Kemper Profiler MK 2

[Orvillain]

The thing is, for live use, I would feel sorry for anyone on stage using one of those pathetic NAM players.... or God forbid a Tonex. Just to think about the pathetic excuse for efx that Tonex has and all anyone talks about is null tests. This baffles me.

I was highlighting the selective adherence to the ‘accuracy’ jihad

So it's okay for you guys to shit on people, but not me .... okay.... gotcha.

 

[DLC86]

They aren't that different, but they are different. Thing is, I bet I could tweak the profile (whichever one it is) with a little EQ and they would be nearly identical.

Yes cuz differences can only be in the frequency domain, right?

The thing is, for live use, I would feel sorry for anyone on stage using one of those pathetic NAM players.... or God forbid a Tonex. Just to think about the pathetic excuse for efx that Tonex has and all anyone talks about is null tests. This baffles me.

"Pathetic"??

 

[MirrorProfiles]

IMO it’s not really “shitting on something” to just say it doesn’t profile amps very well. It's just a fact.

All the other stuff is just moving the goalposts to try and make the Kemper superior at something else, which is all well and good if it matches your needs but it still doesn't negate the fact that the Kemper is inaccurate at what was once its USP. I don't own a ToneX or NAM pedal (or play live) but for how I used the Kemper, I was barely using any of the built in FX anyway so my theoretical use case would be integrating it with other gear.

At one point in time, Kemper was the best option for capturing an amp. Now it is not.

There are clear differences in most all comparison clips ever posted.

I think the point of this discussion is that statistically, the Kemper will have bigger differences more of the time than other options. Kemper is not equally inaccurate to other platforms, and it's quite far behind now. I don't think that can really be something that is an opinion or subjective, there are all kinds of blind tests, null tests and just real world examples to verify that which are very easy to do. I still don't find NAM or ToneX to be perfect, but for me its like Kemper is at 60%, ToneX is at 85% and NAM is 92-95% perfect depending on how its trained.

And tbh, it's not just NAM or ToneX, there is also Tonocracy, STL Tracer too. If you include the QC's capturing, then Kemper is in 7th place. Is Kemper more accurate than Headrush? I don't think I care at that point, but thats the level its at.

 

[dws2384]

If the Mk2 makes a Mk1 profile sound different, that's a bad thing. He must be making a mistake in his test.

The more I think about it, the more I want to call BS on his test. Many many people have both a Player, which is Mk2, and a Mk1, but I've never heard of any of those people saying the Player sounds different than their Mk1. Kemper's Player product page even says they sound identical. The only other possibility is he's hearing a difference due to different analog components, but that should be a very small difference compared to what he's showing.

Ya, one is running an OS from like 5 years ago and the other is current. The noise is different on the samples before a note is even played, could just be behind the scenes default values for noise gate or compression or a bunch if other things. I’ve already argued with him enough…he’s gigged his old Kemper 700 times! So he knows more than everyone about anything kemper related.

 

[dws2384]

The thing is, for live use, I would feel sorry for anyone on stage using one of those pathetic NAM players.... or God forbid a Tonex. Just to think about the pathetic excuse for efx that Tonex has and all anyone talks about is null tests. This baffles me

Uhhhh. I’ve got a few Tonex ones that I put onto real pedalboards. Most of my actual pedals blow the effects in my Kemper away…the point of Tonex is to integrate it with a board, that’s how most people use it. We’re comparing different things now but the fact you’d call that pathetic says more about your unwavering love for Kemper than anything else.

 

[Orvillain]

I don't own a ToneX or NAM pedal (or play live) but for how I used the Kemper, I was barely using any of the built in FX anyway

I find it a wild defense anyway. If I had a ToneX pedal (I don't!) and I wanted a decent reverb, I've got my pick of about a gajillion pedals out there in the world, and the footprint would still be smaller than Kemper. So I don't really see where this new line of inquiry takes us, other than into another area where we can subjectively weigh up the pro's and cons. Like ... great.... good tactic guise!!!

 

[Sedaxel]

I chime in just to add that, for me, it´s boring that argument of "most users don´t care about profiles accuracy because they don´t profile amps". Well... eeeeer... please stop it. I capture my amp with my NC or NAM or GuitarML. My mate captures his two amps with his QC. My other mate captures his four amps with his QC. BUT, they (and I) use captures from anywhere else because they (and I) think that they´re a good and accurate representation of source amps. Kemper claim, and best selling point back in the day, was that profiles were an almost perfect recreation of the amps. And people bought it mainly because of that. I think it´s a good way of experience something similar to play with original amps you don´t own and never will.

So that argument is, IMO, an excuse. A profiler must be as accurate as it takes. Otherwise, it is not a good profiler. Or, better said, there are better options available.

 

[Ed DeGenaro]

They aren't that different, but they are different. Thing is, I bet I could tweak the profile (whichever one it is) with a little EQ and they would be nearly identical. Even without that, in a live environment, no one would know the difference.

Having said that, I think that it would be nice if Kemper's new profiling algorithm didn't involve "refining" and was much more push button .... and accurate.

The thing is, for live use, I would feel sorry for anyone on stage using one of those pathetic NAM players.... or God forbid a Tonex. Just to think about the pathetic excuse for efx that Tonex has and all anyone talks about is null tests. This baffles me.

That was my thought as well. I made that same comment in that thread. Another tell here is that if there were some "improvement" in MK2 it would seem like Kemper would be shouting it to the heavens and in that thread ..... not a peep.

Do you have 4 people saying that either one sounds like crap? Do you have someone saying they can clearly hear aliasing so bad in one that it makes it sound awful?

I am not going to argue that more accurate would not be better though. What I can argue is that for people that play live, the guitar eq on the mixer are likely going to tweak based on the speakers and the room anyway. I spend considerable time tweaking my rigs so that they sound good in the mix, on our bands PA, in a venue size room. These tweaks depart from whatever the original capture is anyway. In many cases, what sounds good in the mix doesn't sound so good by itself.

My guess is that the first clip (less bottom and more mids) would actually cut the mix and sound better even though most people would pick out the 2nd clip as "sounding better" because it has more bottom and is "fuller". In the mix it might well just sound "congested".

Except that you’d also need a compressor to get there.
But that’s the thing if the second is the amp that means you can mangle the original to sound like the copy.

If the second one is the copy it means the gain staging in the capture devise is FA.

I mostly don’t give a shit about this song and dance, I’m even cool with the guys that shit in it.
It’s just gear.
And I have zero emotional investment in it. Not even in guitars other than stuff I played for decades, and yet I’ve given those away to guys without means.
Also means if I was the same I’d be in some of everyone’s fave amp or modeller knitting circles and spew all over that.

 

[BenIfin]

lol nobody says that!! Mr. 1880's !!

At least someone around here is refined enough to grasp my reference to the use of the word "doth"

 

[Ed DeGenaro]

At least someone around here is refined enough to grasp my reference to the use of the word "doth"

Nuh some just didn’t wanna run with it

 

[Dimiguitar]

I can only listen through one plus 12 phone speaker -- but in the first test deadpan posted, I think the Kemper is the one that comes in second. Both the lack of depth and presence of "tubescreamer" mid response seem to be there. It's the mosquito quality that I dislike, which shows up on all my high gain profiles.

If I'm wrong, then I certainly prefer the Kemper to the amp in that test.

The second test posted is harder to tell. It's more difficult for me to discern Kemper from source when the tone is scooped because the TS becomes less perceivable (even though in my experience it'll be easily perceivable in terms of feel). But they are certainly different. How different? Quantification is a challenge itself.

That said, I think these inaccuracies can both be exaggerated and minimized. I don't think anyone would go "oh the the live band sounds like crap because of Kemper", and correctly spot Kemper in a statistically significant manner.

But at the same time I know Kemper high gain play feel, and I don't like it.

I'm repeating myself at this point, but maybe MKII profiling fixes such issues. Hard to find much else to talk about when it comes to the new Kemper. I don't think we are to blame for that though.

 

[Orvillain]

If I'm wrong, then I certainly prefer the Kemper to the amp in that test.

I would have no problem saying this either, if it were indeed the case. Somehow I suspect not though, otherwise @Deadpan would've jumped at the chance to go ner ner ne ner ner ner ner ne ner ner!

 

[paisleywookiee]

lol! You definitely don’t get that part. I was highlighting the selective adherence to the ‘accuracy’ jihad with my comments.
I was not changing my own stance, that good enough is good enough.

I was pointing out the selective application of the rule by others.
I think if you reread my comments you’ll find I said that pretty clearly in mostly those same words!

Again, I do get that part. I was speaking in general to the comments here about accuracy.

 

[paisleywookiee]

The thing is, for live use, I would feel sorry for anyone on stage using one of those pathetic NAM players.... or God forbid a Tonex. Just to think about the pathetic excuse for efx that Tonex has and all anyone talks about is null tests. This baffles me.

Shitting on Kemper = bad. Shitting on NAM players or Tonex = good. Got it.

Dude, we get it. You’re completely out of your depth with board design, MIDI, and switchers. All in ones are great for you.

 

[jellodog]

Can we just... like...

STOP this entire lame-ass thread?

 

[Dimiguitar]

The thing is, for live use, I would feel sorry for anyone on stage using one of those pathetic NAM players.... or God forbid a Tonex. Just to think about the pathetic excuse for efx that Tonex has and all anyone talks about is null tests. This baffles me.

I like the dimehead.

 

[Enchilada Jones]

So it's okay for you guys to shit on people, but not me .... okay.... gotcha.

So pointing out a flaw in the context of a discussion is “shitting on” someone according to you?!?

I think you are projecting there.
A Freudian slip of the sphincter as it were!

 

[Orvillain]

So pointing out a flaw in the context of a discussion is “shitting on” someone according to you?!?

I think you are projecting there.
A Freudian slip of the sphincter as it were!

Calling people jihadists is a bit too far for me to be honest. But yknow... you do you.

 

[Deadpan]

IMO it’s not really “shitting on something” to just say it doesn’t profile amps very well. It's just a fact.

All the other stuff is just moving the goalposts to try and make the Kemper superior at something else, which is all well and good if it matches your needs but it still doesn't negate the fact that the Kemper is inaccurate at what was once its USP. I don't own a ToneX or NAM pedal (or play live) but for how I used the Kemper, I was barely using any of the built in FX anyway so my theoretical use case would be integrating it with other gear.

At one point in time, Kemper was the best option for capturing an amp. Now it is not.

I think the point of this discussion is that statistically, the Kemper will have bigger differences more of the time than other options. Kemper is not equally inaccurate to other platforms, and it's quite far behind now. I don't think that can really be something that is an opinion or subjective, there are all kinds of blind tests, null tests and just real world examples to verify that which are very easy to do. I still don't find NAM or ToneX to be perfect, but for me its like Kemper is at 60%, ToneX is at 85% and NAM is 92-95% perfect depending on how its trained.

And tbh, it's not just NAM or ToneX, there is also Tonocracy, STL Tracer too. If you include the QC's capturing, then Kemper is in 7th place. Is Kemper more accurate than Headrush? I don't think I care at that point, but thats the level its at.

You are a pretty reasonable person and I agree with you.

My mission isn't to say the Kemper is perfect as is. Of course it can be better and I have hopes for the new profiling.

Someone has an issue with Kempers customer service and has seemingly made it their life goal to talk as much negativity as they can.

This has been going on for years. It morphs from cocked wah to null tests.

I am only here to add some context for the casual reader.

 

[Jarick]

IMO it’s not really “shitting on something” to just say it doesn’t profile amps very well. It's just a fact.

All the other stuff is just moving the goalposts to try and make the Kemper superior at something else, which is all well and good if it matches your needs but it still doesn't negate the fact that the Kemper is inaccurate at what was once its USP. I don't own a ToneX or NAM pedal (or play live) but for how I used the Kemper, I was barely using any of the built in FX anyway so my theoretical use case would be integrating it with other gear.

Nobody in this thread who likes the Kemper is arguing this.

Every single time someone says "well I still like the Kemper", the same half dozen posters start talking about "moving the goalposts" and "strawman arguments".

Here, let me summarize the last 100 pages:

-----

"I don't care if it's not perfectly accurate, I still like the Kemper"

"That doesn't matter because it's demonstrably less accurate than the competition"

"Okay but I still like it because it sounds good to me and I like the effects and form factor"

"You keep changing the topic, it's a bad profiler because it's not accurate"

"I'm not changing the topic, I just said I like the Kemper despite it not being the most accurate because it does other things well"

"Literally nothing else matters because the profiling is not accurate"

-----

This might be one of the dumbest threads I've ever read. And I'm about to box up and return my Kemper Player because it's not doing all that much for me.