Classic Profiles vs. Liquid Profiles

  • What is better?

    What is easier to use?

    Do we still need classic profiles?


    Some ideas to discuss.


    I love tube amps - and own a lot of them - and I love the convenience of the Kemper since 2011!


    When I create some profiles for me (or others) and I want to use e.g. a Strat and a LesPauls.

    I'll create two profiles - one for the Strat and another one for the LesPauls.

    The amp settings (Gain, Bass, Middle, Treble, Presence) on the tube amp will be quite different and I may prefer different microphones (or combinations) for each guitar type.


    If I don't know about the used guitar type (and even the same guitar type - e.g. a Strat sounds not like any other Strat) I need to create a lot of profiles with different gain and tone stack settings.

    The user can then pick the ones which works best for the used guitar and delete the others - done.


    Now we have Liquid Profiles!

    Great - ONE profile can be used for ALL guitars!


    So do we have the end of 'classic profile'?

    IMHO no - both have there pro's and con's.


    The big pro for Liquid Profiles is - one profile to rule them all ;)


    The con's:

    1)

    We need a 'Liquid Model' for each amp type, some amps have different tone stacks for different channels, some have bright/normal inputs...

    Currently we have models for some amps - but not for all - I doubt there will ever be a model for all amps, incl. exotic ones.


    2)

    By using classic profiles the user needs only to select the profile which fit's best for his needs (guitar/style) - done.

    E.g. select one out of 30 bought profiles from the same amp (which different settings).


    Now the users needs to know how the amp works or need to spend a lot of time with trial and error.

    (I know some guitar players have problem to dial in a good Mesa Mark tone).


    It's similar to the IR scene - some sellers offer hundreds of IR's for each different angle and distance - other's offer one 'Liquid' IR where the user can move a virtual mic.


    3)

    My vintage Fender Deluxe sounds way different than a new one. The same is true for old Marshalls ....

    One 'generic Liquid' Deluxe or Marshall tonestack is again only an aproximation of the original.

    In some cases it may sound more authentic to use the classic profiles.



    So 'Liquid' Profiles are great!

    'Classic' Profiles are great too :)


    What do you think?

    (All trademarks are trademarks of their respective owners, which are in no way associated or affiliated with soundside.de)


    Great Profiles --> soundside.de

  • This basically :)


    "So 'Liquid' Profiles are great!

    'Classic' Profiles are great too"


    I buy profiles because I want a set of sounds that are a dialled in version of an amp. However I have always been very aware that tweaking the Kemper EQ wasn't authentic so I didn't really use it. So profiles worked for me or they didn't.


    I will still want a set of dialled in liquid profiles in any future packs I purchase. But I will also feel a little more comfortable that adding some mids, lowering the gainetc. won't drift too far from the original amps behaviour.

  • Erm I still think there is a misconception here....


    As I understand it - there is NO change to the profiles themselves or the profiling process. This is purely about applying tonestacks to a profile.


    So either a profile is created with the controls at 12'0clock and allocated a tone stack OR the controls are set differently and you retrospectively "burn" the tone controls to match.


    So there isn't really a choice to be made as you can apply tonestacks or use the previous generic tone controls - we have the best of both worlds.


    Your question is really - are you going to use the tonestacks or stick with the Generic Kemper tonestack? Point is, you can use both depending on your needs. I don't change sounds mid performance so I set and forget and hence makes no difference to me. Its only at the point of "finding" my sound.


    Does that make sense?

  • Dont often post on here but been a kemper user since 2015,

    always thought it was the best bit of gear i ever bought in

    45 years of playing. But i always had a niggling doubt though that

    there was just that last 5% missing and have been using tube amps

    a bit more this last year or so. The liquid profiles just add

    that last little bit and im converted again, just saved me a fortune on a

    new amp i was about to buy and this is only the first beta so can only get

    better. Please kemper add a two rock classic reverb tonestack.

    So yes liquid profiles v classic no contest.

  • I think you make some very good points, Armin.


    I definitely like the liquid profiles capability, and will likely prefer this. Haven't tested it yet. But there is the potential downside that suddenly it will depend on MY ability to dial in great tones, and not leveraging the abilities of the profile creators (there are obviously upsides as well). On the flip side, I've often run into the "this profile ALSO sounds good", leading to a lot of profiles on the kemper, more than realistically needed. I think liquid profiles will shift my mentality in a good way towards using the onboard controls more instead.


    To the extent that profile creators use different mics, cabs and placements tailored to the different sweet spots of the amp - that is also something we lose.

  • I've used the Kemper for 8 years or so, and still marvel at how great it is every time I turn it on. Just had an intense shootout with a Fractal FM3, and as wonderful as the FM3 is, it lost to the Kemper as the Kemper is simply more musical. It has captured my heart.


    All that being said, Liquid Profiling has really bent my mind on the Kemper, in most cases it has greatly addressed one complaint I had with the Kemper; the inability to accurately tweak an amp profile by using gain and EQ. There have been many cases where I could not find a particular tone I wanted out of a profile pack due to EQ settings, but Liquid Profiling has given a clean solution. In every case I have tried (only retrofitting standard profiles with Liquid), it has only made significant improvements in the models. Each model I tried I ended up saving as the improvements were so stark. And they were great to begin with.


    Another improvement was to the harmonic accuracy of overdrive and distortion in a profile. I never did feel that Kempers quite got overdriven Fenders right; being the owner of an original 5F6A tweed Bassman, I'm very familiar with the tones. But I took a Tone Junkie profile of a tweed Bassman and Liquidized it; boom, there it was. Stunning. Having that proper tone circuitry in the middle of the amp topology is a BIG deal in harmonic generation.


    I have always not been fond of the effect the Kemper has on a profile as the previous profiles "assumed" a gain structure from noon on the Gain knob on up. This made the overdrive texture of the amps sound more Marshally to me with the gain above 5. The Liquid profiling appears to keep the gain range of the profile within its limits to the actual amp, and I much prefer this. All the EQ and gain settings then are accurate to the actual amp design, and higher gain isn't estimated.


    The only down side with Liquid Profiling is we now need to do what modeler users are so familiar with; beg and plead for a particular model of an amp that doesn't exist. I'm eagerly waiting for a Dumble ODS Liquid setting, as well as a Heritage G12-65 imprint. But I'm not complaining at all.

  • Didn't try it yet myself.


    In any case from what I hear some studio guys use the summer break to grasp all the stuff you can do now..And from what I understand LP will have huge implications.

  • I prefer profile packs to be small with details for each profile provided - I don't want to have to sift through 30+ profiles to find 2 or 3 that are useable.


    I think to some degree, profilers include a high number of profiles to help them justify the price the pack is sold for - even though a lot of them won't get used by buyers. I think swapping cabs and changing mics and placements also helps to increase the pack size, but for me I don't need that variety, or at least I think I don't.


    Just use one cabinet that sounds good and using the mics in the traditional spot and using a classic single mic or dual mic combo should suffice. I agree with Armin that the guitar type used is important for Classic profiles (I raised this a few months ago in a separate thread), as the amp setting chosen can be influenced by the guitar being used to dial in the tone before profiling.


    For Classic profiles I therefore would like to see the following with any effects included specifically dialled in for each profile:


    • Strat clean / Strat crunch / Strat High Gain
    • Tele clean /Tele crunch / Tele High Gain
    • LP clean / LP crunch / LP High Gain
    • ES clean / ES crunch / LP High Gain

    If two profiles were done per option above - that's a pack of 24 profiles without mixing cabs / mics / placements.


    LP Profiles can be made in three ways:

    1. At the point of profiling; or
    2. By converting an existing Classic profile where the original profile settings known
    3. By converting an existing Classic profile where the original profile settings are not known

    Now method 3 is sub optimal and I would argue is not a true LP. Also, as there is a recommended way of setting the amp when using method 1, I think LP profiles produced using this method are better than those created by method 2 (although I don't think this has been confirmed by Kemper).


    Using method 1 to create LP profiles removes the variable of what guitar was plugged in, as the profile settings are (I think) gain at max and tone controls at noon. You also don't need to profile at different settings (i.e. clean, crunch and High Gain), as the Kemper controls are now more authentic- allowing the focus on variety in the pack being different Cabs, mics, placement (if merited).


    For LP profiles I therefore would like to see vendors clearly indicate which method (1, 2 or 3) they used to create the LP profile.


    Going forward, I think vendors will use LP for amps they are newly profiling; however, established vendors have quite large back catalogues of Classic profiles that they will no doubt seek to convert using method 2. I'm hoping no vendor opts for method 3.

  • I do believe that there is a pre and post liquid profile era ... now with this new thing there will be a rush from vendors to get packs out ... just because of this new thing my bet is that ppl will only be interested in buying these new liquid profile embedded rigs ... which makes sense I guess


    That does not mean that the "old" ones are bad, not at all ! but this new kid on the block makes us tick and more curious about the future sounds


    Raf

    Kemper stage with 2 mission pedals (in a Thon line 6 FBV case) and a Zilla 212 (K-100/V30) , SD powerstage 700 poweramp

  • I think a good idea would be to store the settings for each profile in the amps comment field in RigManager, so it would be easy to "Liquify" a profile at taste or in case of updated Luiquid Masks for that specific amp...


    And for those with existing Luiquid Masks do Liquified Profiles at option, since, like you already said, the settings (and mics and positioning of those) of profilers like you are the reason to buy those profiles.

  • I think a good idea would be to store the settings for each profile in the amps comment field in RigManager, so it would be easy to "Liquify" a profile at taste or in case of updated Luiquid Masks for that specific amp...

    .

    This!

    I've always appreciate to find amp's setting in profiles. Paid or free. Now it becomes Important!

  • I've never did profiles for others.

    All the profiles I did are for me, to avoid complications when recording or to avoid the need to bring amps outside the studio if I have to play somewhere.


    I'd say that, after +10 years using KPA Generic gain and EQ to eventually tweak profiles, I will probably continue to use Generic KPA for profile created by sombody else.

    I'd probably prefer to use Liquid version only for my amps profiles or someone else profiles of Amps I have/had that I know how they work. But who knows, let's see... It's a good thing to have a chioce.

  • I predict we'll see tone stack profiling in a future software release. It's not rocket science. If you assume the tone stack to be linear in response (a safe bet for 99.9% of cases) then it's a matter of prompting the user through setting changes as frequency response is measured repeatedly. Kemper has already solved the tough problem by being able to capture non-linear behavior.

  • I predict we'll see tone stack profiling in a future software release. It's not rocket science. If you assume the tone stack to be linear in response (a safe bet for 99.9% of cases) then it's a matter of prompting the user through setting changes as frequency response is measured repeatedly. Kemper has already solved the tough problem by being able to capture non-linear behavior.

    Its far from a safe bet. Most tonestacks aren’t linear AND are highly interactive. The position of the Treble control has a significant effect on the bass and middle controls downstream.

  • I predict we'll see tone stack profiling in a future software release. It's not rocket science. If you assume the tone stack to be linear in response (a safe bet for 99.9% of cases) then it's a matter of prompting the user through setting changes as frequency response is measured repeatedly. Kemper has already solved the tough problem by being able to capture non-linear behavior.

    Tone stacks in most cases are anything but linear. If they were, Kemper’s generic stack would’ve behaved far closer to the real amp’s.


    The tone stacks aren’t profiled. They’re modeled.


    That may sound like a small distinction, but it really isn’t. By his own description, Kemper created profiling as an automated way to model an amp. It’s always been a static capture.


    They also said tone stacks were coming back in 2011….but couldn’t sort out how to do it. It may not be rocket science, but clearly it wasn’t easy.


    If CK released this as the answer, I’d guess an automated way is either impossible or far too cumbersome to do manually.

  • The liquid profiles are superior in that they can be used in the classic way as well. Though you can take an old profile and throw any stack on it, its authenticity in this regard would require knowing approximate values when profiled. The but if you profile with the new process, it's the same, except for inputing the specific values of the EQ. So if you like how the amp interacts using the liquid tone stack, use that. If not, use the generic EQ.

    Whether one is better or not really depends on what you are trying to do. For some amps, they are too flubby when the gain is maxed. But if the profile was taken with a gain of 7 or 8, pushing it a little further with the generic gain might work better, giving you more gain of the sound you got at 7 and 8.

  • I think your comments are extremely negative. Considering the changes/enhancements have cost you nothing (unless you are selling profiles).


    Liquid Profiling went from beta to final release which already included additional tone stacks, with more to come.


    I too have owned and do own many different amps and LP is the closest any modeller has come to creating one profile/model that spans the whole tonal characteristics of one specific amp.


    I find it much quicker to dial in the tone I am after with LP’s, than having to browse through a mountain of profiles to end up having to tweak them to my taste in any case.


    Your comments are thus null and void. Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth.