New profiling (Better cab separation)

    Quote from nightlight

    Another good reason why the new profiling separation is good for us FRFR users: more cabinets.


    For me the reason is the opposite: lses cabinets :D I now can use several amp profiles with the same cab ... making the life for the FOH guy much easier :)

    MJT Strats / PRS Guitars / Many DIY Guitars -- Kemper Profiler Rack / Kemper Remote / InEar

    I do not want to impose ,but I have goot experince with IR.Must a bit tweaking /HP ,LP/


    Profiling cab with Kemper is same metod like making IR.I guess!


    Ask my for profiles to try.

    This sounds too good to be true! If Kemper can pull this through...oh man. They could of just released a whole new Kemper box with this major update and ask for another $1500 but they don't. That's really cool of them.


    So, I'm really excited about this so excuse my stupid question, but is it possible to try this out already and have any of the "big" profilers released any profiles to this update?


    Thank you Kemper.

    Yeah you can already try it with Version 2.8 (see announcement section of this board, Burkhard postet the link there)

    MJT Strats / PRS Guitars / Many DIY Guitars -- Kemper Profiler Rack / Kemper Remote / InEar

    Like 1
    Quote from pacocito

    My vision is just the opposite. Amps for recording at the studio and Kemper to bring those tones me with in a lightweight device (or Kemper for both things).


    my side of the story takes Pacocito's view even further: use KPA for both live and studio use.


    I don't need to support further the beauty of using the KPA in studio since it is already a solid, I dare to say, dogma.


    but here's what happened in a live situation. I always used plexis like profile with a mesa boogie 290 power amp and 2 2x12 V30 based guitar cabinet (SM57 micked).


    while doing the sound check my plexis was playing good but due to a bad acustic certain tones didn't come out. so, since I had in my kpa several profiles sounding like plexis, all I had to do is scroll between the profiles to find the one that got out the missing tones.


    so, that night a mesa mark IV did the job.


    if I had one amp, there could have been no way to get out of the thing. you know what I mean?


    michael

    "...why being satisfied with an amp, as great as it can be, while you can have them all?" michael mellner


    "Rock in Ecclesia" - new album on iTunes or Google music

    Quote from mdeeRocks


    Having said that, I am a bit confused where this development is leading to - IMO IRs are dead end and almost always sound bad and unresponsive, I am not sure how different this new feature is from slapping an IR over DI profile.


    If I understand this process correctly it's more than a regular IR because this "IR" has been profiled along with your setup. So there is a unique interaction between that amp and that cabinet that is being identified and also separated. To the person who said it sounds like "tone matching" it's not because this is dynamic.


    CK talked about how you couldn't know beforehand what the effect a speaker would be on amp circuitry, because electronically there was, to keep it lay (and lack of a better word), "back pressure" on the amp's circuitry by the speaker/s. Cliff of Fractal also spoke of issues with component proximity on boards and the unpredictable magnetic effects they can create which can't be known from just schematics. Which is a rare instance of where component modeling may not give you the exact sound of a particular layout of a circuit which differ from maker to even the same maker over time when layouts and components change.


    Profiling gets past this by analyzing the actual circuitry layout's response, of course, but with a 2 step profiling, the actual effect of the Cabinet speaker's effect on THAT particular amp. I would suspect this would not work with another amp not profiled with that same speaker. If the profiled Cabinets were not done with the same amp, then there will be differences in reproduction of the original sounds if there are differences in the original amp or cabinet.


    Ok, that's as far as I think I understand it. The bottom line is, for those seeking 2 routes, full stack to PA and separate DI to a stage cabinet, then this should be a godsend of same-ness not achievable before. It's a lot of work for a little thing, and I suspect many won't make actual use of it, but for professionals who gig this way I suspect they are driving this change with their needs.


    If I've missed the boat here, please correct me.

    Edited once, last by db9091 ().

    Like 2


    I think you're spot on, Dennis, and your post should be stickied and wikied
    for all those users asking later what this separation between full profile and DI profile is about...

    Quote from burningyen

    Does this new separation process account for the different impedance vs. frequency curves of different cabs? So if you swap cab profiles, will the amp profile be pushing a different virtual load?


    If I understand your question correctly, I don't see how they would be able to modify the cab characteristics based on what a given amplifier's typical output load should be. For example, if one amp requires 8 ohms and another requires 4 ohms, then a given physical cab would probably have different characteristics. It seems doubtful to me that the Kemper engineers will have a way to determine that. Just my guess though.

    Go for it now. The future is promised to no one. - Wayne Dyer

    My question goes to a slightly different issue. The load a cab presents to an amp changes depending on the frequency of the signal being sent by the amp:


    [Blocked Image: http://www.gregcutshaw.com/Electronics/Speaker%20Impedance.jpg]


    So if you took an amp-only profile of a head loaded with an 8-ohm 1x12" cab and then took an amp-only profile of that same head loaded with an 8-ohm 4x12" cab, those 2 profiles will sound different due to the different resonant frequencies of the cabs. I'm wondering if this is somehow accounted for in the new process.

    This is what I suppose about the interaction Dennis mentions:
    The electronic interaction of the amp with the speaker would be present in the DI profile. If we tap the speaker output of the amp with the speaker connected
    there will be a reactive load which will modify the sound of the amp, the DI sound will be different if we connect a resistive load.


    You could use a silent reactive load too like the TT Tonehound or Torpedo Live and Reload.


    I suppose that different speakers will have different impedance curves but the biggest difference will be between resistive and reactive loads.

    Try the new firmware yourselves guys, this way you can see for yourselves what happens.


    To my ears there is no more modeling of the interaction, instead it's a part of the amp block because you profile with the speaker. If you change the cab all you do is change the frequency response, just like using an IR. I would love to be wrong there, but it feels like a step back in tone and reaction authenticity when combined, but the ability to send DI to a real cab and signal with cab to foh is much better (even if foh gets a minor drop in authenticity).


    I'm hoping that profiles made the new way will be marked as such in the rig exchange in order that you can pick and chose what's most important to you (live experience using a real cab as monitor vs studio sound).

    One way i think this update is useful is that use a DI profile to a cab then mic that cab to your taste profile it with another kemper this works with two kempers. Great if you dont have amps to profile.... profile that profile i guess.

    Quote from burningyen

    Does this new separation process account for the different impedance vs. frequency curves of different cabs? So if you swap cab profiles, will the amp profile be pushing a different virtual load?


    Quote from Per

    postID=182685&#post182685' If you change the cab all you do is change the frequency response, just like using an IR.

    '


    If you change cabs, the second cab will have more than a different frequency response, won't it? It will have its own impedance curve, etc. It seems to me that swapping the cabs will still be different than changing real cabs. I agree with db9091 - I think this is primarily designed to allow someone to get sound of their personal amp, using linear amps and guitar cabs that are the same as used when profiling.


    But......if cab swapping sounds good, that is a bonus :)

    Quote from paults

    If you change cabs, the second cab will have more than a different frequency response, won't it? It will have its own impedance curve, etc. It seems to me that swapping the cabs will still be different than changing real cabs. I agree with db9091 - I think this is primarily designed to allow someone to get sound of their personal amp, using linear amps and guitar cabs that are the same as used when profiling.


    But......if cab swapping sounds good, that is a bonus :)


    To my ears no. It just sounds like if you change the cab it's just changing the frequency response, nothing else. Don't forget the amp block now contains a profile that has the effects of the particular speaker attached impedence curve built in, so I'm not sure there's any way to extract that from the whole mix and add that back into the cab side, that's what the old algorithm was trying to do and apparently wasn't doing how Christoph & team wanted.


    The new system isn't the same as the old system. There are pro's and con's to both, and the new system does add some opportunities for experimentation that weren't available previously.

    Quote from Per


    To my ears no. It just sounds like if you change the cab it's just changing the frequency response, nothing else. Don't forget the amp block now contains a profile that has the effects of the particular speaker attached impedence curve built in, so I'm not sure there's any way to extract that from the whole mix and add that back into the cab side, that's what the old algorithm was trying to do and apparently wasn't doing how Christoph & team wanted.


    The new system isn't the same as the old system. There are pro's and con's to both, and the new system does add some opportunities for experimentation that weren't available previously.


    And, it will be possible to do it both ways :)


    I've gotten some good results with changing cabs in the past, but, with the explosion in both Free and Commercial Rigs, I've not felt the need to do that for a long time.


    Still.....Options are a good thing!

    Yes, all I would like to ask in regards of this feature, is to keep the current (soon to be "old") way of profiling 100% unchanged and, more so, default. Being able to profile whole rig was a major tipping point when I bought Kemper and imo this is the feature which makes it unique. I really don't care about IRs and swapping cabs, it's a waste of time for me and final effect is usually mediocre and artificial sounding - all modellers except Kemper sound like that, and for me it renders them unusable. Having DI available on stage might be useful tho.


    On a rant note, I have a feeling that you going to create a major confusion for potential buyers by introducing IRs to Kemper. I am certainly very confused atm, as of where the development of the amp heads to. Sometimes less is more. Having said that, I can always stay on older firmware forever.

    Quote from mdeeRocks

    Yes, all I would like to ask in regards of this feature, is to keep the current (soon to be "old") way of profiling 100% unchanged and, more so, default. Being able to profile whole rig was a major tipping point when I bought Kemper and imo this is the feature which makes it unique. I really don't care about IRs and swapping cabs, it's a waste of time for me and final effect is usually mediocre and artificial sounding - all modellers except Kemper sound like that, and for me it renders them unusable. Having DI available on stage might be useful tho.


    There is no point in removing "old" way of profiling. Treat "new" way of profiling discussed here as an extension to what we have. You can use it, but you don't have to.


    Quote from mdeeRocks

    On a rant note, I have a feeling that you going to create a major confusion for potential buyers by introducing IRs to Kemper. I am certainly very confused atm, as for where the development of the amp heads to. Sometimes less is more. Having said that, I can always stay on older firmware forever.

    No confusion here! :) IRs are nothing new to KPA. Since CabMaker availability, it was possible to convert IR to .kipr and import it to KPA.

    I have tried the new profiling mode with my Marshall 6101 30th blue edition (EL34), by using the internal DI.
    It works, the sound is very similar but not 100% copy. I feel it's closer when catching the whole interaction between amp and cab.
    What really drives me nuts about this profiling is that something is missing around the mid lows, something i cannot correct with the built in eq, and honestly i don't feel comfortable using the parametric and wasting entier hours in order to get the right frequency and Q. Probably a proper tonestack would help.
    Owning the profiler since january 2012,what i REALLY miss is the legendary Tonestack Library.


    I understand that some features are hidden in order to crush the other companies, but it would be great if the advertised ones are finally finished and delivered.