Kemper vs. Real Amp Test - Cameron CCV

    Quote from Dean_R

    The fact that you're unable to use or edit the Kemper and get a good tone out of it only proves your inabilities, with all due respect.
    I'm not going to be harsh, but by God, how can anyone not be able to get a good tone from the Kemper is beyond comprehension. Kemper should be renamed "Good Tones for Dummies" and it's honestly quite embarrassing not being able to get a satisfying tone from it. Thousands of players are getting stunning tones for the whole world to listen to and enjoy but all you can muster is congestion.


    I don't get why some people always try the worse case scenario and then claim that things don't work. If you haven't been able to learn the Kemper, then it's your fail! Move on or post some good tones that you produced with real tube amps, and


    I'll put my money on it that those tube tones that you produce with real tube amps will suffer from the same congestion and mosquito attacks you claim are because of the KPA.

    There have been many tests by now with different amps (with different people refining, for that matter) that show these differences though between kemper and amp. If I can reproduce these things pretty much every time I profile an amp (unless super clean tone) then I don't know what to think, really -- maybe I'm doing something wrong -- but it's not like support has given different advice to "refine better, with strong chords" on that end (which is good advice too if it comes to refining). Also @SonicExporer hears the effects in the clip I just posted. So there's a tube amp that does not suffer from the same issues we see with the profiles.


    All that said I don't think there's a substitution to profiling one's own amps and seeing what happens then. Perceptions of what a "good tone" is vary a lot, obviously, and I do think there are many who prefer kemper tones to the real amps to begin with. It's a different experience to play through already made profiles and then have one's amp next to kpa and be able to compare without any cab sound coming in the way -- which is why I strongly encourage people to do some research and profile themselves before any conclusions about KPA either away around. I think that's the real test, which is no wonder considering the company even having an A/B function, encouraging comparisons.

    Edited once, last by Dimi84 ().

    Like 2

    Also I'm totally open to being proven wrong. Well, can only share my experience and that's what it has been.


    If someone wants to do a similar DI comparison and the differences aren't there, then there would be some reason to think something's off about my approach somehow.

    Quote from Dimi84

    Also I'm totally open to being proven wrong. Well, can only share my experience and that's what it has been.


    If someone wants to do a similar DI comparison and the differences aren't there, then there would be some reason to think something's off about my approach somehow.

    There's nothing off with your approach, I've reproduced the same issues both with amps and with and with profiling a POD. And like you, I've reached out to other international industry professionals and they have shared they too have similar experiences.


    Seems quite apparent that a real amp is still prudent, if not outright required, for any serious recording.. Which is a terrible shame because the KPA is almost on the right side of the fence. But as long as the focus stays on adding bells and whistles and marketing instead of getting the core tone aspects properly ironed out, and as long as people keep drinking the marketing Cool Aid, the device may never evolve to the right side of the fence.


    The device has the features, the feel (decent enough anyway IMO) and nice usability design. But all that is sadly meaningless if the core tone has shortcomings that prevent it from sounding like a proper amp for desired application.


    Sonic

    Quote from Dimi84

    -----All that said I don't think there's a substitution to profiling one's own amps and seeing what happens then. Perceptions of what a "good tone" is vary a lot, obviously, and I do think there are I many who prefer kemper tones to the real amps to begin with....

    I agree 110%. I am the most skeptic that ever lived within the confines of reality and unlike @SonicExporer
    didn't have to start a thread about the size and specifics of the box that my kemper came in to confirm that my Kemper wasn't a counterfeit from China possibly :D8o


    When I purchased the Kemper, I had one thing in mind. If I couldn't profile my own amps and gear similar to what I've seen in demos on youtube, where it was almost impossible to tell the profile from the Amp being profiled. believe me, the Kemper was going back and getting returned, on day one.


    I bought the KPA in August 2015 and I profiled one of my small amps (Black Star HT5). When I A/B, the accuracy was stunning. in some cases there was some slight differences in the Bass frequency tightness that to me were insignificant considering that the essence of the amp and all of its character were there.


    At this point and based on what you're saying since I haven't profiled recently, in my mind, there are two possibilities, either
    1-The KPA profilling algorithm was changed since 3.0 to improve the Profile over the amp/ I honestly doubt it but it's possible. The doubt comes from knowing how important it was to CK for the profile to sound the same, not better or worse as he himself put it.


    2-Some basic user error that some are not paying attention or missing something.
    The only way this can be assessed is if someone who's having a major difference can show a video and a walk through of their failed profiling process so that it can hopefully be contrasted with the ever so many successful profiling sessions that are constantly still being documented in Video and audio.


    We simply can't ignore the thousands of successes to come to a conclusion but instead use the few failures to draw our conclusion. .

    @Dean_R I have sent Kemper DIs used for long and short comparisons (they didn't as for the long ones, but I made these too) of different amps profiled, how profile vs amp sounds, ect, ect, the profile included.


    They could try dial in a similar tone with an amp (most likely they have the environment to do so easily), profile and run my DIs. That would clarify a lot. If they can get the amp closer than I do, then there's probably something weird going on here (I highly doubt it, but cannot dismiss any possibility completely).


    If not, then it possibly points to issues with profiling. They have the files and want to see what's up, so that's cool on that end.


    I also agree that we cannot just use failures to draw conclusions. If one amp over 10 did this I wouldn't have much concern. But it's not 1 in my profiling. It's axe fx, pods, marshall, laney, tubemeisters, oranges... So if I'm doing something wrong, I would think, I am doing it with everything I profile, and that's not in only 1 environment, but different countries even.


    Then when it comes to successes.. I don't see many such tests in the above format if any. Do you have a link I could listen to? Like a DI test, right, when different things are played -- exact same playing -- through both amp and profile. If these exist and do not show the differences I see, that would also clarify a lot.

    Quote from Dean_R

    in some cases there was some slight differences in the Bass frequency tightness

    It could be part of the effect I'm talking about. Was kpa "tighter"?

    Quote from Dimi84

    It could be part of the effect I'm talking about. Was kpa "tighter"?

    No, the amp was actually tighter. I also remember there was some sort of condenses when I posted and read about it. the amp was slightly tighter and it really wasn't a deal breaker for those who noticed it by any mean. It just meant that with little slight EQ you would get both to be almost identical.


    Is it possible that KPA was modified to make the amp tighter? that could be, but to be honest for me personally, it's not worth starting my profiling sessions because. In the last couple of years I've collected some amazing amps profiles, that address all my needs and even if the KPA is now a little tighter than the actual amps it profiles, it still sounds the closest possible solution to get the recorded tube amp tone.

    Edited once, last by Dean_R ().

    Quote from Dean_R

    No, the amp was actually tighter. I also remember there was some sort of condenses when I posted and read about it. the amp was slightly tighter and it really wasn't a deal breaker for those who noticed it by any mean. It just meant that with little slight EQ you would get both to be almost identical.
    Is it possible that KPA was modified to make the amp tighter? that could be, but to be honest for me personally, it's not worth starting my profiling sessions because. In the last couple of years I've collected some amazing amps profiles, that address all my needs and even if the KPA is now a little tighter than the actual amps it profiles, it still sounds the closest possible solution to get the recorded tube amp tone.

    If you'd send me one of your favorite kemper profiles (if commercial i may have it already) I am confident I'd be able to reproduce the tone using other devices too.


    How that goes: I'd turn the Kemper cab into IR, then load it into something like an axe, whatever that is good enough. Then tinker with amp to get as close as you can. No need to tone match the whole tone, in many cases, or some times not even use a direct kemper profile (I find the kemper to be better than I had assumed when it comes to separating cab from amp). I think few would tell the difference. I could get good results with amp matching too with bias. Have posted clips of this stuff, taking some of the best KPA profiles and matching them close to perfection.


    Of course the difference is bigger when you play through the units and not just listen back to the recorded tone. It's not the same. As I keep saying everywhere, small tonal differences = bigger ones in feel. So this is not to say that you can just replace kemper with axe or bias or something for 100%. Surely not. If you only care about the audience, ok, but if how things "feel" matters to you a lot, no, I don't think any of these devices can replace the kemper or one another.


    So yea, I do think kemper is not alone in being able to produce such quality. I think the main difference between kemper and axe in terms of quality tends to be the cabs. But it's not so much the quality of cab modelling, but rather that most IRs in Axe are not as good as what you get with the best of kemper profiles. You can produce IRs very close to what kemper does with cab modelling though, pretty sure about that. What makes kemper special for me is the whole idea, how straightforward the process of getting tones is.


    The issue with kemper (again, I am referring to my own profiling) for me has been is that because post-profile controls tend to be relatively limited, it's difficult to correct the profile and get closer to amp if the profile if off as you see in the video. If the matter is just about some EQ being slightly off and you can boost bass or whatever -- yea, these are not that important differences, I agree.


    But if it's off in other ways, and certain frequencies that you cannot dial back in or cut out using kemper controls, and these results to quite a different tone, that's when I have issues. The most prominent example is the "raspyness" you will hear in the tubemeister clip. It's a tone similar to what I'd get if I put a wah in front of my amp. For whatever reason these particular frequencies are accentuated during my profiling and dialing them back is a near impossible task through my own efforts.


    Anyway, I'm waiting to hear back from support :)

    Edited 3 times, last by Dimi84 ().

    Quote from SonicExporer

    Good grief, just like the other clip at around 1:40 and again around 3:00 you can hear how terrible the replication is. Congested and thin. Un-natural as well. This really sticks out in a mix when you start layering things.
    Anybody who can't hear this really doesn't understand tone, that's all I can say. If you think the KPA is reproducing a real amp sound then wonderful. however plenty of proof has now been shown in many cases that it simply does not replicate adequately. And the sad part is, if some other people got out of the world of denial or marketing spin and instead put time into working on the actual problem (testing, support tickets, etc) maybe the tonal deficiency would actually get fixed. For live or hobby use maybe the KPA is ok for some people, but for serious recording these tonal deficiencies can be a real impediment. Some applications more than others.


    Sonic

    The ramble above implies that Kemper team doesn't work with professionals, don't understand the tone and is basically deaf. All wrapped in pseudo polite passive aggressive package. By the way this community solved many problems before by working with CK and the team, many features have been added by request of this community/pros. I can't speak for CK but I'd rather not waste my time for some random guy coming out of nowhere, claiming that his Kemper can't cope with his professional requirements. However, Dimi may actually make them have a look with all these videos etc. (I can hear the difference)
    By the way, I'll share a secret here - we know. Kemper doesn't replicate everything 100% perfectly, most people choose to not to dwell on it. Personally, if I have a need to 100% replicate an amp I turn it on if I have it on hand - it is that simple. If I don't, I turn Kemper on and settle for 95% (being pessimistic) in much more convenient package.

    Quote from mdeeRocks

    The ramble above implies that Kemper team doesn't work with professionals, don't understand the tone and is basically deaf. All wrapped in pseudo polite passive aggressive package. By the way this community solved many problems before by working with CK and the team, many features have been added by request of this community/pros. I can't speak for CK but I'd rather not waste my time for some random guy coming out of nowhere, claiming that his Kemper can't cope with his professional requirements. However, Dimi may actually make them have a look with all these videos etc. (I can hear the difference)By the way, I'll share a secret here - we know. Kemper doesn't replicate everything 100% perfectly, most people choose to not to dwell on it. Personally, if I have a need to 100% replicate an amp I turn it on if I have it on hand - it is that simple. If I don't, I turn Kemper on and settle for 95% (being pessimistic) in much more convenient package.

    If the Kemper team could fix that issue in the highs, the KPA would be almost perfect (add the spring reverb and it's perfect).


    Now, it's very good and in my opinion much better that the rest of digital amps and preamps, but not as good as my three amps for recording. It very good for everything else but I'm still using my tube amps for recording.


    Please, please, fix this issue if possible...

    Quote from Dimi84

    @SonicExporer Same DI as before, this time with a tubemeister 18 amp.


    External Content www.youtube.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.

    There are some obvious differences in parts and not so obvious differences in other parts. It's not cut and dry across the board.

    Quote from ColdFrixion

    There are some obvious differences in parts and not so obvious differences in other parts. It's not cut and dry across the board.

    Yea, I agree. Often depends on the playing.

    Quote from pacocito

    Please, please, fix this issue if possible...

    Then it'd be good to open support ticket if not done so already, plus maybe include my video (with yours, if you have any uploaded) for reference (they have links to my videos, as well as DIs, audio files, ect, ect).


    Cheerios :)

    Quote from Dean_R

    2-Some basic user error that some are not paying attention or missing something.
    The only way this can be assessed is if someone who's having a major difference can show a video and a walk through of their failed profiling process so that it can hopefully be contrasted with the ever so many successful profiling sessions that are constantly still being documented in Video and audio.


    We simply can't ignore the thousands of successes to come to a conclusion but instead use the few failures to draw our conclusion. .

    This is not accurate. If someone knows what to listen for they can hear the problems in the majority of the clips online, including those being portrayed as exact matches. There are those of us who have pointed this out already, with examples. Many people apparently either aren't listening on proper devices or don't know what to listen for. I instead contend there are not many successful profiling sessions. I myself have issued challenges in other threads to replicate some specific cranked hot rodded 80's Marshall tones (along with examples) and have yet to receive even ONE viable result from anybody. There were only a few which relied on either EQ matching or combined profiles,and even those were not a proper replication. They did however at least sound more real, but again, all this shouldn't be necessary. Anyway, even some of the marketing hyped producers are having to resort to tricks to get the KPA to sound right, they have admitted as much in interviews. Again, all documented. So to claim, or imply, that somehow this adds any credibility to the KPA in replicating an amp properly is simply misleading at best.


    On the tone front I have not wavered from day one, the KPA has a congested/raspy aspect to it and/or something wrong going on in the gain structure. The fallout from this also impacts solo notes, they are noticeably thin compared to the real amp. All of this stuff is portrayed in the videos Dimi provided, and it follows the same thing I've encountered when profiling and user other profiles. Yes, some profiles are impacted more than others, but the essence is still there in varying degrees and is not IMO trivial for serious recording purposes as it impacts the end result in a way that doesn't sound real to my ears.


    Sonic

    Quote from SonicExporer

    This is not accurate. If someone knows what to listen for they can hear the problems in the majority of the clips online, including those being portrayed as exact matches. There are those of us who have pointed this out already, with examples. Many people apparently either aren't listening on proper devices or don't know what to listen for. I instead contend there are not many successful profiling sessions. I myself have issued challenges in other threads to replicate some specific cranked hot rodded 80's Marshall tones (along with examples) and have yet to receive even ONE viable result from anybody. There were only a few which relied on either EQ matching or combined profiles,and even those were not a proper replication. They did however at least sound more real, but again, all this shouldn't be necessary. Anyway, even some of the marketing hyped producers are having to resort to tricks to get the KPA to sound right, they have admitted as much in interviews. Again, all documented. So to claim, or imply, that somehow this adds any credibility to the KPA in replicating an amp properly is simply misleading at best.
    On the tone front I have not wavered from day one, the KPA has a congested/raspy aspect to it and/or something wrong going on in the gain structure. The fallout from this also impacts solo notes, they are noticeably thin compared to the real amp. All of this stuff is portrayed in the videos Dimi provided, and it follows the same thing I've encountered when profiling and user other profiles. Yes, some profiles are impacted more than others, but the essence is still there in varying degrees and is not IMO trivial for serious recording purposes as it impacts the end result in a way that doesn't sound real to my ears.


    Sonic


    Sonic, with all due respect, I seem to remember a blind test of random A/B sound samples, put together by @ColdFrixion, in which you failed to accurately identify the KPA from the reference amp.


    With regards to Dimi's most recent YouTube clip, I admit there were a few specific parts where I could hear a distinguishable difference...but IMHO this tends to be the exception to the rule, and may be a result of a less than ideal capture of the profile, and/or refinement process. Not to mention that, as well intentioned as Dimi may be, there is certainly the possibility of selective, confirmation bias. After all, Dimi is deliberately trying to showcase clips which highlight a perceptible difference between the KPA profile and it's associated reference amp.


    While I applaud Dimi's efforts to bring Kemper's attention to what he perceives to be a deficiency, I just don't hear what he and a few others are reporting (the latest example, notwithstanding) ...at least in the majority of blind A/B tests i have heard. Nor, does it correspond to my personal experience when I profiled my own amp.


    Cheers,
    John

    Fair enough, if you don't hear the issues I can't argue otherwise. That doesn't mean the issues don't exist. Contrarily, I and others have found the issues are more prevalent, including also some commercial profile mfr's. It's definitely not isolated to a small set of amps or individuals' profiling efforts.


    I don't recall failing an A/B test as I generally don't participate in them. People have tried to lure me into them but I don't bite because they are usually done so as traps & distractions and serve absolutely no purpose in helping solve the very real tone issues that exist within the KPA.


    If Kemper fixes these KPA tone issues I will gladly become a die-hard advocate and defender. But not in the current state. As Dimi said, people who are concerned with this matter really need to start opening Support Tickets. There's plenty of evidence to refer to.


    Sonic

    I don't see any confirmation bias on @Dimi84s part. He's earnestly tried many amps in many ways and continually runs into the same issues, which are issues echoed by many others that profile. Let's not be dismissive of this or assume it's his error. He's shown a very fair, objective, balanced, and pragmatic approach.

    Quote from MementoMori

    I don't see any confirmation bias on @Dimi84s part. He's earnestly tried many amps in many ways and continually runs into the same issues, which are issues echoed by many others that profile. Let's not be dismissive of this or assume it's his error. He's shown a very fair, objective, balanced, and pragmatic approach.


    I am not being dismissive of this...nor did I imply that Dimi was operating in any way other than in an honest an honorable fashion. Nevertheless, the fact remains that confirmation bias happens to the best of us. Also, I might point out that despite a 950+ number of replies to this thread...the number of KPA owners that are convinced there is an obvious and unambiguous difference between a well-made KPA profile and it's corresponding reference amp, are remarkably small and select few.

    Quote from Tritium

    Not to mention that, as well intentioned as Dimi may be, there is certainly the possibility of selective, confirmation bias. After all, Dimi is deliberately trying to showcase clips which highlight a perceptible difference between the KPA profile and it's associated reference amp.

    Well, these test videos (laney and tubemeister amp, both DI) were done to see what the result would be. I then listened back to see what's up. I agree that there may be many biases at play. I try not to let confirmation bias factor into what the result is though, which is why I have arrived to structuring the tests in this manner, with a DI, so that even perceived differences in "feel" resulting to different playing through profile vs amp will not affect the end result.. and perhaps maximize or minimize tonal differences between amp and profile.


    Also these tests don't even contain leads. I know (well, I strongly believe) these would show differences rather clearly in both of these tests. If I had set out to deliberately showcase differences it would have been more conductive to the cause to only include playing that shows them the most. It'd be the same as someone making tests where the playing is set out not to illustrate the more important differences that may exist. I think it was a fail not to include leads as they are essential. But there are examples of single notes in the tests, and being quite busy, I thought they were adequate as they were (definitely more leads should be included in future tests).


    In regards to blind tests: I can construct blind tests where pickups are changing (even real amps, for that matter, in some cases) one after another, and few would even know there's a difference at all. If you start eliminating 1) were changes are made 2) include certain type of playing that is not very revealing, depending on what part of the signal chain we are talking about/product characteristics 3) not have a DI 4) have very smooth transitions and volumes matched, imho, it's rather easy for people to mix things up. But this isn't too telling in this case, which I why I don't do these tests. Such a test certainty does have its value, absolutely, but is not best suited when it comes to my purpose in this case.


    Also I can definitely do a blind test of that nature as well when I have time.


    Lastly, about refining: I've done what kemper instructed. Also tried running the same DI through kemper. Also tuning lower, tuning higher, running EQs through refining, changing amp parameters while refining, inserting EQs post profiling to see if I can eliminate the "raspiness" I see that way. So I highly doubt my profiling in general fails due to bad refining. I tend to reach a point where it cannot seem to get closer (depends on the amp tone).


    So if there's something making my profiling not work as it should chances are that it's something else, it seems to me. Kemper has my DIs, other clips, profile files, enough information to look into this further. I hope to hear back. They can run the DIs through one of their own amps and profile and see if the same thing happens. If the tone is similar and the differences are not there to this level, there's strong reason to think something is wrong on my end.


    Now if your profiles were close enough, that's great. I don't have any issues with that. Great for you; I hope I felt I'm on the same boat on that end; that's where I'm trying to reach, and documenting things in the process, sending to Kemper, seeing if things can get better, whether on my end (where the issue is with my profiling somehow) or kemper firmware, if that can be improved.


    PS: I think confirmation bias is hard to totally eliminate, which is why tests have to be well structured :) That said I think it goes both ways. I think I could replace my Orange OR50 with a JCM while in kemper A/B mode and some would still think the profile is close enough :)

    Edited 2 times, last by Dimi84 ().

    Like 2

    Also I am glad the kemper software team is open to examining these files I sent.


    It takes time to do these tests. And 1) I am busy as heck 2) health not the best. So it takes quite a bit to be doing this.


    So thanks to them for taking all this seriously, being open to testing things out, even so many years after release and even if not many have opened support tickets for this :)