Compaq successfully reverse engineered IBM-PC's Bios without ever having looked at the code. In fact, one of the conditions to avoid a lawsuit was that no one in the company who was working on the project could look at the code lest it expose them to legal trouble.
So does this mean creating pedals like the Xotic SL Drive are unethical in your mind ?
Yes... so what's your point?
Exactly what my rhetorical question implied: Artists are copying the sound of amps every time they record guitars through one, not just when they profile them. As such, I see very little distinction between a band that sell and license copies of their amp sounds and those who sell and license profiles.
Further, as pointed out multiple times, the audio that's produced by the Kemper is not a copy of the amp because the audio that's produced isn't solely the product of just the amp but of the mics, room, guitar, etc.
I disagree... mics are tools to use for capturing... the room... it's physically there.
In a perfect world, we would be getting the pure amp sound without a mic coloring it or the room having influence (kind of what PureCab tries to do).
So... mics and room are a physical necessity that cannot be taken out of the equation (PureCab tries that).
So... the KPA copies what it gets presented through a mic in a room. It was designed to do that.
Yes, and what it produces is not a copy of the amp itself but a representation of the amp filtered through a microphone and altered by room acoustics and the guitar it's connected to. It's hardly a copy of an amp anymore than a 2 second recording of a song on the radio using a microphone held against your speakers is a copy of a song. At best it's an extremely limited and altered representation of it. Maybe you think taking a picture of a movie in a theater using your camera phone is a copy of a movie, too?
So does this mean creating pedals like the Xotic SL Drive are unethical in your mind ?
I don't know anything about the pedal in question, but I don't think what Compaq did was unethical.
Exactly what my rhetorical question implied: Artists are copying the sound of amps every time they record guitars through one, not just when they profile them. As such, I see very little distinction between a band that sell and license copies of their amp sounds and those who sell and license profiles.
Yes, and what it produces is not a copy of the amp itself but a representation of the amp filtered through a microphone and altered by room acoustics and the guitar it's connected to. It's hardly a copy of an amp anymore than a 2 second recording of a song on the radio using a microphone held against your speakers is a copy of a song. At best it's an extremely limited and altered representation of it. Maybe you think taking a picture of a movie in a theater using your camera phone is a copy of a movie, too?
I don't appreciate your mocking tone!
And again - you are comparing apples to oranges.
We're not taking a picture of a movie. We're copying the sound of an amp.
You can sugar-coat this all you want.
And to close this senseless debate with you:
[...]
Yes, and what it produces is not a copy of the amp itself but a representation of the amp filtered through a microphone and altered by room acoustics and the guitar it's connected to. It's hardly a copy of an amp anymore...
Taken from the Kemper website:
"Profiling is a unparalleled technique to extract the exact tone and feel from any amp.
A profile does not only capture the amp itself ...
The result is as living, vivid and dynamic as the original amps...
...So close that you won’t be able to distinguish from the original."
The Profiler... ...grants you access to the rarest and finest amps on the planet."
Notice any hint of an irony here?
Exciting read, this thread. Thanks!
Speaking for myself i started out with a Line6 pod, found myself always using the dual rectifier model....saved up and got a dual rectifier.....got a bad back, profiled my DR on my Kemper.
That's 3 companies making money out of me playing basically the same sound. Everyone gets paid...except me 
Sorry for the interruption, please continue 
And again - you are comparing apples to oranges.
We're not taking a picture of a movie. We're copying the sound of an amp.
It's an analogy, and that's exactly what an analogy is; a shared resemblance between things that are otherwise unlike. A snapshot of a movie is not the whole movie and a snapshot of an amp is not the whole amp. That's why they're called snapshots and that's obviously the shared resemblance. You've already stated the flaw in your logic. You feel a great captured sound is the essence of the whole amp. Again, a great snapshot of an amp is not the essence of the whole amp anymore than a great snapshot of a movie is the essence of the whole movie, a snapshot of a song is not the whole song, etc. etc. Never mind that the snapshot isn't an accurate representation of the direct sound emanating from the amp due to the microphone configuration, room acoustics, guitar, etc.
Display MoreAnd to close this senseless debate with you:
Taken from the Kemper website:
"Profiling is a unparalleled technique to extract the exact tone and feel from any amp.
A profile does not only capture the amp itself ...
The result is as living, vivid and dynamic as the original amps...
...So close that you won’t be able to distinguish from the original."
The Profiler... ...grants you access to the rarest and finest amps on the planet."
Notice any hint of an irony here?
Yes, the irony is that you conveniently omitted the portion of the following sentence that didn't suit your argument:
"A profile does not only capture the amp itself but every aspect of the cabinet and microphone configuration as well."
It's an analogy, and that's exactly what an analogy is; a shared resemblance between things that are otherwise unlike. A snapshot of a movie is not the whole movie and a snapshot of an amp is not the whole amp. That's why they're called snapshots and that's obviously the shared resemblance. You've already stated the flaw in your logic. You feel a great captured sound is the essence of the whole amp. Again, a great snapshot of an amp is not the essence of the whole amp anymore than a great snapshot of a movie is not the essence of the whole movie. Likewise, a snapshot of a song is not the entire song. Never mind that the snapshot isn't even an accurate representation of the amp itself due to sonic filtering of the microphone, room acoustics, preamp, and guitar.
No need for your lectures bro.
Your persistence is enjoyable though. You've been proven wrong by the same company who markets the product - and yet you stick to your version. Read their statements - ALL of them, please
Label and perceive it anyway you want - I really don't care.
Yes, the irony is that you conveniently omitted the portion of the following sentence that didn't suit your argument:
"A profile does not only capture the amp itself but every aspect of the cabinet and microphone configuration as well."
Wow, why don't you lecture us about selective reading per excellence on your part? Kudos!
What about the rest of the statements? You actually managed to omit *all* of them?
"A profile does not only capture the amp itself but every aspect of the cabinet and microphone configuration as well."
I think it's suits very well, as it is a question of the emphasis:
"A profile does not only capture the amp itself but every aspect of the cabinet and microphone configuration as well."
But the sentence does not work the other way round: The whole KPA thing doesn't work without any real amp to be profiled.
Noone ever doubted that the KPA can capture more, as btw. any other modeler can. No amp makes a sound without a speaker. And to record any real amp, you need a mic.
This is self-evident. Again, I am not against profiling gear, it's just a question of how to argue FOR profiling in the end.
Why not just do it, instead of worrying about it all time? The Kemper is an example of disruptive technology. People will argue for and against such technology until the cows come home. They will also make use of their pet legal beagles, where they feel threatened enough and/or perceive a market advantage to be had thereby. The important thing is to use/like what you personally want, and to carry on doing just that - especially the Kemper! Peace
You've been proven wrong by the same company who markets the product - and yet you stick to your version. Read their statements - ALL of them, please
Context matters.
Fine
Wow, why don't you lecture us about selective reading per excellence on your part? Kudos!
It was selective quoting on your part.
What about the rest of the statements? You actually managed to omit *all* of them?
Why would I repost what's already been posted? I was adding what you omitted to put the other statements in context.
Display MoreI think it's suits very well, as it is a question of the emphasis:
"A profile does not only capture the amp itself but every aspect of the cabinet and microphone configuration as well."
But the sentence does not work the other way round: The whole KPA thing doesn't work without any real amp to be profiled.
Noone ever doubted that the KPA can capture more, as btw. any other modeler can. No amp makes a sound without a speaker. And to record any real amp, you need a mic.
This is self-evident. Again, I am not against profiling gear, it's just a question of how to argue FOR profiling in the end.
The original claim is that the KPA copies amps. My main contention is that the KPA is producing a limited representation of an amp based on the type of microphone used, the position it's in, and the guitar that's played. To me, saying the KPA copies amps without qualifying the statement is akin to me claiming that my camera phone copies movies.
Why not just do it, instead of worrying about it all time?
It's just a discussion. I doubt anyone here is seriously worried about it.
The original claim is that the KPA copies amps. My main contention is that the KPA is producing a limited representation of an amp based on the type of microphone used, the position it's in, and the guitar that's played. To me, saying the KPA copies amps without qualifying the statement is akin to me claiming that my camera phone copies movies.
Well, I didn't want to get into this actually, such debates simply don't work on the internet.
"a limited representation of an amp"
Really? Hm, dunno:
But as far as I understood the whole conversation, it was about if there's difference between profiling an amp and profiling a profile.
Your example of the movie screenshot doesn't work imo: Noone would not go see the movie because he has seen a photo. But someone going for the KPA might go for profiles instead of real amps. Just read here on the forum how many users even SOLD their amps. Do you think they are going to buy new amps these days?
Again, I have no problem with profiling, modelling etc. I just think it's fine to think about it.
"a limited representation of an amp"
Really? Hm, dunno:
[*]Some guys profile almost any setting of every channel.
[*]Others take sweetspots of each channel, which is by far more than just a limited representation of an amp. It is the essence of an amp if done correctly.
[*]We can take a profile and tweak it far beyond a snapshot, all results based on the amp that was profiled.
Given enough time you could profile an amp with every knob variation, but we're talking about hundreds of profiles. However, add to that the different combinations of microphone positions and types of microphones one can use and the number of profiles heads into the tends of thousands. There's also the issue of the guitar and type of pickups used to create each one of those profiles. In light of that, yes, I'd maintain that a single profile is an extremely limited representation of the actual amp it's based on.
But as far as I understood the whole conversation, it was about if there's difference between profiling an amp and profiling a profile.
The issue relates to the above. In a nutshell, the argument was that it's hypocritical to freely create a copy of an amp yet turn around and say you can't copy my copy of that amp. Some people chimed in and stated that profiling an amp involves adding value to the representation of that amp in the form of finding the most appropriate microphone, position/angle of that mic, cab, preamp, etc. Whereas profiling a profile adds no value whatsoever.
Just read here on the forum how many users even SOLD their amps. Do you think they are going to buy new amps these days?
I've read multiple accounts from owners of the KPA and Axe FX II who actually purchased an amp that a profile was based on because they fell in love with the modeled sound. So, yeah, it happens. I'm not saying it happens all the time, but I've personally read those posts.
Given enough time you could profile an amp with every knob variation, but we're talking about hundreds of profiles. However, add to that the different combinations of microphone positions and types of microphones one can use and the number of profiles heads into the tends of thousands. There's also the issue of the guitar and type of pickups used to create each one of those profiles. In light of that, yes, I'd maintain that a single profile is an extremely limited representation of the actual amp it's based on.
The issue relates to the above. In a nutshell, the argument was that it's hypocritical to freely create a copy of an amp yet turn around and say you can't copy my copy of that amp. Some people chimed in and stated that profiling an amp involves adding value to the representation of that amp in the form of finding the most appropriate microphone, position/angle of that mic, cab, preamp, etc. Whereas profiling a profile adds no value whatsoever.
I've read multiple accounts from owners of the KPA and Axe FX II who actually purchased an amp that a profile was based on because they fell in love with the modeled sound. So, yeah, it happens. I'm not saying it happens all the time, but I've personally read those posts.
This is statement is wrong on its own and it has been repeated a few times in this thread alone.
I have created plenty of great profiles without a guitar being ever connected during the profiling process. It is true that a guitar is not at all needed for the profiling process !
The optional refinement process can be used to feed your own (guitar) signal and your own playing style to enhance the profile with the attacks / dynamics not tested by the original profiling signal, which is not a guitar signal (the alien noise).
I have created plenty of great profiles without a guitar being ever connected during the profiling process. It is true that a guitar is not at all needed for the profiling process !
The optional refinement process can be used to feed your own (guitar) signal and your own playing style to enhance the profile with the attacks / dynamics not tested by the original profiling signal, which is not a guitar signal (the alien noise).
Right, and as with amps in general, a tone that's created using a guitar with Humbuckers, for example, will sound as it was originally intended when using a guitar with Humbuckers. Is that specific to the profiling process? No, though it's a factor to consider in the reproduction of a particular snapshot of an amp as it was originally intended to sound.
