Kemper Profiler MK 2

[Antipodes]

OK .... now this IS fucking gold ! :)

The h part is, anyway. Good score on the KPP.

 

[BenIfin]

You'll definitely be able to recoup your money on that one.

I'm sure there will be new profiles from Kemper, but curious who would follow up with new releases. Probably Tone Junkie as he's constantly doing profiles, and maybe Choptones as they're constantly pushing new ones as well. Michael Britt doesn't release packs often so I think it would take a while for those. Amalgam has barely released any Kemper stuff to date.

Given there's so many classic amps out there today it may be a while before new profiles are widely available. That's the bummer with things like profiles, you need to reshoot everything, so you need all the amps and equipment and what not (unlike liquid profiles which were just tweaking existing ones).

But as I said earlier in this thread, I've found really good stuff by Matt Fig and Bert Meulendijk (probably butchered the name) sounds much higher fidelity than older profiles from Michael Britt. I'm sure it's how they miked up everything but to me it's more open and much closer to a great modeled amp with a great IR sonically.

My best guess is that its going to be most if not all makers doing and sometimes re-doing MK2 "new" Profile packs only from now on.

I have zero expectation that anyone will offer free re-do's of MK1 profiles ..... kind of like Tonex 'V2" .... they are going to have to be all re-done and will also run on the exisiting hardware ..... the new MK2 will also run on the Legacy / MK1 Machines albeit at a lesser quality.

 

[metropolis_4]

My take is I don’t really care about the amp tones at this point. I think the main area of opportunity in modelers is not amp quality improvement but effects quality improvement. And personally the thing I still care about the most is “how well can I control what I need during a live show?”

I already loved the amp tones I got out of Kemper, and I think it’s biggest strength is Performance mode. I love the live workflow! The area I would want to see improved in Kemper is the effects. THAT is where they desperately need better processing power. The effects always felt underpowered and dated.

But Performance mode was amazing. The Stage is still my favorite digital device I ever used for live work. It was just so easy to do everything I wanted; it felt like everything was very well thought out for live playing experience.

 

[Jarick]

My take is I don’t really care about the amp tones at this point. I think the main area of opportunity in modelers is not amp quality improvement but effects quality improvement. And personally the thing I still care about the most is “how well can I control what I need during a live show?”

I already loved the amp tones I got out of Kemper, and I think it’s biggest strength is Performance mode. I love the live workflow! The area I would want to see improved in Kemper is the effects. THAT is where they desperately need better processing power. The effects always felt underpowered and dated.

But Performance mode was amazing. The Stage is still my favorite digital device I ever used for live work. It was just so easy to do everything I wanted; it felt like everything was very well thought out for live playing experience.

That to me is really the biggest strength of Kemper. The core tones are really good (for most genres), the effects are pretty good, the workflow once you have the profiles is great. It's not the most flexible but it would work for most people I think once you adjust. Five different rigs at five different switches, and then four different effect switches.

 

[Dimiguitar]

That's kind of what I'm basing my "optimism" on. If Joe Schmo's like us in the forums know how good Tonex and NAM sound and feel - it would be ludicrous to think that CK / Kemper don't also know.

Thing is, kemper themselves didn't seem to know the profiler suffers from certain innacuracies (minus the multiple distorting stages issue). Either that, or there was a lack of honesty about the topic. I don't know for sure what the case was.

But if they were honest, how did they miss out on all this? I think it's an interesting question to ask. Surely testing can be imperfect, people can be pressured into being yes men and confirm whatever the engineer wants; the engineer can be dismissive of critical inputs too easily, etc etc.

But personally, I believe that people's standards of what is considered "accurate" tend to change with time. CK may have genuinely believed it's all "bang on perfect" at some point in time. Many guitarists themselves were excited to the absolute shit fuck with this technology, as well as producers like Andy Sneap who used Kemper extensively.

But ask people now, many will say that tonex and NAM are more accurate than Kemper. How did this happen when Kemper was just "accurate"? Even some of the same people who would swear up and down Kemper perfectly clones their amps seem to have flipped.

I think it's partly that: our standards of accuracy change. And when there's other competing products, these standards are also more likely to be challenged and reinvigorated.

 

[metropolis_4]

That to me is really the biggest strength of Kemper. The core tones are really good (for most genres), the effects are pretty good, the workflow once you have the profiles is great. It's not the most flexible but it would work for most people I think once you adjust. Five different rigs at five different switches, and then four different effect switches.

I actually think it’s incredibly flexible, you just have to think and approach it differently because it’s a totally different concept to managing and organizing your workflow compared to the grid of Fractal/Line 6/NDSP/etc.

Each rig also can have its own separate effects, and you can easily switch to a new bank of five different rigs, and, best of all, morphing.

I take the metal guys at their word that it’s not great for those tones because they know better than me what works for them, but for me, for the lower gain cathode biased sort of amp tones, it is really good

 

[BenIfin]

Thing is, kemper themselves didn't seem to know the profiler suffers from certain innacuracies (minus the multiple distorting stages issue). Either that, or there was a lack of honesty about the topic. I don't know for sure what the case was.

But if they were honest, how did they miss out on all this? I think it's an interesting question to ask. Surely testing can be imperfect, people can be pressured into being yes men and confirm whatever the engineer wants; the engineer can be dismissive of critical inputs too easily, etc etc.

But personally, I believe that people's standards of what is considered "accurate" tend to change with time. CK may have genuinely believed it's all "bang on perfect" at some point in time. Many guitarists themselves were excited to the absolute shit fuck with this technology, as well as producers like Andy Sneap who used Kemper extensively.

But ask people now, many will say that tonex and NAM are more accurate than Kemper. How did this happen when Kemper was just "accurate"? Even some of the same people who would swear up and down Kemper perfectly clones their amps seem to have flipped.

I think it's partly that: our standards of accuracy change. And when there's other competing products, these standards are also more likely to be challenged and reinvigorated.

Yep. I have no idea what the new system will sound or feel like -or- how " Null Test" good it is ... not that null tests are the be all and end all.

Where Tonex and NAM are awesome is if you want a super accurate static Snapshot of an Amp ... just fantastic .

 

[metropolis_4]

Yep. I have no idea what the new system will sound or feel like -or- how " Null Test" good it is ... not that null tests are the be all and end all.

Where Tonex and NAM are awesome is if you want a super accurate static Snapshot of an Amp ... just fantastic .

NAM doesn’t interest me because I use this stuff live, but I’ll have to try ToneX someday. I stayed away from it for a while because Kemper had better curated content from people like MBritt, and I will not play the game of digging through the garbage to find the diamonds in the rough game with random user Profiles.

 

[Jarick]

Thing is, kemper themselves didn't seem to know the profiler suffers from certain innacuracies (minus the multiple distorting stages issue). Either that, or there was a lack of honesty about the topic. I don't know for sure what the case was.

But if they were honest, how did they miss out on all this? I think it's an interesting question to ask. Surely testing can be imperfect, people can be pressured into being yes men and confirm whatever the engineer wants; the engineer can be dismissive of critical inputs too easily, etc etc.

But personally, I believe that people's standards of what is considered "accurate" tend to change with time. CK may have genuinely believed it's all "bang on perfect" at some point in time. Many guitarists themselves were excited to the absolute shit fuck with this technology, as well as producers like Andy Sneap who used Kemper extensively.

But ask people now, many will say that tonex and NAM are more accurate than Kemper. How did this happen when Kemper was just "accurate"? Even some of the same people who would swear up and down Kemper perfectly clones their amps seem to have flipped.

I think it's partly that: our standards of accuracy change. And when there's other competing products, these standards are also more likely to be challenged and reinvigorated.

I'm not convinced yet that Kemper made the proclamation that the profiler was perfect, but if someone can find a post from Christoph himself I'd be wrong (although I don't think it matters what he said previously).

But I would agree that tastes have shifted and I think that's where the profiler can be exposed.

In the old days when amp sims (and especially cab sims) were not as good, the high end was reduced to kind of hide the noise. If you have aliasing in the 7-8k range and you put a high cut at 5k you aren't going to hear it as much. Especially in a mix. This works out much of the time because people were used to guitar cabs that roll off around 5k and in a mix you are cutting the highs anyway if you weren't just running through a power amp and guitar cab.

Nowadays though people are running direct way more often and using IR's that show the high frequencies much more, so high end issues jump out more. Fractal I think does the high end really well but it's very prominent, so if you aren't cutting the high frequencies a decent amount you hear a ton of it. And if you compare the Fractal against the Kemper you're either going to hear that the Kemper is rolled off in the high end or you're going to hear some of the aliasing noise (I'm assuming that's the weird harsh garbled high end you sometimes hear on really bright high gain profiles).

Note that may not mean that bright amp tones are superior, just more common. I'd guess bright amp tones may be a reason why some of us struggle to enjoy the same sounds from day to day as our ears are more or less sensitive/tired/etc.

What I'm curious about with the new profiling is how the high gain stuff is handled. I'm wondering if the computer profiling will somehow involve some oversampling that would reduce aliasing and improve the high end clarity given the 44.1 kHz sample rate of the Kemper (or maybe that's just the output converter and not the internal rate). If they can pull off better profiles with improved clarity and accuracy then great! If not then they better have a Mk3 up their sleeves to stay relevant once Fractal and other companies start rolling out their next gen products alongside Stadium...

 

[Jarick]

NAM doesn’t interest me because I use this stuff live, but I’ll have to try ToneX someday. I stayed away from it for a while because Kemper had better curated content from people like MBritt, and I will not play the game of digging through the garbage to find the diamonds in the rough game with random user Profiles.

I think Tonex is great if you want pure amp/cab replacement but I'd guess your workflow wouldn't fit here as you'd need several other pedals and a switching system for effects. However Tonex could be awesome for in the box recording purposes.

 

[Dimiguitar]

I'm not convinced yet that Kemper made the proclamation that the profiler was perfect, but if someone can find a post from Christoph himself I'd be wrong (although I don't think it matters what he said previously).

They have told me directly that the results of profiling specifically should sound identical to source (or otherwise refining wasn't done well enough). That, also considering the statement that "if it sounds the same, it feels the same".

But you can also hear CK at 3:52 in this video. "Our goal was to sound identical and this is what we achieved".


Also, here's Fluff's video. 3:35. It's vague what "perfect" means in this context imo, but nonetheless. According to Ryan's recounting of events, CK told him Kemper was perfect and hence no new unit was required. Strong claims, but here we are with MKII and updated profiling (at some point).

What I'm curious about with the new profiling is how the high gain stuff is handled. I'm wondering if the computer profiling will somehow involve some oversampling that would reduce aliasing and improve the high end clarity given the 44.1 kHz sample rate of the Kemper (or maybe that's just the output converter and not the internal rate). If they can pull off better profiles with improved clarity and accuracy then great! If not then they better have a Mk3 up their sleeves to stay relevant once Fractal and other companies start rolling out their next gen products alongside Stadium...

Difficult to imagine an MKIII considering how long it took to have an MKII. I imagine people would probably not receive MKIII news well if it came out a year or two later. In terms of aliasing, I only had a real problem with Kemper when it was originally released.

The aliasing back then was really bad, in my opinion; and even considering all their testing with guitar players, they had thought it's fine. But it clearly was not for some people. The update definitely made it acceptable for me and many others as well. I am not sure whether what you're hearing is aliasing, personally, but who knows!

I imagine they're taking the new profiling quite seriously, at this point. Seems to take a while to come out.

 

[Dimiguitar]

They have told me directly that the results of profiling specifically should sound identical to source (or otherwise refining wasn't done well enough). That, also considering the statement that "if it sounds the same, it feels the same".

But you can also hear CK at 3:52 in this video. "Our goal was to sound identical and this is what we achieved".

But also go to 8:00. I hadn't reached that point yet. Same video.



There he says "some times you can hear no difference". "Sometimes there's a slight difference in bass end but you can easily compensate for it".

Also mentions that it bothered him some guitarists would prefer the profiles to the amps, considering he wanted them to be equal to the amp.

So is it... Identical or not?

What he says is quite bit more nuanced than I was expecting, considering all I've seen on Kemper forum, refreshing even, but I find the video confusing.

After the above, he says that "the difference is not about sound or feel or quality. It's just something".

Yeah, I don't know about that. MKII profiling seems to disagree! I imagine that Ck's standards have shifted though much like they have for many of us.

 

[LP59]

That's a bold statement, but I've never seen anything where he says the Mk1 is perfect and has no room for improvement, which is what I've seen people, like Fluff, claim he said.

I suspect the truth is more like: they would like to improve it, but they are constrained by the limits of their DSP processor and they can't improve it.

We'll just have to wait and see, but I don't think Kemper has actually come out and said the new profiling is better than the Mk1 . It looks like they'll at least provide some control over impedance curves. That's an advantage they have over more modern black box profilers, but they have chosen their words very carefully to make sure nobody can hold them to any promises.

 

[Dimiguitar]

We'll just have to wait and see, but I don't think Kemper has actually come out and said the new profiling is better than the Mk1 .

How else should we interpret the announcement and text that went along with it though? Like offering some new profiling function that doesn't improve upon the original but is distinct or?

It looks like they'll at least provide some control over impedance curves. That's an advantage they have over more modern black box profilers, but they have chosen their words very carefully to make sure nobody can hold them to any promises.

Did they mention impedance curves?

 

[LP59]

How else should we interpret the announcement and text that went along with it though? Like offering some new profiling function that doesn't improve upon the original but is distinct or?

You're right, it would be crazy not to improve it, but they didn't actually say they did . Normally an announcement like that would say something like "Improved Accuracy", but I think it's notable that they didn't say that.

Did they mention impedance curves?

That's just my personal interpretation of "Dynamically adjustable Cabinet Resonance".

 

[Dimiguitar]

That's just my personal interpretation of "Dynamically adjustable Cabinet Resonance".

Interesting, didn't remember that.

 

[Jarick]

Here's my interpretation based on their website:

• There's an upgraded processing engine that allows for faster boot times and general usability performance improvements - the Kemper Player is significantly better responding and far more stable than my old toasters so I buy this one
• There's an additional seven fixed effects blocks that don't add any more latency to the signal - that's already out and it's fine but not some kind of revolution
• They announced new profiling technology for the Mk2 which is expected during Summer
  • 100,000 individual frequency points - this doesn't mean anything to me because there's no context. How many points are they capturing now? We have no idea so this could be 50% more or it could be 50,000% more.
  • Most powerful amp recreation ever - you can't quantify this and everyone claims to be the best so I throw this out. Nobody is going to come out and say they have like top 10 amp modeling on the market.
  • Next level speaker and adjustable cabinet resonance control - no idea what this is but it could be really useful. Fractal has a speaker thump and resonance control, if they can add this to profiles it would be helpful to manage thin or woofy profiles.
  • Longest impulse responses in a capture device - this sounds fancy but I don't know if it's going to make a difference. I don't hear a difference between 1024 vs 2048 samples in Helix/Fractal honestly.
  • Liquid profiling - this already exists, hopefully they will expand the models though
  • Unparalleled precision & feel - this doesn't mean anything, again nobody will come out and say their amp models feel like shit
• Lighter weight Stage Mk2 - okay
• Player is already Mk2 - awesome
  • On the website it says the player will get the new profiling which reads that it will play the new profiles, but then people e-mailed Kemper to ask and were told it will also be able to create profiles
• 8-channel USB audio interface - doesn't do much for me
• Better looper - okay
• Speed & responsiveness - already covered

Nowhere on the page do they talk about any kind of improvements to the audio path or audio processing. They talk about improved Mk2 profiling but I don't see anything about better converters or a new audio DSP that would inherently make the new Kemper sound better. The tear down videos seem to confirm that, they seem to have the same audio DSP and the new upgraded chip is more for usability performance (which tracks with the faster boot times and quicker menus).

At the end of the day the #1 thing I care about having a Player is the ability to make my own profiles. If I can't do that, I'll sell mine and move along. I'm intrigued by the possibility for higher fidelity profiles but not on the edge of my seat over it. I am however intrigued by the speaker/cab controls and to see if that's only for new profiles or if it can be applied to legacy profiles (like liquid profiles). There's certainly profiles out there which are really thin sounding or really boomy and bassy that could use this control (similar to how one would use the definition control to adjust the high end).

 

[Dimiguitar]

• Longest impulse responses in a capture device - this sounds fancy but I don't know if it's going to make a difference. I don't hear a difference between 1024 vs 2048 samples in Helix/Fractal honestly

If I import a compatible IR into Kemper, the sound of the IR changes compared to running in daw or fractal units. Especially feel it with mutes. Whatever it is, maybe it's fixed now with the longer IRs.

 

[BenIfin]

If I import a compatible IR into Kemper, the sound of the IR changes compared to running in daw or fractal units. Especially feel it with mutes. Whatever it is, maybe it's fixed now with the longer IRs.

Yep. This has -got- to be improved and I think it will be. In the current MK1, importing an IR, the system does some really weird shit to it - the same IR loaded in my HX Stomp or FM3 sounds right - in the KPA it sounds wrong / crap.

Where the Cab stuff is great in the MK1 [ and the MK2 ] will be for example, if you like the Cab side of a full studio profile, you can just copy / paste / replace that to any other studio profile and the split point is perfect across all profiles using that Cab

 

[Tanax]

Is it still summer yet?

Not in Sweden, but apparently unfortunately still in Germany