Display MoreOk, I'm making an assumption here, MBritt might be able to clarify.
I am NOT meaning the new DI profiling algorithm. I mean the new alteration in the bottom end of profiling done a firmware or two ago.
I forget which version it was. Anyone remember? I bet paults does like it was tatoo'd on his eyelids!
(I joke, but seriously, he's just so good with the techno end of this device)
Ah, I see. It was 2.5, if I recall correctly.
Cheers,
Sam
I believe everything I've released so far was done on 2.5-2.6. I've since done some on 2.7 and 2.8. I notice some differences, but there are differences between amps more drastic than those changes to my ears, so it's not killing me either way. I'm still learning to work the 2.8 system. I'm pretty partial to the full studio profile system because it eliminates variables. The merged/di system seems to stick variables back in the equation.
Thanks again for the kind words and support!
Mike
Wow, that totally confused me. Time to go to bed.
I'm a fan of mbritts profiles, so bought the dumble pack. First impression : in the same top league as pack 2 ( which i think is slightly better than pack 1 overall). Pack 2 replaced all my pack 1 profiles, i guess this pack delivers some more different tones and will be more of an expansion. Futere will tell if i use them in the rehearsel room with the band. 
The samples on this New pack are amazing... I've recently finished the soundtrack for a film using almost exclusively Pack 1 and I have to say, that even though I love how that pack sounds, I found it to be a little bit noisy maybe? specially in long releases of notes? -like the last chord of a song - has anyone had the same experience? Sample pack 2 and 3 seem to have a bit less of that "Amp noise floor" What do you think?
Cheers
Ale
btw - I think this is specially true if you engage a compressor or overdrive pedal before they kemper ...
Wow, that totally confused me. Time to go to bed.
The regular Full Rig profiling process underwent a bottom end tweak Sambrox says starting with 2.5 firmware. So that should be the same throughout all the firmwares since. Unless I am mistaken. I do not hear differences.
Starting with 2.8 firmware there is an additional profiling process that allows you to profile a Guitar Cabinet. The Kemper can then isolate this from the Full Rig and create a DI (direct injection) Profile. You can use this to go straight to your Real Guitar Cabinet on stage and therefore NOT send the profiled cab into the real one. But you CAN use the Full Rig simultaneously out another port to, say, the House PA. This way you can use your real cabinet for the stage if thats the tone you like.
This said, lonestar likes the Full Rig, as do I. I think DI profiles should be done BY the person who owns the Guitar Cabinet they want to use on stage. This way it truly sounds identical to the full rig they've profiled. Using a commercial rig's profile will certainly not sound identical, due to all the variables: mic, placement, signal chain, cable quality, Kemper settings, etc.
Therefore I suspect most commercial profilers will NOT offer DI profiles for this very reason. If they do, there will always be a "user beware" aspect to applying them to your very own stage rig.
Display MoreThe regular Full Rig profiling process underwent a bottom end tweak Sambrox says starting with 2.5 firmware. So that should be the same throughout all the firmwares since. Unless I am mistaken. I do not hear differences.
Starting with 2.8 firmware there is an additional profiling process that allows you to profile a Guitar Cabinet. The Kemper can then isolate this from the Full Rig and create a DI (direct injection) Profile. You can use this to go straight to your Real Guitar Cabinet on stage and therefore NOT send the profiled cab into the real one. But you CAN use the Full Rig simultaneously out another port to, say, the House PA. This way you can use your real cabinet for the stage if thats the tone you like.
This said, lonestar likes the Full Rig, as do I. I think DI profiles should be done BY the person who owns the Guitar Cabinet they want to use on stage. This way it truly sounds identical to the full rig they've profiled. Using a commercial rig's profile will certainly not sound identical, due to all the variables: mic, placement, signal chain, cable quality, Kemper settings, etc.
Therefore I suspect most commercial profilers will NOT offer DI profiles for this very reason. If they do, there will always be a "user beware" aspect to applying them to your very own stage rig.
I think the problem (for want of a better word...) with turning Cabs off and playing through a guitar cab up to now has been that the Profiler only has an estimation of the cabinet part of the profile to go off, so the results are less than 100% realistic. The new way of profiling captures the signal post power amp but pre cab, albeit with the cab still connected to the amp so that the interactivity between the power amp and cab is also captured. Running this "DI" profile through a clean solid state power amp (such as those built in to the Power Head and Power Rack) into a guitar speaker replicates the signal much more realistically, enhancing the Kemper plus guitar cab experience. You can then profile a second time, this time capturing the signal post cabinet as per usual, which then allows the KPA to subtract the DI profile from the Studio profile (as they're now calling the full profiles), leaving the pure cab. This in turn means that you can mix and match Cabs with different profiles and get much more accurate and consistent results. You could then make your own profile using your own cab, then merge the Cab with the commercial profile. This way, you'll know that the sound you're hearing on stage is the same as through the FOH. Or imagine you've tweaked your Rig, but wanted to swap out a mic as you might in a studio. Well, you can, just by changing the Cab part of the profile (just requires multiple passes on the profiler's part, once he's set the mics up). I know this has been theoretically possible already, but the results have been less than perfect. I'm well looking forward to seeing what creative uses commercial profilers can otherwise come up with
Cheers,
Sam
I know Pete's Profiles has worked on some of the DI's before the KPA had the new profiling algorithm but up to now as you said, splitting the Rull Rig was known and even explained by CK in multiple posts as being an "arbitrary separation point" since you aren't independently profiling where the break between the parts actually are. Also, there was some discussion of the effect of the speaker load on the amp electronics, so if you do NOT profile you very own Amp/Cab, someone else's speaker load could very well be affecting things differently depending on what the makeup of you amp is, and whether your cab has differences (wood density is an obvious one)
Good explanation for me tho, Sambrox, thanks!
Sambrox, our bad, it's 2.6:
http://www.kemper-amps.com/pag…mplifier___Downloads.html
It's in the English Addendum Reference Manual I found noodling around the Support pages.
I just bought the D-pack. I got the other 2 as soon as my KPA landed at my door. All 3 of these packs are great. The D-pack is turning out to be my most used. I normally go for Marshall & Fender tones & I created a few rigs with those tones in mind using packs 1 & 2. When I loaded in the "D", I found clean, crunch & solo tones that I've never used before. I never had access to those amps. I REALLY dig these tones. I'm getting the tones in my head but only better! Kinda like "hi-fi" versions of what I usually go for.....Life is good!
Well, I don't think that the lack of accuracy in excluding the cab portion of a profile is responsible for the absence of the "amp in the room" effect, whatever it is. What would change with the new profiling methodology would be the sound accuracy respect to the exact contribution a specific cab can bring to a specific rig, not the realism of sound.
Please stop me if I'm missing something critical here
Well, I don't think that the lack of accuracy in excluding the cab portion of a profile is responsible for the absence of the "amp in the room" effect, whatever it is. What would change with the new profiling methodology would be the sound accuracy respect to the exact contribution a specific cab can bring to a specific rig, not the realism of sound.
Please stop me if I'm missing something critical here
Agreed. The improvement is only for the use of a "guitar" cab.
ZAp, I was maybe not clear enough in my statement... what I mean is that an "old" profile with the cab excluded doesn't sound less "in the room" when used with a guitar cab, just different in tone since the cab portion of the profile is not accurate.
Hope this makes sense.
Makes sense.
ZAp, I was maybe not clear enough in my statement... what I mean is that an "old" profile with the cab excluded doesn't sound less "in the room" when used with a guitar cab, just different in tone since the cab portion of the profile is not accurate.
Hope this makes sense.
Perfect summary. 
In the room, or not in the room. That is the question.
Larry, could I hold your head in my hands while I try my new amp in my room? 
