Dimiguitar
Roadie
- Messages
- 586
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.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.
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.
