Kemper vs. Real Amp Test - Cameron CCV

    Quote from SonicExporer

    I have no problems getting the tones with real gear, that's not the issue, never was. The reason I got the KPA was primarily to alleviate the inconvenience of going to the studio, and to alleviate complaining neighbors when using real rigs at home. In short was motivated by the ability to track from home at any hours of the day.

    Of course you have no problem getting the tones with real gear. I do recall readying when you wrote that you got much better tones with your POD 1.0. I hear you!!


    sometimes I also think I should give that POD 1.0 a try, my ears are getting worse as time goes by, I'm starting to like the Kemper better than my old Pod, I gotta get my hearing checked. That Pod 1.0 had a true old vintage sound that the KPA can never rival eh?

    Quote from Dean_R

    Of course you have no problem getting the tones with real gear. I do recall readying when you wrote that you got much better tones with your POD 1.0. I hear you!!
    sometimes I also think I should give that POD 1.0 a try, my ears are getting worse as time goes by, I'm starting to like the Kemper better than my old Pod, I gotta get my hearing checked. That Pod 1.0 had a true old vintage sound that the KPA can never rival eh?

    It's a POD 2.0, and when using various pedals and other tricks I employ I was still getting slightly more convincing tones than I was initally getting out the KPA. I've since managed to flip that around but still not there compared to real rigs yet. The POD's purpose was for songwriting and demos at home, for the reasons I already mentioned.

    Edited once, last by SonicExporer: (Spelling correction) ().

    The ability to capture the tonal signature of the actual amps too, surely, '80s Bro'?


    I mean, no other "modeller" can do this; even the best "models" IMHO don't even come close to the organic, life-breathing sounds this beastie can capture (Profile).


    One caveat: I haven't played every modeller out there, but have used modelling exclusively since POD 1.0 or Digitech GSP 2101 (whichever came first - I can't remember). I know the Digitech used 12AX7, but I think it might've combined that with modelling. Dunno. All I do know is that all the beasties I've owned, which includes every POD, could only dream of sounding like the Kemper.


    Hmm... just realised I used the Nobels Sound Studio™ even before that, which was a Rockman rip-off back in the late '80s.

    With Quantum, the Axe has actually come much closer. But the other modelers fall into the same fate as the Kemper, which is they do some things really well, others not. The Kemper's shortcoming are accentuated with high gain profiles. Given, since the profiling process is, relatively, in the hands of the user, it's very easy to make a shitty profile. It's not quite as simple as Kemper makes it out to be.


    When I first got the Kemper I was really into the tonal diversity, and I started putting in all the free and commercial profiles that were recommended to me or that I searched out. Everything sounded really good through my Gemini 1-P blasted in our rehearsal space. When I started recording direct I hit a few snags, chiefly that I started to get a lot of shitty digital grainy noise from a lot of high gain profiles, a hallmark of digital modelers. Recently I hit the 999 profile mark and had to downsize, so I went through everything to cut out the fat. Instead of trimming using the Gemini, I trimmed using my studio monitors at home, essentially seeing how everything sounds when I record direct. I went from 999 down to 230. I then inserted 560 more profiles (mainly from one profiler because I just downloaded everything he made) and tonight trimmed everything down to 199.


    Now, that doesn't mean that 1360 were all terrible. There were plenty that were usable but were just redundant, others I had no use for, but a large chunk were profiles that really just plain sounded like absolute crap. I'm talking hundreds.


    This doesn't mean I'm going to sell the Kemper and get the Axe (though I will eventually get the Axe to complement the Kemper), but it's not without its faults, even in comparison to other digital emulation devices. Kemper would be well served to change these frequency issues in a FW update, or if not possible then perhaps in a Kemper II.

    I definitely agree that the KPA has an organic quality that other modelers don't. I originally thought that was the product of the amp profiling, but I now believe it's the product of the cab profiling process.


    I run the KPA rack in the loop of an Axe FX II. A couple of days ago, I decided to disable the amp section of the KPA and use some of the Axe FX amp models with the KPA's cabs. Now, I've tried it the other way around before (KPA amps + Axe FX cabs) and was never impressed, but I noticed the Axe FX's amp models immediately sounded much, much better after running them through the KPA's cabs. So, I decided to try matching an amp by ear using the Axe FX and one of Guido Bungenstock's profiles. That profile uses an Orange Rockerverb, so I called up the Axe FX's Citrus RV50, which is a model of the Rockerverb. To my surprise, I was actually able to match it almost perfectly within about 15 or 20 minutes! Sounds unbelievable, but it's true. I tried it with another profile / amp model and found I was able to match them to the point that I honestly couldn't tell the difference, and neither could anyone else when I posted my findings on The Gear Page.


    This lead me to believe that the amp models in the Axe FX were perfectly adequate. What's lacking in every other modeler, however, are the quality of the KPA's cabs. Since I run the KPA in the loop of the Axe, I have the ability to use an Axe FX amp model in conjunction with either the KPA cabs or the stock Axe FX cabs. I can freely switch between either, and when I started switching between the two, it became painfully obvious what was lacking in the Axe; the quality of the KPA's cabs! To my ears, that was the secret ingredient.

    In my opinion, the Axe actually has outstanding amp modeling while the Kemper has outstanding cab profiling. The two together are insanely good. For me, that has become the primary reason I like having both now.

    Quote from SonicExporer

    It's a POD 2.0, and when using various pedals and other tricks I employ I was still getting slightly more convincing tones than I was initally getting out the KPA. I've since managed to flip that around but still not there compared to real rigs yet. The POD's purpose was for songwriting and demos at home, for the reasons I already mentioned.

    When you say compared with real rigs, I'm taking it that you mean what people refer to here as "amp in the room" or do you mean that for recording purposes you're still unable to get convincing tones?

    Not to stray from the main topic too far....


    The beauty of the KPA is EXACTLY that anyone can create rigs, cabs, etc for it (it would be nice if one could create FX as well CK ;)


    Of all my performance rigs (I use a total of around 10 with variations on those 10 for different songs), only one of them is from the original rigs shipped with the Kemper. All the rest are either from the rig manager, or from commercially purchased rigs.


    Additionally, the idea that the Kemper can not produce tones worthy of a great recording as compared to a real tube amp is simply silly squared IMO. This thread has already proven that beyond any reasonable doubt. Are there differences? Perhaps. Can these difference be heard in a side by side recording? .... only by some, then it is patchy at best. Can the difference be heard in a recording in context?.... come on .... really?.... I don't think so.


    This is doubly true for live performance IME.


    Finally, often I don't want to exactly match what the profiled amp sounded like. I want it "my way". The KPA offers me the ability to QUICKLY tweak a profile to a very beautiful sound (to my ears) with very little effort. As has been stated, you do have to start with a good profile that is well suited to your guitar and music style though. You aren't going to be able to get a good U2 sound from a 5150 profile ;)

    @OneEng1 the issues some people are complaining about is not across the board, it's on some very specific types of tones, usually involved higher gain and/or simultaneous preamp & output tube distortion on the reference rig.



    Quote from Dean_R

    When you say compared with real rigs, I'm taking it that you mean what people refer to here as "amp in the room" or do you mean that for recording purposes you're still unable to get convincing tones?

    Recording only, i have no need for KPA live usage, rely on real rigs for that.

    Quote from SonicExporer

    Recording only, i have no need for KPA live usage, rely on real rigs for that.

    Seems to be the opposite of convention: record with real amp to get the exact tone, use the KPA live for ease of portability and the audience can tell no difference. I understand you don't want to upset your neighbors, just commenting how lots of players get it for the opposite arrangement, which is what I think it's best suited for.

    Quote from SonicExporer

    @OneEng1 the issues some people are complaining about is not across the board, it's on some very specific types of tones, usually involved higher gain and/or simultaneous preamp & output tube distortion on the reference rig.



    Recording only, i have no need for KPA live usage, rely on real rigs for that.

    Well thanks for confirming, but this is really bizarre. KPA, not only based on my opinion, has the most authentic recording ready tones available from any device. Maybe you don't like authentic tones and you're into experimental stuff but have you heard what many players are recording with the KPA?

    Quote from SonicExporer

    @OneEng1 the issues some people are complaining about is not across the board, it's on some very specific types of tones, usually involved higher gain and/or simultaneous preamp & output tube distortion on the reference rig.


    So are you saying that for recording you can't get the types of tones you want? If so, can you point to a specific tone via YouTube / SoundCloud, or name off some songs, with tones you're after?

    My experience is similar to @ColdFrixion about the axe and kemper. Moreover I feel that the Axe has better amp modelling, while the kemper can sound more same-ish across amp models -- profiling direct tones this seems to be the case for me imho. That said there seems to be something in the kemper cab simulation.. do not know exactly what but it seems to contribute to the tone a lot. All that said my observations of where the kemper falls short of replicating some amp tones, they are true of direct profiles as well, which could point to the amp part being more an issue than the cab emulation.

    I get better tones with my tube amps than with the KPA so I use them for recording and the KPA for gigging and bringing with me a good copy of those tones.


    The KPA sounds good but I prefer the tube amps and I'm happier with the lows I get recording them. For gigging it's not so important to me. And I just underlined "to me" because, in this thread, there are many people satisfied with their tones trying to convince me that the difference that I'm listening (and many people running professional studios) is not so important. I could bring hear at least 4 studio engineers from my area who tried the KPA and didn't bought it. And they are as good as others using the KPA.


    There is room for improvement (more than one stage distorting is an example) and maybe a good start point, without any need of software development, could be a detailed guide on how to profile and refine and what tricks we can use to get the profiles as "spot on" as possible.

    Quote from pacocito

    I get better tones with my tube amps than with the KPA so I use them for recording and the KPA for gigging and bringing with me a good copy of those tones.


    The KPA sounds good but I prefer the tube amps and I'm happier with the lows I get recording them. For gigging it's not so important to me. And I just underlined "to me" because, in this thread, there are many people satisfied with their tones trying to convince me that the difference that I'm listening (and many people running professional studios) is not so important. I could bring hear at least 4 studio engineers from my area who tried the KPA and didn't bought it. And they are as good as others using the KPA.


    There is room for improvement (more than one stage distorting is an example) and maybe a good start point, without any need of software development, could be a detailed guide on how to profile and refine and what tricks we can use to get the profiles as "spot on" as possible.

    If you're using the KPA for recording, it's easy to get the profile spot on simply by EQ matching the KPA recording to a recording of the real amp and saving the match as a preset. You can then insert that preset on future recordings which use that profile. It's a lot easier to do stuff like this in the studio, after the fact, than live. And in my opinion it's a hell of a lot more consistent and convenient in the long run.

    I don't understand the logic behind using the Kemper for studio, but then crapping on it as a live solution because you "rely on REAL rigs" for that. It seems backwards to me. If you nail your studio tone with the Kemper for your final product, why wouldn't you want to bring it on the road? (Trivium, Bullet for My, Valentine, and many other metal bands do this.) It's so much more convenient in about 100 different ways. It has been a true revelation to me, and I'm not that busy of a musician these days. That's actually another plus to me. I don't have to store tons of crap at my home in order to make the 1 or 2 shows per month we play. I keep my main two guitars and the Kemper.


    As far as being at a disadvantage in the metal genre, I can agree that their are some really terrible profiles out there. On the other hand, when I find a good one I always have the same thought: "I could never get this tone without blowing the walls off this place" I also find some of the Kemper's tricks particularly useful for metal. The clarity, pick, and direct mix controls let me get the heaviest sound and still maintain single note separations to any degree I want. I love it. Andy Sneap seems to love it too. He even claims you can beat real amp tone with the Kemper's abilities. As far as the Kemper on the road, I would say it's mostly metal acts using them.


    Maybe i'm not on the same page here. I don't have a million dollar studio with mic lockers and boats full of preamps and compressors to compare the Kemper to. I would love to hear some final mixes from the engineers here that can help me identify the shortcomings of the Kemper. I only have listened to the records noted by people like Wagener, Sneap, and Tyler Cain, who is a country guy.

    Quote from ColdFrixion

    If you're using the KPA for recording, it's easy to get the profile spot on simply by EQ matching the KPA recording to a recording of the real amp and saving the match as a preset. You can then insert that preset on future recordings which use that profile. It's a lot easier to do stuff like this in the studio, after the fact, than live. And in my opinion it's a hell of a lot more consistent and convenient in the long run.


    :thumbup:


    I've trying eq matching during and after profiling to get better low response and works many times but including that eq matching (or any other technique) in the KPA profiling software and getting more accurate lows would be a lot more convenient than any other external tricks in the long run!

    Quote from pacocito

    :thumbup:


    I've trying eq matching during and after profiling to get better low response and works many times but including that eq matching (or any other technique) in the KPA profiling software and getting more accurate lows would be a lot more convenient than any other external tricks in the long run!

    Absolutely! I agree. One thing you can try... After performing an EQ match, look at the EQ curve and see where the differences lie. Then, add a couple of EQ's to the KPA's effects slot and try adding back in some of those changes by hand. Since the tones will generally be super close right from the start, you should see very minor differences in the EQ curve, so it shouldn't be a lot of work. Even if it's not exact, you'll get a general idea of the frequency range you need to focus on.

    I think all you guys who use EQ matching to get the profile closer to the real amp should open support tickets with screenshots of the EQ curves which get them closer, including short (preferably reamped) recordings of the reference amp, the "raw" profile and the profile with the EQ match.


    If this is a real issue, the mothership should be made clearly aware of this so any problems can be solved (hopefully!). This won't happen just by writing on the forum :)