Not sure that's fully right ..... as he has said in his descriptions, that's
the whole point to the new L.P methodology ie: combining modeling and profiling.
And C.K has said consistently that the Gain and EQ Stacks of the newly added L.P Amp Channels ....
are modeled.
True .... Kemper haven't modeled
every single Amp component [ ala Fractal and Helix] they've stuck to the primary Gain and EQ Stacks ..... but they
don't need to model every component as the new Gain and EQ stack is "burned" together with their already excellent Profiling methodology ... and I think that's why it
seems to be sounding so darn natural and real
across the full spectrum of controls.
Sure .... NAM and Tonex both "null test"
better than just a pure [legacy] profile ... but if this keeps working and sounding the way it is
seeming to be so far, it just jumps "ahead of the fixed capturing products" by no small margin.
The greatest attribute of both Tonex and NAM is also their Achilles heal .... and its the same Achilles heal Kemper
had ..... stick with just the
unchanged Tonex or NAM Capture and its ... basically as good as its gonna get ... start changing the Core Tonex and Core NAM controls and you start to lose Capture integrity ...... for the Kemper .... LP overcomes this issue ... its a masterstroke solution to a problem most of us thought was never going to be solvable ...... just my 2c of guesstimating of course :)
I see this similar to not that long ago when the idea of pitch correcting a single note within a polyphonic note cluster in an already recorded wave file was "
never going to be doable" ... and then Melodyne did it.
Ben
