- Messages
- 10,249
A profiler exists in order to reproduce a real amplifier. Reproduction necessarily implies reference. Reference necessarily implies accuracy (to some degree). Therefore, accuracy is not a preference, it is the raison d’être.
paisleywookiee
Rock Star
- Messages
- 9,294
Yeah, "capture hater" is absurd. I don't hate captures, it just doesn't work for me, because I don't own amps anymore. If I did, I'd probably get a Neural or something, or get more into figuring out Tonex to get more consistent caps.FTFY.
Seriously, how would you even know what I want to do? Have we met?
And I am not a 'capture hater.' I keep stating over and over that I play with guys who are long time friends and rely on capture devices. They're just not for me. I'm not saying modeling is for you, either. Why does everything on the Internet have ot devolve into "preferences that are not mine are wrong until proven with the rigor of a PhD dissertation in nanochemistry." Why can't people just prefer what they prefer for the reasons they state?
That's always been my feeling. If you're going to make a product that claims to profile amps, you better be prepared to defend the accuracy of those profiles.
These days though, I think the truth with Kemper is a bit more nuanced. Their most popular product doesn't even do profiling. So, necessarily, most Kemper users these days don't have the reference amp at hand for a comparison. That means they are evaluating the tones based on a subjective satisfaction with the sound instead of an objective accuracy measurement.
And I think that's where we should be going with digital amp simulation in 2026. Those classic tones of tube amps of the last century that we all love are nice and have their place, but it's time to move on from mimicry of old amps and start crafting tones that are new and interesting, without regard for how they compare to a tube amp.
ChordInversion
Roadie
- Messages
- 661
Same. If I was a person who owned a bunch of amps (or even one) that I wanted to take around in more portable and flexible form, I would absolutely keep my Tonex and use it for that purpose.
Richard_G
Roadie
- Messages
- 713
If that’s the goal, I wouldn’t use a capture device or profiler as the starting point, but rather a modeler like Fractal’s products—with all their sound-sculpting possibilities—or tools that explore synth sounds with guitar (like what NDSP does with the Rabea plugin, etc.)
ChordInversion
Roadie
- Messages
- 661
I agree, and I think modeling (especially component-level modeling) is very well positioned to do that. It allows for making an 'amp' with no real world basis. Captures certainly allow for extremely flexible modification of a captured amp, amp+cabinet, or pedal+amp+cabinet, but naturally the captured hardware will always be there as a reference, even if that reference is intended to be nothing but a jumping off point. I'll bet it would still work for lots of people, though.
- Messages
- 10,249
Enjoy your dubstep guitar wobbles!
If you enjoy tweaking, like many of us here do, that's great advice. Most guitarists are not tweakers though. I think that accounts for the popularity of profiles like the ones from Tue Madsen, which are highly processed and don't purport to be accurate captures of an amp. For that matter, look at Tonex where most captures in ToneNet are captures of modelers. So, you can get interesting new sounds that don't closely mimic tube amps from both modelers and profilers.
I think any concerns about accuracy will soon fade into irrelevance and the distinction between modelers and profilers will be all about workflow, sort of like the difference between synths and samplers...you can achieve interesting sounds from both, but they differ in how you get there.
All of which makes Kemper's attention to their new profiling all the more questionable.
Dimiguitar
Roadie
- Messages
- 654
For me, it's often about being used to working with certain amps a given way. I expect what the specific tone stack does and am comfortable dialing it in. In that sense, liquid profiling is a good addition for me.
Also, if we extend this further than tone stacks, like controlling the power amp, there's a lot flexibility that comes with power amp modelling.
I can't just use EQ to emulate high or low master vol. I have to shoot more captures. But proper modelling allows for such tweaking, which affects EQ, but isn't only about EQ.
Chocol8
Shredder
- Messages
- 2,470
True, but you still don’t need a thousand captures of the amp. You need a handful that can be tweaked to get where you need to go.
It’s OK to want more, but then don’t bitch about it! Chasing perfection in accuracy is a choice, and modelers don’t do it any better. There is no model that is perfectly accurate and remains perfectly accurate at all knob settings. Even if there was, it would only be perfect for one serial number in one environment at one point in time. More hours on the tubes, a little drift of a resistor etc. and the model is no longer perfect. Who the fuck cares? At some point you need to just play the damn guitar.
paisleywookiee
Rock Star
- Messages
- 9,294
Totally true, and totally fine. If you own the amp.
ChordInversion
Roadie
- Messages
- 661
And neither modeling nor profiling provides an inherently more direct route to that end. It's all just about how people prefer to work with gear.
Last edited:
Chocol8
Shredder
- Messages
- 2,470
Still true even if you don't.
paisleywookiee
Rock Star
- Messages
- 9,294
Look, sincerely not trying to be argumentative. But that just doesn’t work on all amps. It just doesn’t. Not for me. If you’re delighted with how it works, that’s great. But you come across strongly as “I like it, so it’s a fact”.
Chocol8
Shredder
- Messages
- 2,470
No, it has nothing to do with like or not.
paisleywookiee
Rock Star
- Messages
- 9,294
Gotcha.
- Messages
- 10,249
I do both.
You can keep fighting the ghostly harrowing strawman spookies you've invented in your head, or you can contend with what people actually say. The choice, is yours.
Chocol8
Shredder
- Messages
- 2,470
Dimiguitar
Roadie
- Messages
- 654
I certainly agree that more hours on the tubes, and other such variables, make a difference in feel and sound of tube amps.
But not all inaccuracies are the same. For example, palm mutes with profiling 1.0 feel weird, wonky to me, across pretty much all distorted profiles. It's always been an issue. Profiling 2.0 seems to aim for a fix.
In my opinion, such a problem typically doesn't occur with the real amps that were profiled, unless there's an actual issue with the amp, tubes dying, etc etc.
At the very least, I haven't had such an experience with any amp I've profiled, and there's been many.
Then on the modelling side, you may have sims that aren't perfectly the same to the modelled amp, even at the right point in time, but where the innacuracies are of a less significant kind.
So I think some of this comes down to what kind of innacuracies you can live with.
And of course there's other capture based units than Kemper, which may do a better job for the player. Tonex is capture based and I prefer the results to Kemper by far.
Dimiguitar
Roadie
- Messages
- 654
I have to be cognisant of that and stop myself at some point, call it a day, go with a tone and play guitar. Ultimately that's what matters the most to me.
What I've found out is that often when I focus too much on "tone" I'm also less inspired generally. It's as if I'm trying to be creative, but it's hard -- and a tonal search may not require as much always.
So I end up with the tone search/dialing in as a kind of diversion/misplaced effort to be creative in a way that I can't be, at the time.
