Kemper vs. Real Amp Test - Cameron CCV

    Could it be that the percieved difference between KPA and the (miced) real thing is the influence of "the room"?
    (Assuming we al know comparing an amp in a room to a miced one is Apples and Pears)


    To my understanding KPA can not capture effect of room reflections.
    The real thing, Even closed miced, there are is always some "room" in the sound.


    What may second that, is a personal observation....i cant explain, is that the KPA sounds great on my reference monitors, and always crap on headphones.
    I know of no other sound that does that. Any sound through either my monitors or headphones sound a bit different, but the "core" is always the same....not with the KPA.


    Gets me thinking maybe the room my monitors are in give it just that natural "room" it needs..beats me :)
    Btw, focussing on eq curves to compare seems very narrow to me. Getting a sound to to amplitude on certain frequenties shouldnt be that hard.....you can get a trumpet in the same range as a guitar...but it would still sounds like a (badly eq Ed) trumpet.

    The difference between the KPA and a tube amp are not so important for you. Ok.


    But


    I did some tests with 2 bass preamps to avoid any room effect and sent the results to support (i opened a ticket some months ago). Some clean settings were spot on but the rest didn't and they lacked the bottom end you would like for the bass.

    Quote from Job Posthuma

    Btw, focussing on eq curves to compare seems very narrow to me. Getting a sound to to amplitude on certain frequenties shouldnt be that hard.....you can get a trumpet in the same range as a guitar...but it would still sounds like a (badly eq Ed) trumpet.

    Yes, but you're talking apples and oranges. EQ modeling is effective when both instruments share the same timbre, and a guitar and trumpet don't.

    I have noticed a slight "room effect" with clean tones.. But my issues with bass response, different mids = there with direct profiles as well (Same issues quite a few are having). It's even more emphasized with bass and happens when profiling some bass amp simulation too -- if the sim is good, I usually end up with a profile with the same deficiencies as when profiling miced up tones. Some guitar tones also bring this out more than others. It also depends very much on what you are playing how much you notice these differences.

    Quote from Dimi84

    I have noticed a slight "room effect" with clean tones.. But my issues with bass response, different mids = there with direct profiles as well (Same issues quite a few are having). It's even more emphasized with bass and happens when profiling some bass amp simulation too -- if the sim is good, I usually end up with a profile with the same deficiencies as when profiling miced up tones. Some guitar tones also bring this out more than others. It also depends very much on what you are playing how much you notice these differences.

    If you could overemphasize the frequencies that are lacking during profiling, it makes sense that that should add them back in. The trick is to find a way to add just those frequencies back in before the profiling process. For example, with a plugin like FabFilter, the EQ curve shows you which frequencies are lacking or overemphasized, so if you could add the output from an EQ matching plugin into the loop of an amp prior to profiling and simply boost the frequencies that are not sufficiently represented from within the plugin, that should do the trick.

    Quote from Dimi84

    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.

    Kemper is the only device in the market that has accurate speaker interaction factored in the profile. When the amp is profiled at the same time as the speaker that information is baked all together in one profile. On the other hand other modelers approximate the speaker interaction because it's simply impossible for them to figure it out unless you as a user is willing to measure speaker resonance etc and few other measurements.


    If you own another modeler and buy commercial impulse response no one is telling you what the resonance of the speaker is so you can tell your modeler, if it has a parameter for speaker resonance (I think AXE FX II has such a parameter,


    So if you think there are discern-able differences between the KPA profile and the recorded tone of that amp, you will be shocked at the difference any other modeler will have between Modeled amp into an impulse response, if you were to bring that real world amp and load it into the speaker used for the Impulse response. It's probably safe to say that they will sound almost nothing alike except that they will sound like a guitar into some speaker.


    Before I bought the Kemper I read up about this stuff and this is what I got from the AXE FX creator


    "There are certain aspects that simply can't be modeled and require user intervention. For example, a speaker has a low-frequency resonance. A tube amp will create a higher output at that resonant frequency. The Axe-Fx has no way of knowing what that resonant frequency is and defaults to a value that is common for the speakers that are typically used with that amp."

    An interesting side discussion might well be "what is the best use of the KPA"?


    My world consists almost entirely of live gigging. Getting the tone of a particular cover is really easy with the KPA, and the weight and size of the live rig is simply amazing as compared to my old VHT tube rig.


    It is my understanding that the KPA is even more useful as a recording tool although I am not certain how or why. It seems like the KPA was designed originally for this purpose since the "performance" features were developed after the initial release (although they were obviously designed in from the beginning as is indicated by the positions on the chicken head knob ;) ).


    I still find it impossible for anyone here or any other place on planet Earth to pick out a recording made with the KPA vs a recording made with a real tube amp when the recording is an entire song with all parts present.


    As with all things, YMMV.

    Quote from Dean_R

    So if you think there are discern-able differences between the KPA profile and the recorded tone of that amp, you will be shocked at the difference any other modeler will have between Modeled amp into an impulse response, if you were to bring that real world amp and load it into the speaker used for the Impulse response. It's probably safe to say that they will sound almost nothing alike except that they will sound like a guitar into some speaker.


    Have you ever tried to combine the amps of another modeler with the cabs of the Kemper? I have. As I mentioned earlier, I did it with the Axe FX and the result was amazing. When I used the same amp model in the Axe FX that was used in one of Guido's profiles, it took me about 15 minutes to make them sound so close that you'd be hard pressed to tell which was which. No joke. Since then, I've used the Axe FX's built-in IR capture utility to capture some of the Kemper's cabs and I have to tell you, it's truly awesome having a perfect reproduction of a Guido Bungenstock profile entirely in the Axe. However, there's no way I could've reproduced that without capturing the IR first.

    Quote from ColdFrixion

    Have you ever tried to combine the amps of another modeler with the cabs of the Kemper? I have. As I mentioned earlier, I did it with the Axe FX and the result was amazing. When I used the same amp model in the Axe FX that was used in one of Guido's profiles, it took me about 15 minutes to make them sound so close that you'd be hard pressed to tell which was which. No joke. Since then, I've used the Axe FX's built-in IR capture utility to capture some of the Kemper's cabs and I have to tell you, it's truly awesome having a perfect reproduction of a Guido Bungenstock profile entirely in the Axe. However, there's no way I could've reproduced that without capturing the IR first.

    Just thinking out loud but this is what is rather maddening to me about the KPA: The intellect involved in creating the device is clearly top notch, so how is it the KPA cannot match the Axe in amp modeling tone? I've never played an Axe but the sentiments are all over the web saying the amp tone of the Axe is generally more realistic than the KPA, but the KPA has a better feel (and many other superior features). Even Kemper's original intentions was to make a superior modeler but later turned to the concept of a profiler. So surely Kemper must be highly experienced in the study of modeling in addition to profiling. It just doesn't seem logical that there should be any audible shortcoming in the KPA if some other products have seemed to come closer to matching real amps. Again with the disclaimer we are not talking across the board, any audible discrepancies between an emulator and a real rig are usually isolated to certain specific amps/tones.


    @ColdFrixion , out of curiosity, when did you first discover the mixing of the KPA's cabs with the Axe amp modeling, is this something fairly recent?

    Quote from SonicExporer

    @ColdFrixion, out of curiosity, when did you first discover the mixing of the KPA's cabs with the Axe amp modeling, is this something fairly recent?


    Very recently, in fact. Less than a week ago to be more specific. More notable people (fremen) have done it in the past, but they never really made much of a deal out of it. To me, it unlocks the potential for complete control over the tone stack at Kemper level quality. The Axe FX and Kemper have strengths that, when combined, work together beautifully. Of course, I'd like an all-in-one solution but the closest I've come is capturing the Kemper's IR's and using them in the Axe. I mean, that gives you outstanding tone, but you still need a Kemper to capture the IRs.


    I honestly don't know how the KPA produces such fantastic cabs but none of the top third party IRs I own can touch the cabs from my favorite profiles, and that includes OwnHammer. Certainly none of the stock cabs in the Axe FX can. Personally, I think the amp profiling in the Kemper is more than acceptable. The Axe FX's amp models are at least on par with the Kemper's amp profiles, but the real advantage to using the Kemper cabs with the Axe is, again, complete control over the tone stack.


    Mixing the Kemper's IR's with amps (from the AFX) other than the ones that the profile is based on has yielded some excellent tones, at least to my ears. For example, one profile I captured the IR from used an Orange amp originally, but when I combined that same IR with a Bogner amp model in the Axe, the results sounded excellent to my ears:


    External Content soundcloud.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Quote from ColdFrixion

    External Content soundcloud.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.


    Sounds very good.

    Quote from SonicExporer

    Just thinking out loud but this is what is rather maddening to me about the KPA: The intellect involved in creating the device is clearly top notch, so how is it the KPA cannot match the Axe in amp modeling tone? I've never played an Axe but the sentiments are all over the web saying the amp tone of the Axe is generally more realistic than the KPA, but the KPA has a better feel (and many other superior features).


    Sonic, with all due respect, I think that is a dissenting opinion which deviates from the mainstream consensus. In fact, that is just the opposite of what I have seen/read on non-affiliated sites, such as The Gear Page, GearSlutz, Rig-Talk, etc.


    If you survey enough threads on The Gear Page, you will find the overwhelming consensus is this:


    1) KPA has the best amp modeling
    2) Axe FX has the best effects


    Period, end of story, Will there be individual deviations from this consensus, obviously. This thread is a case in point. All of a sudden, with this thread, a new observational opinion has been put forth (which I believe is rather novel), which is that the Kemper has the best "cabinet modeling", while the Axe-FX has the best "amp modeling".


    While I have been following @ColdFrixion excellent and informative testing with great interest, including converting Kemper Cabinet Profile to an IR and mating it to an Axe-FX amp, I don't necessarily agree with his conclusions. The only thing I can see this test concludes is that the Kemper cabinet profile can be converted to an IR (which we all obviously already knew), and that FabFilter can do post-performance, post-recording tweaking to effectively EQ match two different digital amps to make them all but indistinguishable. Note that this doesn't occur live, in real-time, nor is it automatic.


    Cheers,
    John

    Take a look at my thread on TGP and judge the samples there for yourself. Those weren't tweaked or edited with FabFilter at all. Those samples were all strictly created with the Kemper and Axe FX. Nothing else.


    I used to be one of the people who thought the amp profiling in the Kemper was absolutely superior. It was only after I was able to replicate the very same tone using an Axe FX amp model within 15 minutes that I reevaluated that assumption.

    Quote from ColdFrixion

    FabFilter had absolutely nothing to do with the outcome of my samples. They were all tweaked and matched within the Axe FX itself.


    Hello @ColdFrixion,


    Then, I guess I am still just as mystified at your conclusion...that is to say, that this somehow shows that the Axe-FX has superior amp modeling. I don't understand how you logically get from Point A to Point B.

    Quote from Tritium

    Hello @ColdFrixion,


    Then, I guess I am still just as mystified at your conclusion...that is to say, that this somehow shows that the Axe-FX has superior amp modeling. I don't understand how you logically get from Point A to Point B.

    I edited my post because I'm pretty sure you were talking about the samples in this thread when I posted that, and those comments were in reference to the samples on The Gear Page. Check the edited comments.

    Also, keep in mind that I tried using the Kemper amps with the Axe FX cabs and the result was completely opposite(and quite disappointing). It's only when I tried it the other way around, using the Axe amps with the Kemper cabs, that I felt those cabs elevated the Axe tone several fold. I hadn't been fighting the Axe FX amp modeling, but rather I'd been wrestling with the cabs the whole time. That's how I felt anyway.

    Quote from ColdFrixion

    I edited my post because I'm pretty sure you were talking about the samples in this thread when I posted that, and those comments were in reference to the samples on The Gear Page. Check the edited comments.


    I understand. Thanks for clarifying. I was indeed talking about the samples on TGP in which you had tweaked with FabFilter.


    However, notwithstanding any of this...I am still a bit perplexed by your conclusion. Don't get my wrong, I think your experiments and tests are very cool, and will be very helpful for people wanting to import KPA Cabinets to use with their Axe-FX...but I just can't understand how your arrived at your initial conclusion (i.e. the Axe-FX has superior amp modeling). By the way, I am not even saying your conclusion is right or wrong. I just don't see how you where you can come to that conclusion given your tests.


    To illustrate my confusion, haven't we seen the exact opposite? That is say, I have seen multiple threads in which someone with a KPA has profiled and Axe-FX patch...and the results were essentially indistinguishable. Wouldn't that fact seem to throw a wrench into this discussion?