Kemper Profiler MK 2

Yep, I could totally see the 2 and 3 being near essential.

I mean I do have the Axe FX 3, so I'm trying to get some of that feel and tone of the Kemper profiles I like on that because it's so damn powerful. There's definitely something sweet about the Kemper sometimes that makes it really enjoyable to play.

I could stretch $700 to have a mini Kemper around for fun...stretching $1000 to have a mini Kemper is definitely more of a stretch.
If the size is of little concern…in my area the used heads/racks pop up like crazy since the mkII announcement. Asking prices around 700,-…so you can probably pick one up around 500,-
But…probably little on their roadmap will drop into mk1.

Yeah..1K is a lot for a fun item. It wasn’t an essential item for me either, but i don’t regret it.
Occasional s(h)it in where I can pull it from my gigbag, holiday rig, I record with it on an iPad from my couch, and it is gonna make it to a new hybrid board with some analog drives.
 
I posted that pages ago lol
1748879345473.png
 
I don't think Fluff is just reeling off from a few product descriptions, but of course many are doing that.

The sentiment is for most people, except those who are defending that hill, is that Kemper are making a balls up here.
If I was to buy a Mk2 now, I wouldn't have anything more than a new shell.

If and when they deliver on their promise of "the most precise amp recreation ever achieved", then perhaps they could be forgiven, but even then I still think that aside from that statement, they should not be messing customers around with DLC (levels).

They really could do better, but of course people have different standards.
Personally, I'm put off so far by any recent Kemper shenanigans in the last year or two.
 
Yeah and harking back to QC days....or any product description at SW, GC etc, I wonder if Kemper "writes" it and sends it out or?
Hard to say. I’ve seen many product pages on Sweetwater that match the product descriptions on the manufacturer’s website.
 
@AFKAEjay(retired) - this is what I get when I post sincere and polite responses to people. So... please tell me why I should bother; coz you are extremely fond of calling me out by stealth, yet you never call these kinds of people out. Why tone police me, and not other people?

As to the claim that the evidence is to the contrary... doesn't even warrant a response. It is just stupid, and the entire planet has just lost half an IQ point because of it.


I've got 18 years of gigging under my belt too. But you'll just come back with another stupid response to that, is my guess. You're an extremely bad faith person.


Aliasing is not a per-rig phenomenon. It is a product of the entire DSP system. It is genuinely hilarious that you think you can avoid it by just avoiding certain rigs. You reveal your ignorance once again.


Well, firstly, it isn't off subject. It is precisely what we're talking about.




Aliasing happens when you apply non-linear processes to a signal, that create overtones or harmonics. These harmonics extend out from the fundamental, up through the frequency range. When they hit Nyquist, if they're not dealt with, they will wrap around and cause unpleasant chipmunk or squirrel artefacts. In the case of the Kemper - as the video I linked earlier shows - they're extremely audible.

How do you handle aliasing? You filter. How do you filter? There are a range of techniques. One of them is to apply a FIR filter just below the Nyquist frequency, so that frequencies above bounce back and get filtered before they have a chance to be audible.

Another way is to perform an FFT on the signal, attenuate or zero out bins that fall above a certain threshold, and then inverse FFT it back. This method, while computationally more expensive, can offer precise control over the frequency domain and is often used in convolution-style processes or spectral shaping tools.

But most importantly — and here's where many profiling and modeling systems fall short — the best way to mitigate aliasing is to oversample the non-linear process before it generates the alias-prone content. You run your distortion (or other non-linear effect) at, say, 4x or 8x the sample rate, then filter and downsample it back. This dramatically reduces foldback aliasing.

It is way more involved than simply saying "run at 48kHz and everything will be fine".

So to answer your question:
=> IR block - very low risk of aliasing being introduced here.

=> Delay Blocks - moderate risk of aliasing here, depending on how the delay line interpolation works and the non-linearities added in the circuit.

=> Reverb Block - same as the delay block; there's a possibility you could introduce aliasing here if you don't support fractional delay times within the feedback paths used to create the reverb.

=> EQ- very low risk of aliasing being introduced here.

=> MultiBand Comp - There could be some risk here, depending on non-linearities and the design of the crossover filters.

=> Flanger / Phaser - Same sort of thing as the delay and reverb blocks; if you're modulating delay lines, then you could introduce aliasing.


Using band-limited interpolation techniques and oversampling within the blocks where delay lines are modulated, is how you would address any potential sources of aliasing.

If I was to be super charitable, I would say that preferring the sound of the Kemper over Helix and Axe FX III, is akin to preferring the sound of an 80's rack delay over a newer unit from Strymon; because almost certainly the 80's digital rack delay won't have implemented high quality resampling algorithms, whereas the Strymon would have. The older rack unit would alias to high heaven (just as the Kemper does), but some people don't care, and it can certainly add to the character of a unit. I just personally don't think it adds very much to a guitar rig.
This is what makes your ears so suspect. Are we to believe your ears over all those touring musicians using Kemper? Or for that matter, are we to believe your ears over all those who have had Kemper AND NAM AND QC AND AxeIIFx?

With respect to Aliasing, I happen to be a senior EE. Your explanation leaves quite a bit to be desired as well.

Without going into the mathematical theory behind how it is possible, I will state simply that if you sample at a rate twice that of the highest frequency you wish to PERFECTLY reproduce, you have no issues.

While different processing techniques can cause unwanted artifacts, those are not called Aliasing. FWIW, most internal processing these days is done with methods that provide insane dynamic range to prevent the algorithms from overcoming the mathematically limited storage of each sample. Again, I am not going to try to explain the math or the algorithms but will say that it is a fairly safe bet that the kinds of gear we are talking about here would employ these methods and make nearly all your assumptions incorrect.

In my previous post, I referred to something I hear as "Aliasing" as well, so I am also guilty. Having artifacts in the reproduced tone is not likely due to aliasing in any high end device today. It is much more likely an issue with the rest of the capture chain (microphone, placement, speaker, etc, etc).

I get you don't like Kemper and your reasons are your own. Mis-representing the quality of the sound is just way out over the line though. If you actually want a good point to be making about Kemper MK2, I would recommend the fact that the DSP and SRAM chips have not changed (the hardware parts responsible for actually manipulating and creating the sound). Only the the interface board has changed (the one responsible for the house keeping chores like GUI, loading of the DSP with a profile, running the foot controller, networking, etc). Why would there be ANY difference in sound quality between MK1 and MK2? Also, it seems pretty hypocritical now for Kemper to be selling an MK2 on the promise of more accurate profiling when they have spent over a decade claiming it isn't needed (a statement I agree with although on a different basis than Kemper has been making).

Finally, if you were in fact gigging, it is inconceivable (to me at least) that my list of concerns that rank above capture "accuracy" would not be your concerns as well. The ergonomics, reliability, and repeatability of a gig are much more often the cause of big issues in a band beyond capture accuracy where the differences are so minute that a host of touring musicians in A list bands find negligible.
 
This is what makes your ears so suspect. Are we to believe your ears over all those touring musicians using Kemper? Or for that matter, are we to believe your ears over all those who have had Kemper AND NAM AND QC AND AxeIIFx?

Arguing over anyone's ears is not scientific.
If we are talking about accuracy, a Null Test will make the point perfectly.

Failing that, a blind test comparison may be a good alternative.
 
Without going into the mathematical theory behind how it is possible, I will state simply that if you sample at a rate twice that of the highest frequency you wish to PERFECTLY reproduce, you have no issues.
Nonlinear processing creates frequencies much greater than the native Nyquist frequency. For example, if your native sample rate is 48 kHz and you distort the waveform you'll create harmonics far in excess of 24 kHz.

The solution is to use what is known as oversampling where you increase the effective sample rate internally and then downsample prior to final output. If you don't oversample you'll alias all those harmonics that are above Nyquist.

Orvillain knows of what he speaks.
 
Finally, if you were in fact gigging, it is inconceivable (to me at least) that my list of concerns that rank above capture "accuracy" would not be your concerns as well. The ergonomics, reliability, and repeatability of a gig are much more often the cause of big issues in a band beyond capture accuracy where the differences are so minute that a host of touring musicians in A list bands find negligible.
This is nonsense. Not everyone who gigs plays the same gigs or has the same requirements. Someone who plays out in a 7pc wedding band 4 times a months is going to have different gear needs to someone backing a singer every day for a month is going to have different needs compared to someone who gigs 2x a month in a local original project. If I was filling in for a band like Bring me the Horizon having a Kemper makes sense (mostly because nobody is gonna even know what’s guitar once all the tracks are playing) but if it was gig with Pelican that would 100% be the wrong rig to bring.
 
With respect to Aliasing, I happen to be a senior EE. Your explanation leaves quite a bit to be desired as well.

Without going into the mathematical theory behind how it is possible, I will state simply that if you sample at a rate twice that of the highest frequency you wish to PERFECTLY reproduce, you have no issues.

While different processing techniques can cause unwanted artifacts, those are not called Aliasing. FWIW, most internal processing these days is done with methods that provide insane dynamic range to prevent the algorithms from overcoming the mathematically limited storage of each sample. Again, I am not going to try to explain the math or the algorithms but will say that it is a fairly safe bet that the kinds of gear we are talking about here would employ these methods and make nearly all your assumptions incorrect.

In my previous post, I referred to something I hear as "Aliasing" as well, so I am also guilty. Having artifacts in the reproduced tone is not likely due to aliasing in any high end device today. It is much more likely an issue with the rest of the capture chain (microphone, placement, speaker, etc, etc).


FWIW, I'm not an EE (or a Vodaphone, or Carrier Pidgeon), but I'm fairly sure if you do want to measure Aliasing - you can do that without being an EE, or claiming to be one. You just need to hook up to software and it'll show you what's going on - and this can all be freeware: https://www.roomeqwizard.com/

I'd far prefer that instead of cliffs of writing that don't say anything, especially from someone who is claiming to be a professionally EE.
 
Back
Top