Oh hell yea!Btw, following the "doesn't feel like the real deal", "only a real amp/cab experience is acceptable" (add a bit of amp-in-the-room flavour to it...) and what not discussion throughout the last pages, I feel like an outlier.
In all seriousness, if anything, the greatest aspect of modeling for me as a live player (at least once modeling had crossed a certain "quality threshold", which IMO it has) is that I *don't* have to deal with all that archaic, inconsistent mess anymore. Which is especially true for cabs. If I wasn't using modeling for my core tones but wanted to keep using whatever real amps, I'm sure that by now I'd run them through a load box and then into whatever FR system.
The differences in projection of one and the same cab under different conditions has been driving me bonkers as long as I can think of. I own (or owned, some are still there) some great sounding cabs and while they were fantastic at times, *all* of them sucked so much ass at other times, it's simply been maddening. Even my 70s Orange 4x12 (/w well worn in old Greenbacks), possibly the best cab for my taste I've ever played through, has been a victim of that more than just once (let alone the handling aspects).
I really did everything to adress these issues. Got a Deeflexx, came up with a modified variation myself, installed "speaker donuts", whatever. And as far as the FOH signal goes, I always brought my own mic, mounted with a mic clamp straight on the cabs, the position carefully measured.
In the end, it was all working fine, sometimes great - just that more often than what I found acceptable, it wasn't.
Add to all this that with FR solutions, I can have the same sound (minus the dreaded Fletcher Munson thing...) while practising at home, playing on small vs. large stages, playing with IEMs vs. monitors, etc. Especially being able to have my live sound at appartment volumes is possibly worth more than anything else.
In a nutshell: Someone would basically have to point a gun to my head to make me use a real cab ever again (unless the situation dictates it, such as on sessions or rental backline gigs).
I loved everything about how my VHT UL and Fender BF sounded .... and I hated any gig I had to haul them to and do setup on. A VHT P90 4x12 cab is about 3 times as heavy as any other cab I have ever lifted as well!
Give me my Kemper and IEM's any day!
Ok ... this is weird ... apparently the exact same profiles and same efx and same settings etc.... on MK1 and MK2 - the Gain profiles sound *totally* different ... the Clean profiles much more "identical"
This should not be the case as (a) they cant be MK2 profiles as that FW isn't out and (b) being [ MK1 ] Legacy Profiles, they should sound identical on each unit I would have thought (?)
To the best of my knowledge, C.K / Kemper have made zero claims about the MK2 playing back MK1 profiles "differently" or "better" (?)
Something very strange going on either with this video -or- the MK2 playing back MK1 Legacy Profiles really changes their sound (?)
This has been reported by a couple of people, but I still don't believe it for all the reasons pointed out in this thread.
Yep. One of the key features of Kemper has been that rigs don't change tone ...... EVER. Imagine if they DID? That means you can't actually use your Kemper Player as a backup because it doesn't sound the same!Could you imagine the uproar if the MK2 played MK1 made profiles but changed their sound ???????
Would make the Player $$ upgrade "issues" look like a convivial tea party !
This is true no matter what capture device you purchase a capture for. You can either get something that sounds great, or like crap. The key IMO to all of these types of devices is how easily you can tweak the original to something pleasing to your own ears. "Accuracy" is largely unimportant if you are purchasing a profile/capture .... only "sounds great" matters.Remember this - whenever you buy a profile, you have no real idea of whether it is accurate or not. Could be the maker just churned out some shite and charged you 20 bux for it.
Not even a whisper of a rumor of it. I have to admit that their engineering effort on MKII was nearly non-existent. I am currently of the belief that they didn't even change the DSP board in the Rack, Toaster or Stage. They simply reused the mainboards and stuck an updated applications processor in the DIMM slot.I've seen a couple of posts from people thinking a "true successor" will follow up soon, but it feels like wishful thinking.
This is why features like integrated WiFi and True Impedance circuits are missing from the Rack and Toaster ..... the main board is not changed at all..... just the application processor in the DIMM slot and a new paint job.
They could have released something as trivial as a new foot controller having a fancy OLED scribble strips .... shoot, they could even have decided that the new foot controller would only work with MKII. At least then MKII would have some meaningful changes.
This is why I also doubt that there is any change in the sound between MK1 and MKII ..... also, from above, I have a feeling the actual main board didn't change making it impossible for there to be a real difference.Kemper reps have already said the sounds are the exact same. If they had a reason to say it was better they would.
The player already has the MK2 signal path and sounds the same, nobody said a peep about it sounding different.
Would be pretty idiotic to make their biggest advantage, the vast back catalog of profiles in MK1 format sound completely different.
Another piece of anecdotal evidence ..... if there was a tonal change, why wasn't this reported by the plethora of Kemper Player users who also have one of the other models?