New user here. With thousands of available rigs, I was wondering if the tone could easily be visualised while searching. Maybe there could be a simple EQ illustration along with the rig that would hint toward the tone. Along with the gain, it could be really useful. I've mocked up a graphic showing what it could look like. What do you think?
Maybe it's because I'm old, 😁 but I don't understand this now widespread refusal to use your ears.
And anyway, what would be the reference zero of such an equalization?
I kind of get what you're saying, but don't see how it would work well at all.
Is the EQ a studio, graphic or just BMTP? The cabinet associated with the profile has a huge impact on what you hear as well. I feel you're better off finding a type of amp sound you want (Fender, Vox, Marshall, Orange, Mesa, etc) and finding something you like.
Hm not the worst idea ever. Could also be hard to make useful though.
Can we stop the "use your ears" argument please? We all do that but sometimes it's nice to be able to sort by gain, and perhaps by tonal profile.
If these were templates that could then be refined then I think it's a great time saver and creative tool. You'll discover a whole bunch of amp/eq combinations.
I'm with Niko on this one. Not the worst idea ever. The little graphic eq icons used by the OP reminded me immediately of Seymour Duncan and some other pickup manufacturers where they put a comparative rating on their websites to give some general guidance to buyers. It isn't a replacement for trying the pickups yourself but it can definitely help narrow down the shortlist to try.
I can certainly see a use for it and benefits from having it HOWEVER, I'm not sure how such a thing could be implemented.
What is the baseline to judge against?
Would users be responsible for entering their own perception? One persons' seriously scooped is another persons' mildly cut mids.
Could a system be created where the profile is analysed against the Kemper default Crunch rig (or some other benchmark) and a rating applied relative to this?
I think it only makes sense and works in the real world if Rig Manager can automatically analyse and compare to a factory default benchmark. However, I don;t know whether this is a practical/technical possibility.
I can certainly see a use for it and benefits from having it HOWEVER, I'm not sure how such a thing could be implemented.
Agreed. Sounds like a great idea. It would be a lot of work to implement.
And sometimes a small change in EQ makes a huge difference. Sometimes not. Like a few dB change could be huge, but may be unnoticable in the small scale EQ diagram.
Hm not the worst idea ever. Could also be hard to make useful though.
Can we stop the "use your ears" argument please? We all do that but sometimes it's nice to be able to sort by gain, and perhaps by tonal profile.
Tonal profile?
Compared to what?
We are not talking about variations on a certain profile.
But to visually evaluate hundreds of profiles based on the level, we don't know measured based on what, of four frequencies???
It wouldn't be possible even if we passed a single white noise into the KPA, instead of a complex guitar sound.
Can we stop the "use your ears" argument please?
Yes. Yes. A thousand times yes.
After a while, you won't need a graphic EQ. It will be visualized in your head. It's all I ever see now. 
Tonal profile?
Compared to what?
We are not talking about variations on a certain profile.
But to visually evaluate hundreds of profiles based on the level, we don't know measured based on what, of four frequencies???
It wouldn't be possible even if we passed a single white noise into the KPA, instead of a complex guitar sound.
Yeah. Not saying it's easy or even possible to do :). The profiler do pass noise through the profiler when profiling, so IF it was possible it could be done by comparing the white noise input to the corresponding output. But then again EQ might be tweaked afterwards. So back to perhaps good idea, but difficult to implement.
Thanks for all the comments. A few answers from my point of view...
After a while, you won't need a graphic EQ. It will be visualized in your head. It's all I ever see now.
But can you see it in your head before you've heard it? The idea is to provide a quick way to make an educated guess of appropriate sounds for what you're looking for.
Maybe it's because I'm old, 😁 but I don't understand this now widespread refusal to use your ears.
As above. I agree that once you've listened you can use your ears but you can't until you've chosen one of more than 20,000 rigs. It would ack as a fast track to rig selection.
If these were templates that could then be refined then I think it's a great time saver and creative tool. You'll discover a whole bunch of amp/eq combinations.
You've got it!
I'm with Niko on this one. Not the worst idea ever. The little graphic eq icons used by the OP reminded me immediately of Seymour Duncan and some other pickup manufacturers where they put a comparative rating on their websites to give some general guidance to buyers. It isn't a replacement for trying the pickups yourself but it can definitely help narrow down the shortlist to try.
Exactly
I'm not sure how such a thing could be implemented.
What is the baseline to judge against?
Would users be responsible for entering their own perception? One persons' seriously scooped is another persons' mildly cut mids.
Don't know the answer to this one. Maybe the rig creator could have the option to add their subjective EQ, which would become an initial default. If you don't agree, this could be manually changed as per user once they've heard the rig and agree or not?
Agreed. Sounds like a great idea. It would be a lot of work to implement.
And sometimes a small change in EQ makes a huge difference. Sometimes not. Like a few dB change could be huge, but may be unnoticable in the small scale EQ diagram.
Completely understand. However, it doesn't have to be really scientific; just a useful tool that could be ignored or useful for those that like the idea.
In summary, we do use our ears and we also describe guitar tones as being bright, dark, flat, harsh, brittle, soft, round, muffled, resonant, squeaky or whichever adjective you come up with. Using words as meta could just as easily be used but an EQ graphic would fit into the GUI. Maybe the graphic could be simplified further so it doesn't get taken so scientifically? Each of the tree bands could only be divided by 0%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 100%
I kind of like the idea, but share most of the "reservations" that have been shared in this thread.
Another reservation would be that EQ and gain information like this only tells part of the story anyway - e.g. what is the character of the gain when considering the EQ curve, is the overdrive/distortion especially driven by the low frequencies, or the high frequencies? That sort of thing.
Though you could argue that "limited information is better than even more limited information" 
On the other hand, it might be more misleading than helping, I don't know.
Hm not the worst idea ever. Could also be hard to make useful though.
Can we stop the "use your ears" argument please? We all do that but sometimes it's nice to be able to sort by gain, and perhaps by tonal profile.
yes, please.
