Gary_W
Roadie
- Messages
- 287
I’ve heard that many times over the last few years - I think it came from the patent right? What I’m wondering is ‘how is Mk2 different in respect of this point’?
The communication when they first spoke about Mk2 profiling seemed to be along the lines of ‘lots more data points in the capture’ which is for sure one way to increase accuracy. I’m saying this from the perspective of someone who doesn’t fully understand how this is done so please do correct me / educate me :). From my current understanding, more data points would make things better.
But….. does it still use the same core models inside the unit and it’s then matching the source with improved data points / eq that can use more data points? Or are there now more models inside it too? Are there more points on the EQ it applies if that’s still what it’s doing?
I’ve only tried to profile one amp and the results were awful (and I speak as someone who was very happy using other people’s profiles so it’s not me disliking the Kemper sound). I originally thought that this was my fault for being crap at making a profile (and that may well be a factor - I’ll find out when Proxy lands!) but over the course of time I heard a lot of chatter out there in the world that Kemper mk1 didn’t cope well with amps that had a good amount of power amp distortion.
The amp I was trying to profile was a Matamp C7. I spoke to the owner of Matamp (not in respect of making a profile - the very concept of anything digital offended him!) but we discussed the ‘Matamp sound’. He was in love with power amp distortion and the C7 is an angry little thing that is all about the back end falling apart to simulate a (much more powerful) old-style amp pretty much melting at a somewhat more reasonable volume. It came out at a broadly similar time to the Cornford Harlequin - there was a small surge of amps that you could potentially crank at home to get everything cooking. The owner of Matamp’s comment was that some other makers did everything in the preamp and he thought those amps sounded like ‘wasps in a bottle’. He was forthright in his preferences and opinions :) He also said that, if he rated the amp’s wattage the same way other manufacturers did, it would be sold as a 20-25w amp, not a 7w. He said they were ‘Yorkshire Watts’. He’s quite the character. And he’s not kidding about the volume - I gigged the C7 in in a 9 piece band with a brass section and I couldn’t run it flat out as you could only hear me playing badly at that point :). Was the wrong amp for that band.
So where I’m going here is wondering if the ‘more datapoints’ message Kemper gave will be enough to cope with back end distortion amps like this one? Or are there now ‘more models in there too that the datapoints are applied to’? I’m not sure how much they can have changed with the process considering the apparent lack of hardware changes. It doesn’t matter to me any more as I’m not going for a Mk2 but I’m still interested as a concept and hope the Kemper fans get something that works better for them :)
![[Nathan]](/data/avatars/m/0/613.jpg?1726885163){kind=avatar}
