Dimiguitar
Roadie
- Messages
- 111
Ah, that sure, yes.You get no proper interplay between guitar and amp with headphones.
Ah, that sure, yes.You get no proper interplay between guitar and amp with headphones.
You get no proper interplay between guitar and amp with headphones.
"matched them to Marshall crunch tone" means you profiled that amp with Kemper and Tonex and Fractal or you took some profile and dialed it close? Because the latter wouldn't mean anything. There are a gazillion shitty Marshall Profiles/Tone Models on Kemper or Tonex, but also some amazing ones. I know which ones I like, and my favourites on Tonex are from XOG and Keemosawbe, love the EVH bundle too. On Kemper it's Mattfig mainly, Bertmeulendijk, Lenz, ... but even from those makers, even within one pack, there are some I like, some I don't.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.
Profiled/captured, of course, with Kemper and tonex. With fractal, found a similar amp sim and tweaked it to match the amp."matched them to Marshall crunch tone" means you profiled that amp with Kemper and Tonex and Fractal or you took some profile and dialed it close? Because the latter wouldn't mean anything. There are a gazillion shitty Marshall Profiles/Tone Models on Kemper or Tonex, but also some amazing ones. I know which ones I like, and my favourites on Tonex are from XOG and Keemosawbe, love the EVH bundle too. On Kemper it's Mattfig mainly, Bertmeulendijk, Lenz, ... but even from those makers, even within one pack, there are some I like, some I don't.
I mean testing some Marshall profile on Kemper, some other Marshall tone model on Tonex, a Marshall model on Fractal, doesn't mean anything. Other guy, other profiles, dialed in differently = different result.
To an extent but there is no way headphones is a way to test any amp. I was also talking primarily about playing experience or the complete lack of it in most digital amps . If you play regularly through a WDW with no DAC in the dry signal you would not even question the superiority of the player interaction and immediacy of this . The Kemper gets closer than the others to this player interaction. One big problem is "FRFR" and shitty class D amplifiers that don’t interact like a guitar amp regardless of how it sounds. Or project the sound the same way. I’ve gone back to a tube power amp for Axe and it helps enormously but then I may as well use my X88ir as well. I have tried pretty much everything in common use as "FRFR" and they don’t have the same character as any cab. I am now using F12X200 in custom cabs when I use IRs but guitar cabs are still better.Or anything else when the volume is lower.
I made some tests today with tonex, Kemper, fractal and real amp. Direct captures of the full amp first.The Kemper gets closer than the others to this player interaction.
It’s that “ real amp” bit in the feel that is better with certain types of models that I’m talking about. It’s noticeable and preferable.I made some tests today with tonex, Kemper, fractal and real amp. Direct captures of the full amp first.
(Not studio profiles with Kemper cab removed like the Andertons video you commented on from the null test thread. Is that how you made tests btw or with direct profiles?)
The digital units I amplified with the same solid state amp into the 2x12 cab, then amplified with custom tube power amp. Real amp (preamp and power amp) through the same cab.
After that, I made preamp profiles only and used the Marshall power amp. Circled between the captures, the fractal amp sim, and the Marshall preamp.
I'm not seeing what you're describing vs the amp, that Kemper has some "real amp" mojo the others lack. It's just a somewhat different sound/feel. But closer to the amp? At least in this test, with my own profiles, not really.
Of course this through my own perception, ears, hands. But yes, that's my experience.
As best I can tell, it's when you are seeing your shrink (everyone on this forum will need one eventually) and you are regaling them at length with all your modelling travails, they will eventually cut in and ask you "Is the amplifier in the room with us now?"Oh, we have entered the realm of "amplifier in the room". How exciting. I've never read about that before. Please elaborate.
As best I can tell, it's when you are seeing your shrink (everyone on this forum will need one eventually) and you are regaling them at length with all your modelling travails, they will eventually cut in and ask you "Is the amplifier in the room with us now?"
This assumes these Kemper profiles are more accurate, perhaps in some specific way, to the amp/source, right, for this mojo to be there with such tones.I am only talking about the experience of a player sat in front of a real amp plugged directly in. All tube 100% analog no fx. This is where you hear everything in the amp in its purest detail. This is where Kemper has an edge over other digital but only in certain types of tones primarily clean to break up.
At least there's some relevance to Kemper compared to other topic lel.Oh, we have entered the realm of "amplifier in the room". How exciting. I've never read about that before. Please elaborate.
This assumes these Kemper profiles are more accurate, perhaps in some specific way, to the amp/source, right, for this mojo to be there with such tones.
I agree that they're not more accurate, and that you may prefer them over source. But considering the kind of claim Eagle makes, it seems to me that accuracy is Paramount. Otherwise, where does this "real amp" Kemper mojo come from?No, they're obviously not more accurate. You may still prefer them, even over the source.
Just as IR-ed sounds over a fullrange system aren't an accurate representation of a guitar cab - I still prefer them over the real deal.
He doesn’t know, all of it is amorphous “you gotta just like feel it man” nonsense that doesn’t mean anything to anyone besides the person saying it. That why in the middle of a modeling/profiling discussion things like “oh well I just plug in to my amp if I want high gain” come up.I agree that they're not more accurate, and that you may prefer them over source. But considering the kind of claim Eagle makes, it seems to me that accuracy is Paramount. Otherwise, where does this "real amp" Kemper mojo come from?
If this is what your "FRFR" experience sounds like personally, I do not believe that any of the tones you dial in are good, lol.I am not looking for your typical modelling ""FRFR"" experience of a Boss HM2 plugged in to the back of your dad’s stereo or Headrush as they call it.
It’s that “ real amp” bit in the feel that is better with certain types of models that I’m talking about. It’s noticeable and preferable.
I’m slightly exaggerating.He doesn’t know, all of it is amorphous “you gotta just like feel it man” nonsense that doesn’t mean anything to anyone besides the person saying it. That why in the middle of a modeling/profiling discussion things like “oh well I just plug in to my amp if I want high gain” come up.
If this is what your ""FRFR"" experience sounds like personally, I do not believe that any of the tones you dial in are good, lol.
ThisNo, they're obviously not more accurate. You may still prefer them, even over the source.
Just as IR-ed sounds over a fullrange system aren't an accurate representation of a guitar cab - I still prefer them over the real deal.