Kemper Profiler MK 2

Thanks for the update (as well as “Skepticism and Humor”).

I can imagine folks at NDSP HC watching the Forums on the mkii news...

Lurker GIF
For all the shade I throw at NDSP , I have to say I was quite shocked with the 2.0 updatefor the Nano , it way exceeded what people were thinking might be delivered ,based on their track record they really caught me off guard with that too , it really was a stellar update and way more than most expected from them I think
 
I'm still messing around with the Player, I'm really digging the sounds of profiles with Leon Todd's TV Mix IR. It cleans up the mid-focused sound of the Michael Britt profiles a lot.

I'll also say Rig Manager has been working flawlessly with the Player. With my old toasters, RM was a complete buggy disaster that was laggy and caused the hardware to lock up. Everything is pretty dang quick now, so I'd expect the Mk2 units to be a huge improvement here.

Try Matt Fig’s profiles. They are much better. He also has a sample pack for a $1.
 
For all the shade I throw at NDSP , I have to say I was quite shocked with the 2.0 updatefor the Nano , it way exceeded what people were thinking might be delivered ,based on their track record they really caught me off guard with that too , it really was a stellar update and way more than most expected from them I think
I concur. If I was I the market for multi-fx “lite” capture device, I’d be all over it.
 
I don't know where the original post was as it was a long time ago but:

The level of aliasing with the Kemper is far too high - even today - for them to not be cutting corners somewhere. Put some sine sweeps through the thing with a mid to high-gain profile. You'll see.
 
I don't doubt that you hear things that aren't there. Perhaps I could recommend a good doctor?
I am an audio engineer, software developer, and music tech expert who has been in the industry for 18 years. My ears are very good. I don't need a doctor.

Not likely. While I understand why Kemper released a MK2 with so little differentiation from MK1, I was genuinely hoping for something more. I am not displeased either since my MK1 works beautifully already. If accuracy was at all important to me, I wouldn't be using the Kemper now.
If accuracy isn 't important to you, why are you using a device that claims to capture a real amp, when you could just as easily get tones out of a Blackstar amp with clean/crunch/lead models? It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to be honest. I don't really believe anyone who says that they don't care about accuracy, or that they wouldn't care if the Kemper made improvements in that area.

Yes it is. Webster says so.
I don't know who webster is, but if they're saying that a photo of a painting is an emulation of that painting, then they're dead wrong and you're being led astray. No-one who properly understood English and the word 'emulation' would make this claim.

Agree.

Just out of morbid curiosity, should Kemper MK2's new profiling algorithm definitively become "the most precise amp recreation ever achieved", are you buying a Kemper MK2?
Yeah, I would buy one. The areas I would be interested in are:
- Capture accuracy
- Aliasing
- Improved IR capabilities

FWIW, I am kind of skeptical that it will. I believe it will most certainly be better, but it is hard to imagine Kemper surpassing NAM.
The language they're using doesn't inspire me with confidence.
 
Mk1 units can run the profiles as well but seems like it will be more like old profiles.

I must have missed that information somehow. If that is the case, very likely not all too much has happened to the guts of their profiling process (others than the raised amount of "measuring points" or whatever you may call it).
 
I must have missed that information somehow. If that is the case, very likely not all too much has happened to the guts of their profiling process (others than the raised amount of "measuring points" or whatever you may call it).
I see 3 scenario’s:
New profiling adds something on top of old profiling
New profiling generates a dataset that can be compound to dataset of the old profling
New profiling generates 2 profile datasets, a new one, and an old one.
 
If accuracy isn 't important to you, why are you using a device that claims to capture a real amp, when you could just as easily get tones out of a Blackstar amp with clean/crunch/lead models? It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to be honest.

Uhm, and now you're back to the good old hyperbole. Seriously, I absolute get the issues with the Kemper not being accurate.
But:
1) Yes, there is a "good enough" aspect. It just exists. For all my use cases, the Kemper would very likely fit that description. Many people seem to be in the same boat.
2) As said, I have gotten some sounds out of the Kemper that whatever cheap amps could only dream of.

I don't really believe anyone who says that they don't care about accuracy, or that they wouldn't care if the Kemper made improvements in that area.

As far as "don't care about accuracy" goes, you can just take my word that I don't care (at least not much). And apparently I'm not the only one.
Doesn't mean that improvements wouldn't be welcomed, though.
It's really two pretty different things.
For example: If L6 wouldn't have come up with some new models that I'm now using pretty much exclusively on the Stomp (namely the Super Reverb and their own Voltage, with a bit of the new 2203 mixed in here and there), I'd still be absolutely happy with what was available until then.

Thing is, for some people whatever last ounces of accuracy aren't important. They never were for me, one reason being that for the longer part of my playing life I always had to check my finances very carefully (or rather: I often prefered to spend my money on other things than equipment).
Hasn't been important for my "career", either. If I messed up things (*check* for more than just a handful of occasions), it certainly wasn't because of my sub-par equipment. And if I didn't mess up, it also wasn't because of my great toanz.
IOW: I simply learned to get along and I'm absolutely fine with that.

But as said, I do love improvements nonetheless. Just that these two things keep getting mixed up.
"I usually don't care" doesn't equal "I don't care about improvements". And "it's good enough" doesn't equal "I couldn't imagine things to be better".
 
you can just take my word that I don't care
No. I think you're not being honest, or clear enough.

(at least not much)
There we go. You do allow for the possibilty that you care. At least a tiny bit.

Doesn't mean that improvements wouldn't be welcomed, though.
Except the person I was responding to claimed exactly that they wouldn't welcome improvements, because they didn't care. I'm calling bullshit on that.

hyperbole
It wasn't hyperbole. Because I intended my sentence to be taken literally. It wasn't an exagerated metaphor or anything like that. If accuracy really isn't important, and capturing a real amp really isn't important, then there are loads of other devices that have great sounds, better user experience, and are cheaper than the Kemper.

It is just dishonesty, at root. People use the Kemper because it claims to be able to be a digital recreation of a real physical amplifier. That is the draw and raison d'etre of the device. Which is precisely why it receives critique in this manner.
 
No. I think you're not being honest, or clear enough.

Rest assured: I am absolutely honest. Some of the best gigs I ever played were under lousy conditions. So I'm terrifically happy with all the stuff I have access to these days. And as said: That doesn't mean I don't welcome improvements. Because I most certainly do. Just not to the point to grow more grey hair over it shouldn't it happen.

There we go. You do allow for the possibilty that you care. At least a tiny bit.

Do yourself a favour and replace "I don't care" with "I'm fine either way" - but I thought that was clear.

If accuracy really isn't important, and capturing a real amp really isn't important, then there are loads of other devices that have great sounds, better user experience, and are cheaper than the Kemper.

And this is where I respectfully disagree. Let's take the lack of accuracy aside for a moment. For me, the Kemper has some very strong other points as well. And before we start arguing about these, whether you or anyone else agrees is totally irrelevant for my personal opinion.

- I happen to just like the UI (especially on the heads). I also even happen to absolutely like the look. Accessibility is great as long as you've done your homework and prepared your patches and what's happening within the somewhat more hidden areas. I don't know of anything that could compete. The HX Floor/LT/Rack with its amp buttons isn't too bad, though, the QC isn't, either. Still, having the most relevant things available straight after loading a patch is just what my (<-!) doctor ordered.

- Visibility is great on the Stage. Yeah, anyone may feel free to come up with another round of all kinda lame jokes about me being anal about that kinda thing, but I happen to prefer always being able to see the selected patch and status of whatever switches. More power to you if you don't need that, but I do. If it wasn't for the visibility aspect, I'd possibly still be rocking the HX Floor, which I absolutely loved for a whole lot of reasons (no, it wasn't the only aspect, but still, it's been some kinda tipping point).

- The KPA offers that "parameter lock" function, which is something I would make constant use of in case I'd be using it live. No others have that functionality. The Axe FX and Boss GT-1000 have global blocks, but from all I know from @laxu, the function is implemented quite badly on the Axe FX when controlled via external MIDI sources and the GT-1000 in general is a victim of the Boss UI approach. The Kemper seems to have the parameter lock function realized in a very excellent way (unfortunately I didn't check it out the last time I had one at home, so I can't tell about possible shortcomings).

For me, being a live player mainly, the latter two things are deal-breakers/makers. There's a reason my current main board is what it is. Because those two aspects are covered just great and I enjoy gigging with that board more than ever before, even if soundwise, things could at least partially be improved.
 
Last edited:
I must have missed that information somehow. If that is the case, very likely not all too much has happened to the guts of their profiling process (others than the raised amount of "measuring points" or whatever you may call it).

My guess is they are either converted down or there’s an old profile that’s stored alongside the new profile. That’s going to be a guess until we get clarification which has been rampant the last week as we interpret the ad copy!
 
also not getting Mbritt and why they are so popular. Mattfig and Bert Meulendijk are my favourite Profile makers at the moment.
Yeah, the MBritt stuff wasn’t my bag, at all. Trying to remember which ones I liked; is Top Jimmy one? One or two of (I really hate to say this) Tone Junkie’s was good too.
 
It wasn't hyperbole. Because I intended my sentence to be taken literally. It wasn't an exagerated metaphor or anything like that. If accuracy really isn't important, and capturing a real amp really isn't important, then there are loads of other devices that have great sounds, better user experience, and are cheaper than the Kemper.

It is just dishonesty, at root. People use the Kemper because it claims to be able to be a digital recreation of a real physical amplifier. That is the draw and raison d'etre of the device. Which is precisely why it receives critique in this manner.
I find it hard to believe your choice of an example ‘any other device is good enough’ was literal and wasn’t presented without the intent to challenge the validity of the premise of good enough.
You would have to believe the Kemper user truly would find no difference, dismissing the Kemper users preference and any reason for it, because accuracy is paramount and what it sounds and ‘feels’ should be unimportant to them.

That would be a very simplistic perspective for an extremely experienced engineer. It’s like a mechanical engineer arguing with an architect that the sweeping curve of the designed building should be altered to a simple cube shape because the strength of the cube is all important and the architect assertion that the curves are strong enough is wrong.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top