Here comes Kemper. Bye Felicias

[Sascha Franck]

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?

Precisely. Authentic tonestacks of Marshalls are boring and ineffective, so why not have another one?

 

[Sascha Franck]

No one really wants to be able to mess with the tonestack in their profile. They want it to sound imperceptible to their real amp

See, that's fine. I'm having zero issues with folks getting a woody about yet another authentic rendition of the same old sounds. Have at it.

 

[laxu]

Me personally, I couldn’t possibly care less about accuracy.

I’m all for improvements in tone, but I don’t care how close those tones sound to the tones another piece of gear makes.

I've moved to this camp as well. Let the developers sort the accuracy stuff.

While it's academically fun to get into the nitty gritty details, in reality we can't waltz to Line6 or Fractal and say "hey I want to spend the day comparing your reference amps to your modeler!"

 

[laxu]

Yeah no. The patent is about amp matching using the method of finding out what the filters are in the [filter->distortion->filter] amp model. It doesn’t say anything to suggest that Liquid Profiling is “more complex than just pre/post EQ simulated tone stacks.”

Yes I understand that. I'm wondering whether this is used together with the tonestack feature in some manner.

 

[ejecta]

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.

Game changer.

 

[metropolis_4]

See for me, Kemper is easily the worst option of the bunch.

Why???

No spillover when you put a delay and reverb into the ABCD slots. Immediately took the Kemper off my potential list for live performance. Whenever I used mine, it was always at home, because of this.

Everyone has their own needs and use cases. But that doesn't change the fact of the primary sales proposition being the comparative metric I am using when I talk about the three in one breath.

Like you said, everyone has their own needs and use cases.

I never had a need on Kemper to put reverb in front of my amp and have it carry over so that didn’t bother me personally.

Personally, I disagree about the primary sales proposition being the comparative metric. But I can agree to disagree

 

[Orvillain]

Personally, I disagree about the primary sales proposition being the comparative metric. But I can agree to disagree

Well what do you think the primary sales proposition for each unit is, if it isn't some form of amp cloning?

 

[mbenigni]

Personally, I disagree about the primary sales proposition being the comparative metric. But I can agree to disagree

Another thing to consider here is that there's just so much overlap. I.e. ToneX, cited as a pedalboard solution, also has a plugin component; Kemper, cited as the standalone h/w solution, is frequently used with additional pedals/ pedalboards - and often for re-amping in the studio; NAM, cited as a DAW-friendly plugin, is already getting hacked into stage-ready hardware; and so on.

 

[metropolis_4]

Well what do you think the primary sales proposition for each unit is, if it isn't some form of amp cloning?

Since I don’t work for any of the companies I don’t know, so this is pure speculation/opinion; I just think it’s more broad than one single feature.

(I’m just going to call everything “Profiles” for simplicity)

NAM: free (open source?) plug-in to use amp Profiles in your DAW without needing external hardware.

ToneX plug-in: a plug-in to use amp Profiles in your DAW without needing external hardware.

ToneX pedal: A pedal that can be incorporated into a pedalboard to use amp Profiles with your pedalboard.

Kemper: Profile your expensive amps so you can take the sound of them on the road without risking the amps or dealing with maintenance. Load your rig on a flash drive and load it to any Kemper anywhere in the world so you don’t have to bring your rig on fly dates to still get your sounds.

 

[metropolis_4]

Another thing to consider here is that there's just so much overlap. I.e. ToneX, cited as a pedalboard solution, also has a plugin component; Kemper, cited as the standalone h/w solution, is frequently used with additional pedals/ pedalboards - and often for re-amping in the studio; NAM, cited as a DAW-friendly plugin, is already getting hacked into stage-ready hardware; and so on.

Even though you can find ways of using them to overlap it still seems like they are each best suited to specific use cases.

I mean, sure I could piece together a rig using NAM that I could use live, but it would be far easier to just grab a Kemper.

I could build a pedalboard around a Kemper, but it would be far easier to just use a ToneX pedal that is a fraction of the size.

I could use a Kemper in a studio, but it would be far easier just to use a plug-in in the DAW rather than have a big piece of external hardware Taking up space

 

[northern_fox]

Personally the reasons I like ML capture approach:

1) It sounds exactly like I want it to, right off the bat capturing my own gear
2) It lets me focus on using the real gear I want to at home and for recording (and even live) without worrying about having to recreate them on modelers.

Importantly, they help in separating my mind "live" from "home/studio" which is something I've struggled with in the past. I've been a fractal user for many years and I've always appreciated the complexity of the models, but I do find it easy (personally) to fall down the tweaking rabbit hole trying to best my real amps with it and spending too much time trying to decide if something is "better". I appreciate the relative ease of just being able to get the sound I want by capturing what I already like, and the ability to prove to myself that it sounds identical to its source definitely helps my brain stay grounded a bit. From there and if I have a good set of captures, I personally have zero issues using EQ to get where I may want to go even if it doesn't do the same thing as the amp's tonestack.

tldr the reason to use captures vs modeling is personal, rather than objective for me. Currently building a live NAM rig that's smaller than my FM3+tonex board to see how that goes

 

[mbenigni]

Currently building a live NAM rig that's smaller than my FM3+tonex board to see how that goes

Are you detailing this effort in another thread? If not, please elaborate!

 

[northern_fox]

Are you detailing this effort in another thread? If not, please elaborate!

Not yet - it's nothing super fancy. An M1 air + a little tiny jogg interface and WIDI for the floor control. I will post when it's not just a scattered mess on my desk and have sorted it out a bit more. Too busy with work and such to have finished setting up the software side also (gig performer is what I went with). KSR PA50 and a cab in the room to pair it with at practice.

I decided an m1 was the best way to go instead of bothering to build a small and less reliable box of some kind. Plus the screen being kind of a necessity, and an air "just works" and is easily replaceable vs a nuc + screen + whatever, not to mention the processing power

 

[jellodog]

KSR PA50 and a cab in the room to pair it with at practice

I'm am super interested in this because I've been eyeing the PA50 on and off for a while. I'd love to hear your thoughts on that too because there's not a lot of info out there. I'm more likely to use that with an FM9, but I'm sure the results would be similar.

 

[Jarick]

Personally the reasons I like ML capture approach:

1) It sounds exactly like I want it to, right off the bat capturing my own gear
2) It lets me focus on using the real gear I want to at home and for recording (and even live) without worrying about having to recreate them on modelers.

Importantly, they help in separating my mind "live" from "home/studio" which is something I've struggled with in the past. I've been a fractal user for many years and I've always appreciated the complexity of the models, but I do find it easy (personally) to fall down the tweaking rabbit hole trying to best my real amps with it and spending too much time trying to decide if something is "better". I appreciate the relative ease of just being able to get the sound I want by capturing what I already like, and the ability to prove to myself that it sounds identical to its source definitely helps my brain stay grounded a bit. From there and if I have a good set of captures, I personally have zero issues using EQ to get where I may want to go even if it doesn't do the same thing as the amp's tonestack.

tldr the reason to use captures vs modeling is personal, rather than objective for me. Currently building a live NAM rig that's smaller than my FM3+tonex board to see how that goes

I can related to those struggles.

What plugin(s) are you using? What are you using to control them?

 

[Orvillain]

@metropolis_4 That's a pretty cherry picked analysis, with your own subjective needs transplanted onto it. And even then, you still mention profiling as being a core aspect.

In terms of sales proposition - I think my point still stands.

 

[Mongillo19]

I'm am super interested in this because I've been eyeing the PA50 on and off for a while. I'd love to hear your thoughts on that too because there's not a lot of info out there. I'm more likely to use that with an FM9, but I'm sure the results would be similar.

The PA50 is awesome. However the form factor is kinda meh if you want an all in one rack solution. I'd highly recommend it.

The negative feedback control is a great way to sculpt your tone

 

[mbenigni]

Not yet - it's nothing super fancy. An M1 air + a little tiny jogg interface and WIDI for the floor control. I will post when it's not just a scattered mess on my desk and have sorted it out a bit more. Too busy with work and such to have finished setting up the software side also (gig performer is what I went with). KSR PA50 and a cab in the room to pair it with at practice.

I decided an m1 was the best way to go instead of bothering to build a small and less reliable box of some kind. Plus the screen being kind of a necessity, and an air "just works" and is easily replaceable vs a nuc + screen + whatever, not to mention the processing power

Sounds awesome - though you're bending the rules pretty hard calling this "smaller than my FM3+tonex board" with that M1 Air on the desk.

 

[metropolis_4]

@metropolis_4 That's a pretty cherry picked analysis, with your own subjective needs transplanted onto it. And even then, you still mention profiling as being a core aspect.

In terms of sales proposition - I think my point still stands.

Well, like I said, that was pure speculation/opinion and I can agree to disagree.

You asked so just calling it the way I see it

 

[norminal]

That's exactly my patent. Exactly.

My patent is essentially:
1. Set amp up how you want.
2. Select appropriate model.
3. Set controls on model same as amp.
4. Run matching/profiling routine.