Dont foret what i said about Dan man, thats the same as going to the studio /getting amps profiles for yo and getting the tones you want too and Sin maybe also but needs DI's..see i was onto it too 
Great READ all of this man!
Just make sure we get some Ceddy vocals on this new album
Ash
Woah there. Do not do this. I'd much rather if there is a problem that Kemper know about it and fix it and that Cederic achieve what he wants with the equipment he has.
@Cederick - I will echo others here. You have to profile the real thing that sounds and reacts how you want on record rather than trying to make other profiles sound and react like something they are not.
Deleting comment based upon other post edits from the OP
Ceddy, remember a couple o' months back when you excitedly posted that you'd finally found a tone you felt you could really use?
Well, I was very happy for you and said so right away, but you know what? It sounded "scratchy" to me. Plenty of articulation / high-end detail, sure, but also a tad harsh and scratchy up there. I figured, well, that's what Ceddy wants, and he's happy, so I'm happy for him. I wasn't going to bring a wet blanket to that party.
This accentuated treble, IMHO, is what's accumulating, the more you combine guitar tracks, to the point that there's no more available energy / space up there for the snare, tom attacks, cymbals... even the kick's click.
So, it was no surprise to me that the MW Profile worked so well. Chalk and cheese, mate. Now, given this, I'd say that just opened up a whole new world of Profile choices for you man. You could say you've come full-circle, in a way, since the time when you were chasing that "elusive" trebly tone.
Anyway, great to see you feel (as do I) that you're making progress, matey. All that re-amping, and all you were doing was inviting the same issue back every time, IMHO. No wonder it did your head in!
I love the unit itself, but I haven't really understood how it was supposed to work. While I do know that most profiles are just untreated miced up amps, maybe some people like those sounds, and they certainly work for some uses. But I have sort of adjusted my ears after those sounds, not caring about tweaking them in post process, and therefor I have struggled to get sounds I really like (wihch means, I've been stupid) and also my mixes in general have suffered because I have adjusted my ears after these sounds and therefor made complete garbage thin sounding mixes.
HOWEVER this thread has learned me a lot, and I have begin to think more about what happens AFTER the profile is done.
Actually, as of right now as I write this, a profile maker has contacted me and we're working on a profile thats taylored for me. 
I gave him DI and a refernece track ,and then he sent me a bunch of profiles, I found one that sounded right in the ballpark. 
Then I used Isotope Ozone to see where the EQ differs the most. 
Then I added 3 EQ blocks in the post section (I wish the fourth wasn't reverb exclusive!!!) and mimiced Ozones matching as much as kemperly possible.
And now I'm definitely on the right track. Honestly, I dont just want a 100% EQ matched profile of something else, I do want something that has the same feel, but still a sort of uniqe sound, so the fact that Kemper CANNOT eq match 100% is not a bad thing in this case
Check above post
Yeah I know, I've been folling MYSELF all this time. Out of laziness, but also inexperience.
Nobody else have fooled me with their "telephony profiles"... They just wasn't mix ready.
But that still makes my head spin around when I think about Joshs "mix ready" profiles... thats even more telephony than some untreated...
Oh well, I dont want to talk bad about them, maybe I use them wrong, in the wrong context. Those profiles are made for downtuned chugga chugga guitars, maybe thats why my E-tuned guitars playing high up sounds weird? Maybe!
So yeah, I have something going on with a profile maker on the forum and I'm pretty stoked about it.
Awesome, mate. I'm so happy for you. 
Display MoreTwo points:
1) I'm glad you came around to the view of getting a studio to create profiles for you, like I suggested in that other thread where you thought the profiles you were using were sub-par.
2) Have you ever tried @djemass John Petrucci profiles? I have used those profiles and then ozoned them to a/b against JP's tone.
It was very, very close.
There was very little need to max out the Ozone effect to 100%, which is what you are doing in those graphs you have posted. There really isn't a need to do that.
I looked up the Petrucci pack thread but the link was no available anymore 
Try this one: mark2cplusprofiled.jimdo.com
100% agree on this, best method by far. However I've found most people do not use this approach, Either out of ignorance or lack of skills or just plain being in a rush.
However, none of that has anything significant to do with the missing upper end gain structure elements in the KPA tones that some people are greatly concerned over. And this is not much of a post-processing matter Nor due to room effect (in terms of reverb or other such reflections). Rather it's largely due to what is captured from the original source. That said, I concur there are things that can be done in post. And that it is also very possible, maybe even more commonplace, now days for such additional post work in order to properly morph "amp emulator" tracks to sound more real. But make no mistake, back in the day (70's, 80's) any such work was definitely not commonplace, nor necessary, for proper sounding guitar tracks. All this fancy tweak-a-thon post stuff is more of a modern development. So I'm not of the thinking the KPA gets a pass on that premise. It still however remains to be determined if the issue is attributed to the KPA, or the profile techniques.
BTW, I mentioned distant micing earlier not in the context of reflections or room capture, but rather WRT actual frequency & proximity impacts, as well as the mic types used in that configuration. Since it seems most (if not all) profile makers appear to be in the habit of doing close micing only, I was merely raising the possibility that maybe the lack of distant micing could be playing a factor in what is being heard (or not) in the KPA profiles to some extent. That said, I doubt highly this will solve the upper gain structure elements that remain elusive.
Sonic
As far as gain structure, I wouldn't rely entirely on graphs. There are definitely some users who say there is a difference in feel versus real amps, and I concur that there are definitely frequencies that are not 100% accurately represented.
That said, there are definitely guys who use the Kemper for studio work with devastating effect. Often, the end results cannot be differentiated from real amps.
So I'm a little bit skeptical when people say they cannot get results out of the Kemper. It can be done, but a lot of the stuff we hear on studio recordings is on account of studio magic.
i.e. It is not just a miced amp.
Guys in the JP page there is a hidden nugget 
Cederick, I completely forgot to mention this....
A week or so ago I was searching around the forum about EQ matching and ran across a few threads where users discussed ways to get the KPA to capture the EQ-matched sound. There's some techniques where you can trick the KPA into capturing the sounds by routing through the DAW back into the KPA during profiling and/or refining process. This might be exactly what you are looking for, and if you can get the process figured out it would also answer the question as to whether the KPA can profile/reproduce those upper end gain frequencies or not.
Sonic
I don't know if anybody mentioned this but i have never done an album (my band has done 7 internationally released ones, and i have been session man on 20 others so i know what i am talking about) wherewe used one amp with one setting for all rhythm guitars. Traditionally we track 4 rhythm guitar tracks. With two different amps. And those two amps will have two different tracks that are differently miced.
The reason for this is that if you just use one amp with the same mic setup you will have a nasty buildup of the same frequencies.
My advice. Use at least two different profiles. One that has not as mich gain as you think it ought to have. This profile is there for the "twankiness" of the guitar. It gives the transients. The other amp can be a more high gain type.
Not sure I want a completely EQ matched tone, just something that resembles what I'm after, haha 
There's so much EQ going on in a matching that I dont think it's "healthy" for the sound quality
Not sure I want a completely EQ matched tone, just something that resembles what I'm after, haha
There's so much EQ going on in a matching that I dont think it's "healthy" for the sound quality
Well, you definitely need to start with a rig that has very similar attributes and tone. The less it has to be morphed by an EQ match the better. If you start with the correct tonal character then an EQ match can come out really quite good.
Of course we'll see what happens!
A few pointers for recording guitars, mixing, and mastering that have worked for me, the struggling apprentice:
Guitars:
-If i'm doubling a guitar track, I generally lower the gain. The doubled track adds thickness itself.
-Guitars need to occupy their own space in the frequency range. They need to "sit" in the mix.
a.) I generally filter out anything below 80hz as a starting point. You may not hear anything in that range, but as you add more tracks that useless low end jumble multiplies and gets in the bass guitar's way
b.) "subtractive" EQ generally sounds better/less harsh. Meaning, lower the shit you don't want rather then raising what you do want. Then, readjust/raise your level. It's tempting to go around adding mid humps..
c.) Overdub as few tracks as possible to get the sound you are after. The more you overdub, the more washed out the overall guitar becomes. Especially if you are not playing the part surgically correct each time.
Drums:
-Fire your drummer, always.
-Modern snare is compressed and I like mine to have a reverb on it that "pulls the sound to the right" If the bass drum needs to come forward and its already EQd well, compressor helps. Just go easy on the compression. You want it to help but not be noticeable. Pumping sucks unless you are making club music, in which case, still sucks...
Mixing:
-Gain stage everything before you ever start mixing. Optimal gain level on a DAW is about -18db on the meter. This is the equivalent to about 0db on a traditional analog VU meter. Digital plugins are designed to react like the analog ones they are made to represent. They want to see that old school -18db. The input gain has a major effect on how the digital plug ins behave. Once you figure out gain staging, you will find all the compressors, EQs, limiters, all start sounding better and more transparent. I gain stage using the pre section gain trim in Cubase. But, I try to keep my signal in around -18db from the start and keep my peaks around -11/-12db.
Plugins have an input and output meter for a reason. Its helpful to make sure they match after adjustments are made. You don't want an EQ to make something sound "better" simply because its louder after the adjustment. Make the adjustment and then check to make sure the IN/OUT level is still where it was when you started, THEN decide if it sounds better.
- MIX IN MONO FIRST - If your mix doesn't have space and separation in Mono, it's only going to sound slightly less crappy in stereo. Using this method also removes the tendency to try and pan everything in order to shove it in it's own space. This makes you focus on proper EQ and levels. Throw a plugin that does mono on the master bus and use this technique. When I first started employing this, I would get my mix sounding good and then have the realization I was still in mono! I would bypass the mono plugin and all of a sudden it was like I was standing in the room with my mix, with only the rough panning done during recording.
-Always leave the mix bus and master bus fader alone. Do not use these for volume adjustment unless you are going to master on the way out of the DAW. Even then, do this at the very last step, and use a plugin like a limiter.
-Unless you are going for a final mix straight out of the DAW, keep your end levels between that -18 to -12db mark for the mastering procedure. Headroom is always a good thing.
Mastering:
I personally prefer a standalone mastering suite. I happen to use Izotope's Ozone. This helps you commit to your mix, and if something absolutely must be changed after the mastering settings are decided upon, I can easily go back into the DAW and make the tiniest level tweak.
While I prefer mastering outside the DAW, It is faster sometimes to put your mastering plugins on the master bus and mix into them. This way, you can make adjustments much more quickly if you are just going for a rough output and hear how the final product will sound on-the-fly.
Lastly, take all this with a grain of salt. This is all stuff I learned from watching the pros do it and im still very much a beginner. I have spent hundreds of hours getting where I am now and I am just trying to condense what I have learned and share.
EDIT: Pull a song you really enjoy the sound of and put it in the software for reference. Some EQ plugins even have EQ matching that do an amazing job. One HUGE realization I had while going through trial and error is that commercial mixes are absurdly bright compared to what you are going to think sounds good as you are sitting there recording.
Thank you for sharing those tips, Sunshine. Good stuff, mate.
One thing:
Pumping isn't always bad. Used subtly-and-rhythmiclly on drums, it can take a groove to new heights.
More-heavy pumping and breathing can be used on exposed drum sections, such as "breaks", breathing(!) new life into them and acting as a kind of glue.
Same caveat as yours, mate - only MHO's, and I'm just a punk with toilet water behind his ears.
Display MoreThank you for sharing those tips, Sunshine. Good stuff, mate.
One thing:
Pumping isn't always bad. Used subtly-and-rhythmiclly on drums, it can take a groove to new heights.
More-heavy pumping and breathing can be used on exposed drum sections, such as "breaks", breathing(!) new life into them and acting as a kind of glue.
Same caveat as yours, mate - only MHO's, and I'm just a punk with toilet water behind his ears.
I should specify: pumping not being purposely utilized sucks. It does have uses, for sure. When the overall mix is pumping due to bad mix bus processing, or a compressor not being side chained properly is more what I was referring to.
No toilet water behind your ears, mate.
