Here comes Kemper. Bye Felicias

[mbenigni]

Fwiw, I absolutely fail to understand how anyone would not drool about having access to around 40 different tonestacks in their modelers (completely regardless whether the base tone is coming from a coded or captured amp).
If I had that all of a sudden, I'd very, very certainly drool about it all day long. For extremely good reasons.

As far as "coded amps" are concerned, you have a fundamentally different tonestack for each amp modeled. This new feature is of value in profiling/ capturing systems because previously the behavior of the "tonestack" (a pre- or post-EQ) was fixed.

Or do you mean you'd drool all day long about the ability to mix and match tonestacks from one type of amp with the topology, tubes, etc. of another?

 

[FractalAudio]

Is this entirely true, though? Not a rhetorical question at all - I genuinely don't know and would like to. If modeling/ capturing components "that don't have user controllable knobs in between" and simply running them in series is sufficiently accurate to the original system (e.g. guitar amplifier) then we already have most or all of the tools needed at our disposal. But does this accurately model interactions between each of those systems resulting from input/ output impedances, etc.?

(Asking for a friend with one of those god-awful Quad Cortexes.)

The linear components between the nonlinear stages influence the nonlinear stages. For example, even in a relatively simple amp like, say, a Fender Princeton, the tone stack influences the behavior of the stages preceding and following it. It influences the preceding stage by changing the load and influences the following stage by changing the source impedance.

IOW, you can't treat a tube amp as a cascade of isolated nonlinear and linear transfer functions.

 

[Jarick]

So what’s the upside of profiles in this new world if the modelers are so advanced they model every aspect of an amp and speaker?

Is it having access to unique amps? Or simply hitting a lower price point?

What I had initially seen as a benefit of profilers was modeling the full signal chain for simplicity, but it ended up being kind of detrimental because the speaker and mic part was such a crap shoot. Some profiles were great but most were mediocre to terrible.

 

[mbenigni]

The linear components between the nonlinear stages influence the nonlinear stages. For example, even in a relatively simple amp like, say, a Fender Princeton, the tone stack influences the behavior of the stages preceding and following it. It influences the preceding stage by changing the load and influences the following stage by changing the source impedance.

IOW, you can't treat a tube amp as a cascade of isolated nonlinear and linear transfer functions.

As expected. Thank you!

 

[MirrorProfiles]

Fine tuning virtual 12ax7 gain stages can be skipped if they can capture parts of the preamp that don't have user controllable knobs in between.
Many amps have several gain stages into a cathode follower before the tonestack, this part can be a single capture.
That way they can build an amp from several captured parts that sounds exactly like the real amp without fine tuning virtual 12ax7 models.

In some ways, modelling still has an advantage for the areas that don't have any controls. Being able to adjust voltages, bias, valve types or even component values for cathode bypass caps/plate resistors/cathode resistors etc are all things I feel like modelling should offer as part of their end goal (we may be some years off these things being standard, mind).

I think one of the main selling points about modelling is being able to easily do things that are not so straightforward in the real world. I think both platforms operate under their own constraints and if we just draw a line on purely making things sound and behave the same, then its missing so many possibilities on what could be done.

I know most people will scoff at that and say "I dont know what those things mean, why would I want to mess with them?" but I think modelling should keep pushing forward and tackle these variables that may exist outside of a typical "snapshot" of an amplifiers operating state.

 

[Jarick]

Also while I really admire how they are continuing to improve the original Kemper, I really do think a version 2 would be welcomed. I would like to see something with a larger screen, easier to navigate through all the options within menus and lists of effects, smoother and more stable connection with the computer, etc. also having more power and flexibility for effects would be nice.

 

[mbenigni]

So what’s the upside of profiles in this new world if the modelers are so advanced they model every aspect of an amp and speaker?

Is it having access to unique amps? Or simply hitting a lower price point?

What I had initially seen as a benefit of profilers was modeling the full signal chain for simplicity, but it ended up being kind of detrimental because the speaker and mic part was such a crap shoot. Some profiles were great but most were mediocre to terrible.

The bottom line answer is that there isn't really a consensus as to which sounds best... yet. There are still people who prefer the sound of a profiled amp or a profiled amp/cab/mic/etc signal chain. And yes, there are people who want to play emulations of very uncommon amps that aren't a priority for manufacturers of component-level amp modelers.

All things being equal, modeling is far more feature-rich than profiling/ capturing, but people are going to gravitate toward the devices that give them the sounds they want.

 

[laxu]

So what’s the upside of profiles in this new world if the modelers are so advanced they model every aspect of an amp and speaker?

Is it having access to unique amps? Or simply hitting a lower price point?

What I had initially seen as a benefit of profilers was modeling the full signal chain for simplicity, but it ended up being kind of detrimental because the speaker and mic part was such a crap shoot. Some profiles were great but most were mediocre to terrible.

Captures are also useful for packaging your favorite real amp's favorite settings easily into digital format. With other modelers it's either dialing those by ear or using tone match.

Otherwise unique amps/pedals. Fractal or Line6 can't model every amp and pedal out there so capture tech can allow for that.

But realistically, that's all for people who have a collector mentality. Like a day after the Mesa Mark VII was revealed there was already someone requesting a model of it on Fractal forums. People do this all the time for whatever newfangled (or "old but it was actually good") gear is shown on YouTube. As if you couldn't get pretty much anything from all the models already in it.

 

[Gearzilla]

But realistically, that's all for people who have a collector mentality. Like a day after the Mesa Mark VII was revealed there was already someone requesting a model of it on Fractal forums. People do this all the time for whatever newfangled (or "old but it was actually good") gear is shown on YouTube. As if you couldn't get pretty much anything from all the models already in it.

Iconography

 

[metropolis_4]

Here’s the thing about “accuracy” for me:

Last summer for my shows I was using Benson Monarch and Chimera Kemper Profiles someone else made.

I’ve never even seen one of those amps in person, so I have no point of reference for how they’re supposed to sound in real life.

The tones I had were so amazing and on-point I couldn’t wait to play again because it sounded and felt so good. And the MD told me several times how much he appreciated the work I put into getting the perfect sounds for the show.


So, what difference would an accuracy comparison make?

Would my experience have been any different if I suddenly found out those Profiles aren’t accurate? Or that they are accurate?

“All summer I’ve been basking in the tonal glory of these sounds, but an internet video said they’re not accurate so I guess I was wrong”

 

[metropolis_4]

I also don’t really understand the comparisons between Kemper, ToneX, and NAM. They’re completely different tools designed for completely different uses.

One is designed to be a stand-alone tool for live use, one is a pedal that can be incorporated into a pedalboard, and one is a plugin.


If I wanted a tool to use in a studio I’d go NAM.

If I wanted great amp sounds to incorporate with my favorite pedals I’d go ToneX.

If I wanted a single tool for live use I’d go Kemper.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

I think that’s the point though - your specific needs and what’s important may be totally different to someone else’s. Even on the stuff that doesn’t matter to you, better and more consistent accuracy wouldn’t make things any worse.

So even on the things that “don’t matter” there’s nothing to lose by things moving forward and improving.

 

[JiveTurkey]

I also don’t really understand the comparisons between Kemper, ToneX, and NAM. They’re completely different tools designed for completely different uses.

One is designed to be a stand-alone tool for live use, one is a pedal that can be incorporated into a pedalboard, and one is a plugin.


If I wanted a tool to use in a studio I’d go NAM.

If I wanted great amp sounds to incorporate with my favorite pedals I’d go ToneX.

If I wanted a single tool for live use I’d go Kemper.

The Stage is awesome! Tone-X was fine for a few weeks as a distraction and I am not going near NAM with a 10ft pole.

 

[yeky83]

Fwiw, I absolutely fail to understand how anyone would not drool about having access to around 40 different tonestacks in their modelers (completely regardless whether the base tone is coming from a coded or captured amp).
If I had that all of a sudden, I'd very, very certainly drool about it all day long. For extremely good reasons.

Btw the Axe-Fx has had this feature for years, I think there’s like 100 different tonestacks you can flip through.

as based on the patent linked here it's more complex than just pre/post EQ simulated tone stacks

How’s the patent related to Liquid Profiling and its flippable tonestacks exactly?

 

[Enchilada Jones]

..... Yet again, Kemper working on a bunch of s**t that no-one cares about. No one really wants to be able to mess with the tonestack in their profile. .....

"No one" ?!?
I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.

'No one' implies there are no people who want what Kemper has offered.
I think you have mistaken yourself for 'everyone'. There is probably a word for that. A clinically named diagnosis even.

 

[Jarick]

I don't understand why anyone would bag on Kemper for a FREE update to the only hardware device they've ever released with a lot of new functionality. It's not a new product or an add-on or anything, it's a new firmware that adds some big new features.

 

[nicolasrivera]

So what’s the upside of profiles in this new world if the modelers are so advanced they model every aspect of an amp and speaker?

Is it having access to unique amps? Or simply hitting a lower price point?

What I had initially seen as a benefit of profilers was modeling the full signal chain for simplicity, but it ended up being kind of detrimental because the speaker and mic part was such a crap shoot. Some profiles were great but most were mediocre to terrible.

The upside is the immediate access to amps, pedals and rigs. As of today we all have an affordable option (toneX) or free (NAM, PROTEUS) access to this.

The future of profiling has only begun.

 

[laxu]

How’s the patent related to Liquid Profiling and its flippable tonestacks exactly?

Unless it's unrelated, I would expect it's part of it in some way. I have no idea but that's the latest patent you can find for Kemper.

 

[Orvillain]

"No one" ?!?
I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.

'No one' implies there are no people who want what Kemper has offered.
I think you have mistaken yourself for 'everyone'. There is probably a word for that. A clinically named diagnosis even.

I might be a sociopath. But at least I'm not a c*nt.

(not an attack, just a funny comment!)

 

[Orvillain]

One is designed to be a stand-alone tool for live use, one is a pedal that can be incorporated into a pedalboard, and one is a plugin.

That does not make them "completely different tools" - nosirreee.

The primary sales proposition of a Kemper is ... amp profiling.

The primary sales proposition of ToneX is ... amp profiling.

The primary sales proposition (if it were sold) of NAM is ... amp profiling.

Everything else is a case of workflow, UI, platform, hardware design, and target demographics and user profiles. The fact they're aimed at different types of people does not mean they are different tools; the same way all guitar amps are guitar amps.

And in a world of cheap laptops and audio interfaces, the fact that the Kemper is an all-in-one hardware box, is no longer a market diffrentiator. True enough that most people are still worried about using laptops as replacements for their live rigs, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible. It's totally possible, and actually in the non-guitar worlds, the trend has been to replace dedicated hardware with laptops and controllers for a whole host of ergonomic and ease reasons.

The same could be true of guitarists, if they weren't so conservative - by nature it seems.