Kemper Profiler MK 2

[ian_dissonance]

You are talking about Kemper 1.0, and yes profiles in Kemper 1.0 are worse that the other brands. We have to wait for Kemper 2.0.

Well Kemper 2.0 doesn’t exist publicly so nobody knows. Without a significant change to the hardware I’m not confident they can really “catch up”.

Im talking about the sound, not the digital process.

What? It’s all digital until it hits the power amp/speaker.

 

[Deleted member 3656]

NAM was the best profiler, and now ToneX and Quad Cortex are at the same level with v2, so I believe that Kemper 2.0 profiles will be as good. I think that differences from now on on profilers will be in practical things as liquid profiling or the robot for making captures that people of quad cortex showed months ago (despite controls, pedals, UI...).

I think they should model more tone stacks for liquid profiling.

I don't know of a unit that offers such tweaking on TOP of captures (other than Kemper).

It's certainly a strength of the toaster -- I do agree with that.

Also, I like how the EQ controls on the toaster become quite useful (for me, because I like real amp tone stacks a lot) and very amp-like when using liquid profiling.

 

[LP59]

Is liquid profiles 2.0 a thing or is it just wishful thinking on your end?

Kemper might add some new tone stacks, but anything anybody outside of Kemper says about the new profiling is just wishful thinking.

The best Kemper can hope for is to make a dent in the perception that their profiling is far behind, although that's probably not the primary reason their popularity is suffering these days anyway.

 

[Schelotto]

Well Kemper 2.0 doesn’t exist publicly so nobody knows. Without a significant change to the hardware I’m not confident they can really “catch up”.

What? It’s all digital until it hits the power amp/speaker.

For me digital sound is a digital aproximation (as the first pod, amplitube...), NAM, ToneX, Kemper... sounds as real as analogue.

 

[ian_dissonance]

Ok.

 

[molul]

Profiles are digital, not analog. And digital sound is not bad per se, moreso in 2025

If you're able to distinguish model and profile in a double blind test, I'd just clap.

 

[Schelotto]

Profiles are digital, not analog. And digital sound is not bad per se, moreso in 2025

If you're able to distinguish model and profile in a double blind test, I'd just clap.

Well, the amps in UAD paradise are modelers (I think, I don´t know the exact technology) because you can turn the knobs, and in low gain they are amazing. Dibiquadro amps are based in convolution I think (they use the same technology of Acustica Audio), so its difficult to identify them as modelers or pofilers, and they sound amazing.
Other guitar modelers yes, I can distinguih them against profiles in a blind test. For example Neural DSP amps (not quad cortex), old Helix... they have good high gain tones but a little bit digital sound.

So we´ll have to distinguish in modelers, profilers, convolution... but the most important thing is the final sound.

 

[Deleted member 3656]

Well, the amps in UAD paradise are modelers (I think, I don´t know the exact technology) because you can turn the knobs, and in low gain they are amazing. Dibiquadro amps are based in convolution I think (they use the same technology of Acustica Audio), so its difficult to identify them as modelers or pofilers, and they sound amazing.
Other guitar modelers yes, I can distinguih them against profiles in a blind test. For example Neural DSP amps (not quad cortex), old Helix... they have good high gain tones but a little bit digital sound.

So we´ll have to distinguish in modelers, profilers, convolution... but the most important thing is the final sound.

When you say digital, what characteristics are you referring to?

 

[Schelotto]

When you say digital, what characteristics are you referring to?

The sound.... Digital sound is like a little bit of plastic sound. Nobody has say in the first pod era: it sound digital ? Now modelers are not Pods, but they still have a little bit of a plastic sound.
Digital sound is not a literal word.

 

[Deleted member 3656]

The sound.... Digital sound is like a little bit of plastic sound. Nobody has say in the first pod era: it sound digital ? Now modelers are not Pods, but they still have a little bit of a plastic sound.
Digital sound is not a literal word.

I understood it's not meant to be taken literally (after you explained), but was just wondering what these characterizations you call "digital" are.

So the characteristic, or one of them, is sounding plastic.

 

[Enchilada Jones]

I don't think any Ultra owners felt betrayed. But if Fractal Audio had never come out with a successor to the Ultra, most people would view them today as an also-ran.

Two thoughts.

Ultra had a high relative cost increase for what it was. Kemper mk ii has no price increase. Not saying it wasn't worth it, I bought it over the Standard knowing full well what it was and wasn't.

Around 1898 John Browning designed what was released shortly after as the Colt 1911 pistol. It has had many successors. It is still mass produced and selling really really well.
If something works well and has a healthy following having 'newer, better' devices to surpass you doesn't mean you are dead.

 

[Jarick]

But the sound of the modelers are digital, good but not enough. With profilers with dynamic profiles you have the best of both worlds and you can try better the behavior of the real amp for yourself.

I would recommend you try adding more of a high cut in modelers which would get you closer to the sound you like out of Kemper. Kemper tends to roll off the high end a decent amount which gives a warm sound. This was excellent back when it first came out as most people were used to really brittle and harsh digital amps. Now the modelers are a lot more accurate and less harsh but still have extended high end. A high cut around 7k will give a warm sound closer to Kemper.

If you like the UAD amps it’s likely the warm sounding cabs. They again roll off the high end to my ears. Which is perfectly fine and most people who aren’t on forums prefer that.

 

[Schelotto]

I would recommend you try adding more of a high cut in modelers which would get you closer to the sound you like out of Kemper. Kemper tends to roll off the high end a decent amount which gives a warm sound. This was excellent back when it first came out as most people were used to really brittle and harsh digital amps. Now the modelers are a lot more accurate and less harsh but still have extended high end. A high cut around 7k will give a warm sound closer to Kemper.

If you like the UAD amps it’s likely the warm sounding cabs. They again roll off the high end to my ears. Which is perfectly fine and most people who aren’t on forums prefer that.

Yes, Kemper 1 has worse hi end, but we´ll supose that kemper 2 will have it in the same quality as NAM, ToneX v2... People of Kemper was talking about best hi end about Kemper 2.0. I think all the brands now know how to have the same quality as NAM.
I sold my Kemper 1 rack and my new kemper player is bored waiting for 2.0.

 

[Schelotto]

I would recommend you try adding more of a high cut in modelers which would get you closer to the sound you like out of Kemper. Kemper tends to roll off the high end a decent amount which gives a warm sound. This was excellent back when it first came out as most people were used to really brittle and harsh digital amps. Now the modelers are a lot more accurate and less harsh but still have extended high end. A high cut around 7k will give a warm sound closer to Kemper.

If you like the UAD amps it’s likely the warm sounding cabs. They again roll off the high end to my ears. Which is perfectly fine and most people who aren’t on forums prefer that.

For curiosity, what modelers do you recomend?

 

[Deleted member 3656]

I would recommend you try adding more of a high cut in modelers which would get you closer to the sound you like out of Kemper. Kemper tends to roll off the high end a decent amount which gives a warm sound. This was excellent back when it first came out as most people were used to really brittle and harsh digital amps. Now the modelers are a lot more accurate and less harsh but still have extended high end. A high cut around 7k will give a warm sound closer to Kemper.

If you like the UAD amps it’s likely the warm sounding cabs. They again roll off the high end to my ears. Which is perfectly fine and most people who aren’t on forums prefer that.

It's like how tonex V1 would roll of the high end. That made me sad. But V2 mostly fixed it, and it's much closer to the source amps now.

 

[Orvillain]

Two thoughts.

Ultra had a high relative cost increase for what it was. Kemper mk ii has no price increase. Not saying it wasn't worth it, I bought it over the Standard knowing full well what it was and wasn't.

Around 1898 John Browning designed what was released shortly after as the Colt 1911 pistol. It has had many successors. It is still mass produced and selling really really well.
If something works well and has a healthy following having 'newer, better' devices to surpass you doesn't mean you are dead.

Comparing a modeller to a gun. I've read it all now! lmaaaaooooo!

 

[Enchilada Jones]

Comparing a modeller to a gun. I've read it all now! lmaaaaooooo!

If that is your only take away then you should definitely read slower and think about it more

 

[[Nathan]]

If that is your only take away then you should definitely read slower and think about it more

Not the best analogy tbf. Modellers are more on par with tech products that have lifecycles. An iPhone 10 or a TV gets superseded compared to a rake or knife etc.

 

[molul]

The Colt 1911 never had competitors with touch screen.

 

[Gary_W]

Ultra had a high relative cost increase for what it was. Kemper mk ii has no price increase. Not saying it wasn't worth it, I bought it over the Standard knowing full well what it was and wasn't.

Compared to the Mk1, Mk2 is of course excellent value as it’s the same price and you get more. A nice sloping front, alternative paint, some cut down effects and a quicker boot time. You also get the promise that better sounds will come in Summer and, at this stage, that might be next Summer. So yes, compared to what they offered before it’s great value but only if you:-

(A) Don’t already have a Mk1 as I did - at that point I’d argue the Mk2 is not good value. That was the point I tried to make in my post

(B) You don’t compare it to the rest of the market which has fundamentally changed from the time when the Mk1 release - at that point, the high end was a two horse race between Kemper and Fractal. Kemper owned Europe high end market - I’d argue this is not because it’s significantly better than the fractal of the day (both great products) but because it was available from retailers with returns policies and was cheaper than the dealer only alternative that is off putting to some.

The sound.... Digital sound is like a little bit of plastic sound. Nobody has say in the first pod era: it sound digital ? Now modelers are not Pods, but they still have a little bit of a plastic sound.
Digital sound is not a literal word.

I have Kemper Mk1, Stadium XL and a couple of actual amps. In the past I’ve owned lots of digital gear going back to Zoom 505 days.

I think your ‘captures are good, modelling is not’ statement is maybe not in date vs flagship units from Fractal and Line 6. Your mentioning of liquid profiles is interesting - you do realise that these are simply digital models that work with a profile? There are a limited number of them and so there will be compromises with some amps - if you look at the Grammatico in Helix and Stadium, you’ll see a large number of things that hugely change the character of the amp. The different directions you can go in that thing go way beyond any of the liquid tonestacks.

So if modelling is a good thing for you with liquid tonestacks (and actually all the modelled distortions, overdrive and fuzz within the Kemper) can you see that modelling *everything* might not be such a bad thing? Especially because the companies that do modelling spend all their research time *on modelling*. Kemper’s thing is profiling - their time right now is on mk2 profiles. How much time do they spend getting the modelling stuff 100% right? Maybe better to model everything so it all matches up accurately and plays nice?

It also might interest you to Google ‘how does Kemper profiling work’ - you’ll find lots out there saying that there are basically 7 digital models inside Kemper to approximate all the amps in the world. When you profile, it chooses the closest, adds filters and does an IR of the speaker cab. I don’t know if this is true or not and, honestly, if the results are great it doesn’t matter how they do it - I am just trying to show that the ‘modelling is inferior to captures’ idea is flawed until *every knob and button can be captured*. If the 7 models thing is actually true, isn’t the Kemper simply an modeller that doesn’t allow you to choose the model?

Until they make it possible for every knob and button to be captured and work ‘as the original’ within a profile environment, you are still (with liquid or other systems anyone comes up with) adding a model onto a profile. If the reason for the mk2 delay is that they’ve found a way to do this for every amp on the planet then The mk2 people will understandably be super happy and I will be glad for them. Even if it ends up being the best sounding unit right now, it’s still years behind on the interface and quality of life things I’m enjoying with my Stadium which, despite only being a modelled right now, is outdoing the Kemper.