Personally, i never like it.
2 reasons, weird phasing going on and lack of dynamics.
Maybe it works for metal when the gain is maxed out but for anything else is pretty useless. For exemple, a modern rock rhythm tone is often achieve by blending 2 amps, one of witch is way less distorted. (That's where the dynamics comes from) I'm not sure how you could EQ match that less distorted tone as EQ match is terrible at clean tones.
What do you think? Anyone has any special trick up their sleeves? 
I've done quite a few of them and honestly, I'd never use them for recording anything serious. They're great for a quick laugh and just jamming along for fun though. More of a "fan art" thing, not serious recording. 
I play primarily high gain metal and have the same issues, though maybe not to the same extent as medium to low gain users.
They're fun if you're playing along to an album but they never seem to feel right. They just don't respond like a regular amp profile does.
Tone Matching is a card trick. Not been a fan.
I get so much more enjoyment out of finding the right rig the original recording used, using a similar guitar, and dialing in the gain and effects.
Tone matching works great when done properly, but it is not a trick - it's a technique, originally intended to make recordings done at different times and locations more coherent.
Just as any other technique, you need to learn how to use it.
I also can't, for the life of me, understand that notion that the 'gain is maxed out' in metal and that there are no dynamics.
If anything, modern metal productions are much, much more dynamic than most radio-proof rock tracks i've heard.
Can you explain what you mean by "dynamics"?
My understanding of dynamics is the polar opposite of most Metal songs I have heard.
When I think of "dynamics" I think of Nirvana, going low and soft then LOUD AND HARD.
Whereas most Metal songs I hear are HARD, HARD, HARD, TRYING TO BE HARDER, OH YES HARD
And so there is little contrast in volume within a song, hence "no dynamics".
That is NOT to be confused with "tonal character" as tubes impart a lot of that and distortions hence has lots of distinct characteristics that can be heard in varying metal guitar tones. I am not versed as most in telling those tones apart, but my sense of the theory tells me there should be huge distinctions.
But that wouldn't have anything to do with dynamics.
It's true that a lot of modern metal productions don't have a lot of dynamic range, but not all.
My problem with tone matching is the dynamic range when playing the guitar itself.
It's kind of like using active pickups. In my experience, you lose a lot of dynamic range with actives. Everything seems "full on" regardless of how hard or soft you're attacking the strings. I've had the same experience when playing "tone matched" profiles (or patches when I had the Axe II).
Display MoreCan you explain what you mean by "dynamics"?
My understanding of dynamics is the polar opposite of most Metal songs I have heard.
When I think of "dynamics" I think of Nirvana, going low and soft then LOUD AND HARD.
Whereas most Metal songs I hear are HARD, HARD, HARD, TRYING TO BE HARDER, OH YES HARD
And so there is little contrast in volume within a song, hence "no dynamics".
That is NOT to be confused with "tonal character" as tubes impart a lot of that and distortions hence has lots of distinct characteristics that can be heard in varying metal guitar tones. I am not versed as most in telling those tones apart, but my sense of the theory tells me there should be huge distinctions.
But that wouldn't have anything to do with dynamics.
Nirvana would be a great example - have you ever looked at a Nirvana track on a spectrograph? It's a big, nice wiener - which means, not much difference between soft and hard.
The point isn't that the verses are lower in volumes than the chorus, but that Cobain sings 'flat' and rather monotonous and the rest of the instruments are usually compressed sternly.
Generally speaking, any track that sees itself on the radio is K-12 proof while the vast majority of metal productions know they'll never get airtime and allow themselves to be K-14 proof.
Singers alternating between clean and dirty vocals? check. Bass with parallel distortion instead of compression? check. A changing snare timing, so the volume has to be matched to it's place in the song? check.
The verses and chorus might be at similar volumes but there's a lot more going on between guitar chords and riffs, low and high bass notes, snare/kick and overhead etc.
Rock (and pop) songs really are that much easier to handle, production wise. Far less dynamic.
It's true that a lot of modern metal productions don't have a lot of dynamic range, but not all.
My problem with tone matching is the dynamic range when playing the guitar itself.
It's kind of like using active pickups. In my experience, you lose a lot of dynamic range with actives. Everything seems "full on" regardless of how hard or soft you're attacking the strings. I've had the same experience when playing "tone matched" profiles (or patches when I had the Axe II).
An EQ shouldn't change the dynamic range. I'm not sure what the Kemper makes of tone-matched profiles and maybe the matching EQ simply clipped, but by itself an EQ will not touch your dynamics.
It might cause trouble if you're trying to match something that was dual-tracked - but that's not very fair of you. The difference between single, dual and quad tracking isn't about EQ as much as it is about phase.
For exemple, a modern rock rhythm tone is often achieve by blending 2 amps, one of witch is way less distorted. (That's where the dynamics comes from) I'm not sure how you could EQ match that less distorted tone as EQ match is terrible at clean tones.
What do you think? Anyone has any special trick up their sleeves?
Have you tried adding a little Direct Mix in the amp section?
An EQ shouldn't change the dynamic range.
That´s right. As long as you are not intentionally using a tube EQ the dynamics should not be touched by an EQ. At least as long as you pay attention to the input and output levels in order to prevent clipping. In fact if you are using a high quality signal chain on your DAW, ozone will not change the dynamics at all. The most important aspect when doing tonematches with the KPA is to use a good input signal. As long as your source amp that you want to eq doesn´t fit to your needs you simply cannot expect a good result. Using a modern tube amp with good transient and pick translation with a little less gain than the target sound is a good starting point. Keep in mind that ozone just affects the EQ curve and not the amp character itself. Using a vintage amp as an input signal to EQ into a Andy Sneap guitar sound will never work.
Personally, i moved away from tonematching more and more. Though it works really fine when done correctly i think that matching a guitar sound to a sound on a mastered album leads to nothing on most cases. Maybe it´s great for a cover or tribute band but for myself i never really liked any tonematched rig better than any of the regular rigs.
Though it works really fine when done correctly i think that matching a guitar sound to a sound on a mastered album leads to nothing on most cases. Maybe it´s great for a cover or tribute band but for myself i never really liked any tonematched rig better than any of the regular rigs.
I think it's because album tones are very finely tuned to work and sit in that particular mix, when taken out of context it just sounds weird and unnatural.
But it seems we're debating two different things here, match eq as a mastering tool and as a tool for making Kemper profiles. 
But it seems we're debating two different things here, match eq as a mastering tool and as a tool for making Kemper profiles.
Nobody was talking about using it as a mastering summing EQ. On indivual instruments, ozone match EQ works great. In fact i would say it´s the most common used "secret tool" that no producer would ever admit to use 
Nobody was talking about using it as a mastering summing EQ. On indivual instruments, ozone match EQ works great. In fact i would say it´s the most common used "secret tool" that no producer would ever admit to use
I would have to disagree there.
Tone matching works great when done properly, but it is not a trick - it's a technique, originally intended to make recordings done at different times and locations more coherent.
My point still stands. Using match eq as a "cab replacement" for Kemper profiles is completely different than using is as a traditional eq for itb working which is obviously hugely useful.
Nobody was talking about using it as a mastering summing EQ. On indivual instruments, ozone match EQ works great. In fact i would say it´s the most common used "secret tool" that no producer would ever admit to use
Again, maybe a Metal producer could use this but for any other musical style... NO WAY!
I think it's because album tones are very finely tuned to work and sit in that particular mix, when taken out of context it just sounds weird and unnatural.
But it seems we're debating two different things here, match eq as a mastering tool and as a tool for making Kemper profiles.
Agree, of course the tone are sculpted to fit a particular mix and listening to it in solo will always sound "werid". Still, when i compare the source and the result of a tone, i still can hear some weird phase issue.
There is an interesting (but difficult read) about Loudness wars and "lack of dynamics" here:
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep11/articles/loudness.htm
In the end it says things are louder but still have similar scale of dynamics. IOW, modern compression doesn't come at the cost of less dynamics overall.
I just don't buy that Metal has more dynamics. Whenever I grab most Metal clips into Reaper, they fill the entire block.
Clips on SoundCloud of Kemper profiles can be identified as Metal via their wav file looks.
That's proof they don't have dynamics compared to most other genre's.
No doubt, there are exceptions to the rule, but those aside, if you can spot a metal track by it's black magic marker wav signature, that wins the debate for me.
