amps sweetspot now frozen into a profile that is more manipulatable via
    Kemper's gain than the original amp is something I hadn't thought of. Thanks!


    I felt exactly as Don is describing with my Fender 65 Reverb RI. Below 3 and above 7 was unusable. Around 6-7 was that Jangly-sweet-spot with a Strat I was looking for.


    The reverb I remember was almost inaudible below 2.5, perfect at 3, and already a bit too much above 3.5, so on the Kemper the usable reverb range is larger than the original amp.


    In many way, I agree, you don't want ALL of the amp profiled either, there being many poor settings on an amp (boutique amps I've owned has very large usable ranges, like 1->12 instead of 3->7)


    I have thought over the idea of merging a few distinct profiles from CLEAN->CRUNCH->FULL but what I've also noticed is that CLEAN profiles don't KPA gain (distort) like the original amp well (of course), but DISTORTION profiles do clean up (lowering KPA gain) very similar to the amp IF they are profiled well.


    I've also noticed that the "sweetspot" of a number of amps I've owned, and indeed here with profiles, depends heavily on the guitar/pickups used to play them.
    So this is often a "pairing" issue, not an amp's delivery of a sweetspot, alone.

    Quote from DonPetersen

    it is true that on tube amps the gain setting (besides distortion) also affects the tone.
    this leads to sweet spots in the amp's gain range.


    profile such a sweet spot and you can vary the gain later on in the profile without losing that 'sweet' quality that first attracted you to this tone.


    this is a huge advantage and previously virtually impossible to achieve in tube amps, even through an experienced modder. :)


    +1 - I have noticed that multiple times.