Kemper Profiler MK 2

[Jarick]

 

[BenIfin]

Not gonna lie ...... tones and dynamics sounded brilliant. No typical KPA mid-range bump .... no typical KPA signature "compression" .... but just the right amount of real amp grit and fizz ...ie: like a real amp.

Very limited demo ..... but this could (?) / maybe (?) be worth the wait (?)

If Tone Talks is now showing it, its either very close (?) -or- they are throwing everyone a bone to keep people quiet for a [still] longer wait (?)

 

[nightlight]

Not gonna lie ...... tones and dynamics sounded brilliant. No typical KPA mid-range bump .... no typical KPA signature "compression" .... but just the right amount of real amp grit and fizz ...ie: like a real amp.

Very limited demo ..... but this could (?) / maybe (?) be worth the wait (?)

If Tone Talks is now showing it, its either very close (?) -or- they are throwing everyone a bone to keep people quiet for a [still] longer wait (?)

Sounds good. Is it more accurate though? I noticed there are new tools for low end tweaking. Doesn't necessarily mean it's better than the competition at capturing. I'd love to know, maybe I should get another Kemper instead of another Quad Cortex.

 

[crispsandwich]

Not gonna lie ...... tones and dynamics sounded brilliant. No typical KPA mid-range bump .... no typical KPA signature "compression" .... but just the right amount of real amp grit and fizz ...ie: like a real amp.

Very limited demo ..... but this could (?) / maybe (?) be worth the wait (?)

If Tone Talks is now showing it, its either very close (?) -or- they are throwing everyone a bone to keep people quiet for a [still] longer wait (?)

Agreed, that sounded spectacular. I have a mk1 rack unit. Really hoping we get to experience some improvements, though tbh I still think the v1 profiles hold up against pretty much everything else.

 

[BenIfin]

Sounds good. Is it more accurate though? I noticed there are new tools for low end tweaking. Doesn't necessarily mean it's better than the competition at capturing. I'd love to know, maybe I should get another Kemper instead of another Quad Cortex.

Hmmm ... i.m.h.o accuracy is only the aim if you are looking to "copy" a static amp tone as perfectly as you can ... this remains to be seen ... to me, the only test that matters be it a KPA or QC or NAM or Tonex or Fractal or Stadium etc.... is does it sound and feel great ... and does it make you want to play it.

Just my 2c

Agreed, that sounded spectacular. I have a mk1 rack unit. Really hoping we get to experience some improvements, though tbh I still think the v1 profiles hold up against pretty much everything else.

I.m.h.o in real world use, they do too :) .... but what immediately struck with this demo - as I noted - was the total lack of the KPA mid-range bump and typical KPA signature "compression" .... and it does have a great / "accurate" dose of real amp grit and fizz - the MK1 never really gave out that real amp grit and fizz which is critical to "sounding [more] real" and cutting through ... like a real amp.

Again. Just my 2c

 

[madmarcus1960]

Hmmm ... i.m.h.o accuracy is only the aim if you are looking to "copy" a static amp tone as perfectly as you can ... this remains to be seen ... to me, the only test that matters be it a KPA or QC or NAM or Tonex or Fractal or Stadium etc.... is does it sound and feel great ... and does it make you want to play it.

Just my 2c

You have common sense, be careful, it's dangerous on forums!
I bought a KPP, maxed it out, after I got rid of a complete toaster, kone, Ritter amp, kit. I had so many profiles, that I viewed it as a worthwhile investment, for "me".
They never really advertised the KPP as step 1 toward 2.0 profiling, which it was, until the V2 versions of the toaster and stage came out.
Not being in the "must be 100% accurate" team, I never had trouble getting great sounds out of my Kemper. In fact, some of the advantage, for me, is the abiility to create sounds that are useful by manipulating some of the deep variables. Also the verbs/delays are within % points of, as good as anything else.
No devices seem to be perfect, based on some live shows I've seen, the Kemper is still pretty usable as a gigging kit. Hopefully the wait will be worth some of the pain the rollout/development has caused.

Kemper is certainly a PR reps nightmare, and their holier than thou attitude (especially on their forum) is grating and ignorant to their customer base. But, I'll keep my KPP as another option. I'm in bed with most of the big fish, so my opinions are irrelavant in the forum flaming wars.
I can have fun with them all.

 

[PorcinePicker]

Nice to see something from them. Waiting on the apples to apples V1 vs V2 comparison before further comment.

 

[BenIfin]

Nice to see something from them. Waiting on the apples to apples V1 vs V2 comparison before further comment.

Yep ... I don't care how it null tests against anything *other* than the same Profile done in the Legacy M1 way -vs- one done the new M2 way

And I do know null tests are very "limited".

But it will be a good / objective way to "hear" -and- "see" the differences ie:- not just do they subjectively sound and feel better [or worse (?)] but are they also objectively and mathematically better [or worse].

 

[nicolasrivera]

Leo Gibson, do your thing!

 

[[Nathan]]

IMO if the foundational goal of a capture device is to capture an amp source then accuracy is pretty important (if not the most important thing).

The player using these captures might not care about the original source, but for the people who are sitting in the room with a perfect sounding amp trying to capture it that's where it matters... and this is probably the part you dont see. It's incredibly annoying to have things sounding perfect and then a capture isn't nailing things. In the case of Kemper and ToneX v1 theres things you can do to sort of fudge it... then there's hocus pocus "what if I do it this way, what if I do it that way"... now the person doing the capturing is spending all this time on hacks and weird stuff just to make a capture sound as good as the amp sounds IRL. That whole process the amp capturer is doing is to give YOU, the player the best tone in your hands. So you might say you don't care about accuracy but you kind of do without knowing it.

If the capture process just worked as close to 1:1 as possible then it solves a whole bunch of issues at a fundamental level.

FWIW I think the current ToneX, QC, NAM offerings are perfectly acceptable and are really at the last 2-3-4% range. Captures seem to come out very very close to the source. That last % gap is cool but when they're that close without any fidgeting then its a good position to be in. I havent done extensive capturing on the Kemper but it sounds like theyre still doing weird voodoo to make certain captures "better", and thats just amateur hour honestly, its painful to have to do those kinds of things.

Anyway I'm not really talking about Kemper its more the fundamental reason why accuracy is pretty important in the first place with captures.

 

[BenIfin]

IMO if the foundational goal of a capture device is to capture an amp source then accuracy is pretty important (if not the most important thing).

The player using these captures might not care about the original source, but for the people who are sitting in the room with a perfect sounding amp trying to capture it that's where it matters... and this is probably the part you dont see. It's incredibly annoying to have things sounding perfect and then a capture isn't nailing things. In the case of Kemper and ToneX v1 theres things you can do to sort of fudge it... then there's hocus pocus "what if I do it this way, what if I do it that way"... now the person doing the capturing is spending all this time on hacks and weird stuff just to make a capture sound as good as the amp sounds IRL. That whole process the amp capturer is doing is to give YOU, the player the best tone in your hands. So you might say you don't care about accuracy but you kind of do without knowing it.

If the capture process just worked as close to 1:1 as possible then it solves a whole bunch of issues at a fundamental level.

FWIW I think the current ToneX, QC, NAM offerings are perfectly acceptable and are really at the last 2-3-4% range. Captures seem to come out very very close to the source. That last % gap is cool but when they're that close without any fidgeting then its a good position to be in. I havent done extensive capturing on the Kemper but it sounds like theyre still doing weird voodoo to make certain captures "better", and thats just amateur hour honestly, its painful to have to do those kinds of things.

Anyway I'm not really talking about Kemper its more the fundamental reason why accuracy is pretty important in the first place with captures.

Totally agree re: the Accuracy issue -this time- for Kemper V2 ... why ?

I have zero doubt C.K and the team know exactly how good NAM / Tonex are ..... QC to a slightly lesser extent ..... so to be taken more seriously they must get close-to-real-close to these other.

Where Kemper have a bit of a card up their sleeve is Liquid Profiling .... I used it for over 6 months for everything ... and yes .... with Mk1 there are only some 30+ or so Modeled Gain and Tone Stacks ..... was it perfect ... no .... was it like adjusting the G/B/M/T/P/ .... pretty bloody close and great feeling and responsive.

Static Captures on NAM / Tonex are awesome ..... but once you start adjusting the generic G/B/M/T in a Tonex / NAM / QC Capture <- i.m.h.o its just shitful.

See the following from Leo ... from 19m 54s <-> 24m 12s

QC V1 vs KPA MK1 Stock and Liquid Profile with Leo's Soldano ... in short

-> QC V1 Static -33.3 LUFS
-> KPA Legacy MK1 Static -30.9 LUFS

then

-> QC V1 Static with Setting Changes made via Generic QC Tone Stack - 28.3 LUFS
-> KPA Soldano Liquid Profile with Setting Changes - 33.5 LUFS

In short, once you move off the Stock Static Captured Settings

-> the QC V1 LUFS gets %15 worse
-> and the KPA Liquid Profile LUFS is %9 better
-> and head-to-head- the KPA Liquid Profile LUFS beats the QC V1 LUFS by nearly %16.

I am still thinking the old dog might have some new tricks up its sleeve once we see V2 Profiling (?)

Time will tell.

 

[laxu]

Where Kemper have a bit of a card up their sleeve is Liquid Profiling .... I used it for over 6 months for everything ... and yes .... with Mk1 there are only some 30+ or so Modeled Gain and Tone Stacks ..... was it perfect ... no .... was it like adjusting the G/B/M/T/P/ .... pretty bloody close and great feeling and responsive.

Static Captures on NAM / Tonex are awesome ..... but once you start adjusting the generic G/B/M/T in a Tonex / NAM / QC Capture <- i.m.h.o its just shitful.

I don't see how liquid profiling is much better except it puts a tonestack model somewhere in between. Remember that the tone stack is potentially in the wrong place in relation to the real circuit, and potentially also uses the wrong values because it's afaik a generic one. Maybe it allows for intuitive enough control for someone used to the real amp.

However both solutions throw accuracy out of the window as you introduce more variables.

Null tests are probably a pretty bad metric for this too.

 

[BenIfin]

I don't see how liquid profiling is much better except it puts a tonestack model somewhere in between. Remember that the tone stack is potentially in the wrong place in relation to the real circuit, and potentially also uses the wrong values because it's afaik a generic one. Maybe it allows for intuitive enough control for someone used to the real amp.

However both solutions throw accuracy out of the window as you introduce more variables.

Null tests are probably a pretty bad metric for this too.

F.w.i.w

The Kemper "generic" [ since Day 1 ] Gain and Tone Stack is used for all Legacy Profiling - in the MK 1 and the MK 2

The LP Gain and EQ Modeled Tone Stacks are modeled-amp-specific - there are around ~35 or so .... Plex, Twin, Dlx, Friedman, AC30, Soldano etc...

In Leo's test above, he used the Kemper Soldano modeled Gain and Tone Stack.

My view is that Null tests are a useful, but inherently imprecise tool ... although they can be used as an equal foundation for comparisons across platforms.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

I don't see how liquid profiling is much better except it puts a tonestack model somewhere in between. Remember that the tone stack is potentially in the wrong place in relation to the real circuit, and potentially also uses the wrong values because it's afaik a generic one. Maybe it allows for intuitive enough control for someone used to the real amp.

However both solutions throw accuracy out of the window as you introduce more variables.

Null tests are probably a pretty bad metric for this too.

Liquid profiling is a bit crap, honestly. If the profiles came out better there'd be less need for chasing down tonestack accuracy. I dont think it works particularly well either, it's kind of a botch fix. Quite telling that none of the better capture platforms really care for it

 

[Chocol8]

-> QC V1 Static -33.3 LUFS
-> KPA Legacy MK1 Static -30.9 LUFS

But do you even know what these numbers mean? Hint they are not telling you what you or Leo think they are.

 

[laxu]

The LP Gain and EQ Modeled Tone Stacks are modeled-amp-specific - there are around ~35 or so .... Plex, Twin, Dlx, Friedman, AC30, Soldano etc...

That's kind of what I was going for with "generic". Even if you cover a lot of ground with that many tone stacks, there can be still differences in how they are setup, where exactly they are in the circuit etc. There's pot variance too so your amp vs ideal tone stack is not going to be exact.

Again, doesn't mean it's not a good enough solution.

Liquid profiling is a bit crap, honestly. If the profiles came out better there'd be less need for chasing down tonestack accuracy. I dont think it works particularly well either, it's kind of a botch fix. Quite telling that none of the better capture platforms really care for it

Other products don't bother with it because it doesn't really work with the way they have an end-to-end machine learning model.

For example Hotone uses a setup that is a hybrid of the ML and component modeling for their own amp models. It's a neat approach and works pretty well to be honest. Afaik it's not the same as parametric ML models, but more like piecing together parts that are handled by ML with parts handled via component modeling.

 

[BenIfin]

But do you even know what these numbers mean? Hint they are not telling you what you or Leo think they are.

Yep - agreed - its totally crude and blunt ... at least though in all his "tests" Leo is consistently measuring the "left-over-audible-differences" .... integrated LUFS .. but yes, again, its a very crude and is - again - crudely useable when comparing platform to platform

 

[MirrorProfiles]

Other products don't bother with it because it doesn't really work with the way they have an end-to-end machine learning model.

STL Tonehub has something very similar to Liquid Profiles with NAM style captures (you include amp settings and choose from modelled tonestacks). The fact it never gets mentioned here, even in passing, kind of says it all to me. NAM and ToneX’s generic style tonestacks have basically 99% of the problems of modelled ones, and I’m not personality convinced a more accurate behaving tonestack would really improve anything for users.

For example Hotone uses a setup that is a hybrid of the ML and component modeling for their own amp models. It's a neat approach and works pretty well to be honest. Afaik it's not the same as parametric ML models, but more like piecing together parts that are handled by ML with parts handled via component modeling.

I’m sure this is what Mercuriall do, as well as NDSP. IMO mixing and matching black box and component model is the most sensible approach - you use black box where it makes most sense (maybe it’s more efficient or easy to model isolated parts of the circuit) and component modelling where that has more advantages.

 

[Orvillain]

Yep - agreed - its totally crude and blunt ... at least though in all his "tests" Leo is consistently measuring the "left-over-audible-differences" .... integrated LUFS .. but yes, again, its a very crude and is - again - crudely useable when comparing platform to platform

LUFS has nothing to do with "left-over-audible-differences" and honestly, LUFS is not the right measurement type for comparing how close two signals are to one another.

If Leo were even half aware of what the fuck he was doing, he'd be following my approach in my article:
]

Even then, it wouldn't be the whole story. My methodology itself could be greatly improved.

 

[Chocol8]

again - crudely useable

I strongly disagree with this. The only purpose it serves is to deceive.