A little glimpse into the modelled Liquid Gain/EQ tone stacks!

    Quote from Steve5478

    I don't think so....Rather the opposite...I even ask myself if profiles sellers won't only provide us one rig per amp in the future ?!

    It should be possible and should be done like this. They won't have to spend time to set and profile every/many amp's tone possibilties cause LP will do it....They will just have to afford us a good profile with gain information and we will have the possibility to set how we want our rigs....

    I agree to an extent - but I think in reality it will not turn out that way over the long run.

    If Liquid Profiles fully do what they are intended to do, then we might only need one amp profile. But that might shift the focus to cabs and mics and mic placements.

    And I guess if the person doing the profiles don't just "blindly" vary the mic placements, then the optimum sound may require some tweaking on the amp controls for each given mic/cab/placement choice.


    It will be interesting to see which business the different profile sellers move into.


    Even so, liquid profiling I guess wouldn't work with pedals in front of the amp, so there is still that factor to consider.

    Well then Liquid Cabinets will be the next step? Line6 and Fractal have introduced that, lately. They call it different, of course, and it's basically a free mic placement. That's one major step for better "EQing", I think.

    Better have it and not need it, than need it and not have it! - Michael Angelo Batio

    I've said this before, but Liquid Profiling is either one of two things:


    1) Simply a custom EQ (with EQ points and curves matching the amp in question's tone stack) placed before or after the profile. This will be nice, but nothing revolutionary. We can already apply custom EQ with studio EQ (pre or post profile), or really detailed EQ in the DAW (post profile). This still won't make the profile really respond to EQ like a real amp, as most tone stacks are between pre and post amp (hence interact with gain)


    2) Something deeper - if they've come up with something that can interact with the gain structure of the profile in the same way EQing a real amp does, then this could be great. Fingers crossed...


    One thing is for sure - there's no way they can actually insert the tone stack between pre and post amp stages (e.g. as most modern modelers do) to achieve this. Even a direct profile is the sound of the whole amp, you can't separate pre and post amp stages like you could with a modeled amp. So if Liquid Profiling is option 2, it would have to be something whereby the gain structure of the profile is altered "after the fact" (i.e. an "artificial" adjustment of the gain structure that was originally profiled). Could work tho. The existing definition knob does something like this, but in a very broad stroke.


    And if anyone in the know could comment on which of these 2 options it is, that would be great!

    Not in the the know as such, but that has never held me back before....


    I think it's option 2 (to whatever extent it is modeled; I'm sure there will be debate as to whether 100% authenticity has been achieved).

    And I agree on your considerations following the two options.

    Some sellers purposes many different cabs with their profiles.

    The mic placement and type seems to stay the same. I guess they've got a methodology to obtain a repetitive result and i don't know if it would be good to have a tone of Profiles with these changes (i've lost some time playing and listenning to IR's and fed up with that, i don't want to go back in this waste of time).

    On the other hand, we are buyers too and i assume i won't put a lot of money and it'll be difficult for sellers to justify 120 profiles for 3 amps i can obtain by myself with only 9 profiles i tweak with LP now....

    The answer is the second point....

    Kemper already purposes EQ everywhere in the chain, they are not going to tell us "what an improvement" with such a simple EQ.

    I don't know exactly how it works (and i don't want to) but i'm sure that CK worked to have the true amp behaviors....

    As i understand it, the mid/bass/treble position is guesses by processing, for the gain position, we just have to indicate it.

    We will just have to turn the buttons, and all the crossover possibilities will be known with the same limits as the profiled amp....

    If it were nothing more than a custom EQ stack, they would’ve added it 10 years ago when they announced the idea. It would have been pedestrian.


    To me that, and the that you can refine profiles after the fact, says this is some thing else.

    “Without music, life would be a mistake.” - Friedrich Nietzsche

    Quote from Steve5478

    I don't think so....Rather the opposite...I even ask myself if profiles sellers won't only provide us one rig per amp in the future ?!

    It should be possible and should be done like this. They won't have to spend time to set and profile every/many amp's tone possibilties cause LP will do it....They will just have to afford us a good profile with gain information and we will have the possibility to set how we want our rigs....

    Although they should be able to provide a single profile to cover the full range of each amp there is still huge scope for variation via different speakers and moc as well as mic positions. I think profile packs will cover more speaker and mic variations in future rather than different amp settings.

    Quote from Ruefus

    If it were nothing more than a custom EQ stack, they would’ve added it 10 years ago when they announced the idea. It would have been pedestrian.


    To me that, and the that you can refine profiles after the fact, says this is some thing else.

    It took 12 years for USB Audio. Just saying.

    I love the idea of having gain control perform more realistically and a proper Cut control on Vox. Those are the two areas where the current controls would make me think there was a weakness to the concept. And it spilled over into a psychological mistrust of the tone stack to the point I didn't want to play with it at all....which compounded my perception of a 'weakness' forcing me to audition way too many like profiles instead of play more (even though I knew the logic behind my perception was the true weak part).


    As to profile creators turning out less versions of an amp I want. I think the LP improvements will let us do the fine tuning in real time twisting knobs, a much more rewarding experience than auditioning countless profiles that are almost identical except for incremental movement of the TMB & G settings. Leaving the profile creators to compete with each other by offering more speaker, mic and cabinet choices which are much more difficult and expensive to 'audition'.

    Quote from Michael_dk

    Not in the the know as such, but that has never held me back before....


    I think it's option 2 (to whatever extent it is modeled; I'm sure there will be debate as to whether 100% authenticity has been achieved).

    And I agree on your considerations following the two options.

    We KNOW there will be arguments on whether it is Authentic or not. First, Of course, it's not. It can't be. Secondly, As far as the old "holy grail" amps go, each and every one sound different. I've never had two that sound exactly the same. In the eighties, I always would run two marshalls and accentuate what I thought each one excelled at for a great tone. I'm more after feel. Also, we're gonna have a lot of people commenting on "authenticity" that have never actually played a lot of, or a variety of these amps at different volumes. The kemper does a far better job of a consistent mic'd sound than, actually micing up a speaker every night. I use IEM's and the consistency of the Kemper is a blessing for that.

    Quote from Guitartone

    https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkx2…V0PBd6Iaey?feature=share9


    Quote from Guitartone

    Screenshot of 27 of the Amps...

    Hey Guitartone !


    Can you answer my question from my other thread:-


    => have these 40+ "amp channels" all been component level modeled [like Fractal, Helix etc..] so their full Gain and Pre-Amp Stages and Full EQ Stacks are fully component level modeled (?) -or- is it some other proprietary "technique" (?)


    Struggling to find a direct/specific answer to this ... one way or the other (?)


    Thanks,

    Ben

    Don't think anybody at Kemper is going to disclose exactly how the did it. The full stack (incl. Gain) is modeled.

    Personally all what interests me is how it sounds.

    If something is too complicated, then you need to learn it better

    Like 1
    Quote from Kellerblues

    Don't think anybody at Kemper is going to disclose exactly how the did it. The full stack (incl. Gain) is modeled.

    Personally all what interests me is how it sounds.

    I agree ...... not looking for "trade secrets" or for Kemper to "reveal" anything :)


    ^^^ re: your comment ^^^


    "Modeled" can mean (a) each individual component in the Amps Gain and EQ stack was measured and modeled -or-   (b) we did it "another way" (?)


    Just trying to know which it is ..... no trade secrets disclosed either way.


    In the Tone Junkie Interview pre-release video, the suggestion / implication from C.K was that they had (a) "measured and modeled each individual component in the Amps Gain and EQ stack".


    Just seeking to find out if that is actually the case or not.


    Ben

    It will almost certainly not be individual component level modelling like Fractal and Line6. Those machines keep getting hardware updates with more and more powerful processors because the component level modelling is very processor intensive. Getting more accurate results needs more processing power. The Kemper uses very old tech but extremely efficient code to do things without the need for cutting edge chips. I would be very surprised if CK abandoned his methodology at this stage.