Kemper Profiler MK 2

[Eagle]

What do you think makes these profiles feel more real than fractal?

The fractal is not as responsive to subtle nuances and feels slightly detached by comparison. A bit like putting a DAC in front of a really nice one channel tube amp.

 

[Chocol8]

Get a low gain tube amp set up in the studio and profile it then play the profile back through the same cab without moving it and you have the closest digital version out of what is available.

Have you actually tried this with Tonex, QC and NAM? I have, and they all beat Kemper easily. Enough so that I am baffled that anyone who has done the same testing could possibly conclude Kemper is the closest. It simply is not.

 

[hunter]

Have you actually tried this with Tonex, QC and NAM? I have, and they all beat Kemper easily. Enough so that I am baffled that anyone who has done the same testing could possibly conclude Kemper is the closest. It simply is not.

I have Tonex and Kemper and like them both. I find the Tonex can be bright and thin through PA where the Kemper doesn‘t have that issue. And of course way more I/O and FX. I like Tonex a lot more through an OX Stomp than with its inbuilt cabs. Ymmv.

 

[Chocol8]

I have Tonex and Kemper and like them both. I find the Tonex can be bright and thin through PA where the Kemper doesn‘t have that issue. And of course way more I/O and FX. I like Tonex a lot more through an OX Stomp than with its inbuilt cabs. Ymmv.

He specifically said played back through the same cab. In that case I think it is no contest. ALL of the newer options I have tried beat Kemper on that test.

 

[ian_dissonance]

He specifically said played back through the same cab. In that case I think it is no contest. ALL of the newer options I have tried beat Kemper on that test.

Yeah, but I mean as long as it’s an amp the Kemper likes and the person making the profile likes the Kemper, it’s all good.

 

[Chocol8]

and the person making the profile likes the Kemper

Sure, ultimately it is about getting good tones from whatever tools we use. BUT when you start making statements like "the closest digital version out of what is available" we are venturing away from preference into accuracy.

 

[ian_dissonance]

Sure, ultimately it is about getting good tones from whatever tools we use. BUT when you start making statements like "the closest digital version out of what is available" we are venturing away from preference into accuracy.

That’s really the saga of this thread until Kemper gives us something new to talk about.

 

[OneEng]

That’s really the saga of this thread until Kemper gives us something new to talk about.

Think we can get another 150 pages out of the discussion after the MKII profiling is released? .

 

[ian_dissonance]

Think we can get another 150 pages out of the discussion after the MKII profiling is released? .

Depends on how many people want to conflate accuracy for preference again.

 

[Dimiguitar]

The fractal is not as responsive to subtle nuances and feels slightly detached by comparison. A bit like putting a DAC in front of a really nice one channel tube amp.

I spent some time today with Kemper mkII, tonex and fractal and matched all of them to a Marshall crunch tone. Monitored through headphones, same IR. For me, tonex was the closest for feel, fractal second (after finding the closest amp sim and tweaking basic settings, impedance) and Kemper third, for all the reasons I've come to expect.

It's just my experience though. I understand yours is different.

 

[Eagle]

I spent some time today with Kemper mkII, tonex and fractal and matched all of them to a Marshall crunch tone. Monitored through headphones, same IR. For me, tonex was the closest for feel, fractal second (after finding the closest amp sim and tweaking basic settings, impedance) and Kemper third, for all the reasons I've come to expect.

It's just my experience though. I understand yours is different.

Through headphones says it all . That’s like recording a £25k hifi system and a bluetooth speaker on your iPhone and playing them back on a laptop .Then not seeing the difference . You’re totally missing my point. You can’t use an ir on the real amp and you’re supposed to monitor the playing experience as well as the tone so "FRFR" on the digital aspect to have a perspective on my results. Your application is totally different and not comparable.

 

[nicolasrivera]

Has the new capture format came out yet?

 

[Dimiguitar]

Through headphones says it all . That’s like recording a £25k hifi system and a bluetooth speaker on your iPhone and playing them back on a laptop .Then not seeing the difference . You’re totally missing my point. You can’t use an ir on the real amp and you’re supposed to monitor the playing experience as well as the tone so ""FRFR"" on the digital aspect to have a perspective on my results. Your application is totally different and not comparable.

In my experience, you can tell a lot about guitar tone from a proper pair of headphones you know well. That's what I play through most of the time.

But I'm confused. Could you please explain again, with different words, how are you conducting this test exactly and how it narrows down modelling/profiling accuracy?

I'll do the same.

 

[nicolasrivera]

As a Kemper and Axe 3 owner I can say that certain types of amp profiles definitely feel more real than the axe is capable of. Clean and break up amps are far more like actual amps to play through than the same on the axe. But the more gain you add to the equation the more the Axe comes in to its own. It’s also massively affected by how you amplify it because ""FRFR"" is not an amp experience before you even get in to this.

Use the Kemper to capture the Axe Fx Amps and compared then to the axe if there is any difference.

 

[Dimiguitar]

Has the new capture format came out yet?

Nope

 

[nicolasrivera]

Nope

Ok, has Kemper stablished any release date yet?

 

[Dimiguitar]

Ok, has Kemper stablished any release date yet?

Nothing exact, but summer.

 

[Chocol8]

It doesn't matter what the playback system is, as long as it is sufficient to hear differences and the same across all devices. Tonex and NAM will consistently sound and feel more like the real amp than Kemper.

Play them all through an IR and "FRFR"? yep, I have done that with the Celestion F12-x200 and Atomic CLR

Same but through good headphones like the HD 6xx. Yep.

Play them all though a clean power amp and the same guitar cab? Yep.

The results are the same. Tonex and NAM respond to your right hand technique and volume knob more like the real amp than Kemper does.

I don't really know how to make an exact apples to apples comparison with a modeler, but obviously you can dial in very similar tones and test the sound and feel. It's just a purely objective test at that point.

 

[nicolasrivera]

Nothing exact, but summer.

Thanks.

 

[Dimiguitar]

It doesn't matter what the playback system is, as long as it is sufficient to hear differences and the same across all devices. Tonex and NAM will consistently sound and feel more like the real amp than Kemper.

Agreed, for which good headphones are quite capable for, in my experience.

But maybe I'm misunderstanding something about how Eagle tested this. Willing to do what he does and see again.

I doubt results will be any different to what I've seen already.

I don't really know how to make an exact apples to apples comparison with a modeler, but obviously you can dial in very similar tones and test the sound and feel. It's just a purely objective test at that point.

I've used the fm3 to match real amps for quite a while now. It takes some tweaking and amp sim searching but usually I call the results close enough.

Of course, the margin for error becomes wider that way, but still.