So...Can the Kemper Profile Mesa Amps? Let's test it.

[TSJMajesty]

I think 1 is the real amp.

 

[Orvillain]

C'mon Dead panties! We're dyin' here!

 

[BenIfin]

It doesn't matter which is the real Amp or which is the refined profile or which is the un-refined profile or how good anything sounds or feels .... only 2 things will emerge from this kind of thread

=> in 2024 the Kemper is always sh%t because its 12+ years old
=> Fractal always beats everything .. including the real Amp

Just thought I'd save everyone some typing time

My work here is done !



Ben
PS: Thanks for posting and taking the time !

 

[Orvillain]

It doesn't matter which is the real Amp or which is the refined profile or which is the un-refined profile or how good anything sounds or feels .... only 2 things will emerge from this kind of thread

=> in 2024 the Kemper is always sh%t because its 12+ years old
=> Fractal always beats everything .. including the real Amp

Just thought I'd save everyone some typing time

My work here is done !



Ben
PS: Thanks for posting and taking the time !

I like you Ben, so I'll keep it mild - but what a shitty take.

 

[BenIfin]

I like you Ben, so I'll keep it mild - but what a shitty take.

Didn't at all mean to come across as a dick ... just having a bit of a laugh / meant in sarcastic jest ... apologies if it came across that way ... not my intention.

Ben

 

[Orvillain]

Didn't at all mean to come across as a dick ... just having a bit of a laugh / meant in sarcastic jest ... apologies if it came across that way ... not my intention.

Ben

Sorry, just a bit of a pet peeve. Kemper isn't shit, and I've personally never said that it was - not in any serious manner anyway! But it just isn't particularly accurate. It really gets my goat when people misrepresent that point. It has happened numerous times over the last few weeks. The data is in; this thread and Dead Panties clip is just more proof of that fact.

And yeah there are a lot of Fractal people here. You can thank TGP banhammers for that!

 

[BenIfin]

Sorry, just a bit of a pet peeve. Kemper isn't shit, and I've personally never said that it was - not in any serious manner anyway! But it just isn't particularly accurate. It really gets my goat when people misrepresent that point. It has happened numerous times over the last few weeks. The data is in; this thread and Dead Panties clip is just more proof of that fact.

And yeah there are a lot of Fractal people here. You can thank TGP banhammers for that!

Its all good ! .... totally get it .... I'm a big fan of the " Derek and Clive " school of humour ... and probably let my inner smart-arse get a bit carried away :)

And yep .. you are %100 factually and objectively correct ..... for a fixed-static-snapshot "profile" / "capture" Nam and Tonex are clearly proven and shown to be the leaders in terms of closest 1:1 accuracy .... period.

Tangential social commentary .... I first heard those Derek and Clive Albums when I was 17 ... 45 years ago ... to this day nothing makes me bust my guts laughing as much as them ..... I can almost quote them verbatim !! ...... not only would they never be made today .... but they'd be arrested for even thinking about making them ..... and I *am* a very "woke" person .... and yep .... proud of it !

Peace to all <- just to sh%t the anti-woker's

Ben

 

[BenIfin]

Which of these are the real amp and which are the Kemper profile of the real amp?



Has Kemper improved their profiling?

Does refining really matter?

No idea which is which ... but .... I prefer the 1st Clip .... the bottom end on Clip 2 is "bigger and worse-er" than Clip1 ..... and the bottom end on Clip 3 is even "more-bigger-more-worse-er" than Clip 2.

If I were recording ...... Clip 1 one would not take much "fixing" at all

If I were using one live ..... I again would grab Clip 1 .... cut the Highs a bit and boost the mids a bit.

Recording and / or playing live ...... Clips 2 and Clip 3 need a good degree of "massaging" ...... Clip 1 is already in the "right" ball-park.

F.w.i.w ..... I did my listening through a pair of [still] original 40+ year old NS10's at a very healthy "live / loud" level.

Be interested in the reveal :)

Ben

 

[Deadpan]

The changes are at the silence.

I matched the levels by ear which is tough as they have different frequency content.

No EQ or internal adjustments were made.

I didn't reamp the non refined profile as it was a bit dark.

One is refined with EVH type riffing and another added plenty fairly aggressively picked palm muting riffs to the refining.

I didn't go for a perfect match which may or may not have been possible.

Do we hear the "classic Kemper mid hump?"

Is the gain structure similar in the clips?

Is there a cocked wah tone in any of them?

 

[adam]

Did you leave it on the kemper generic tonestack? I've been experimenting with applying the appropriate liquid tonestack to the profile recently (even if it's not a liquid profile and I don't know the original capture settings of the amp), and it does seem to help remedy that kemper mid hump (to my ears at least).

 

[Orvillain]

The changes are at the silence.

I matched the levels by ear which is tough as they have different frequency content.

No EQ or internal adjustments were made.

I didn't reamp the non refined profile as it was a bit dark.

One is refined with EVH type riffing and another added plenty farily aggressively picked palm muting riffs to the refining.

I didn't go for a perfect match which may or may not have been possible.

Do we hear the "classic Kemper mid hump?"

Is the gain structure similar in the clips?

Is there a cocked wah tone in any of them?

Right, in that case then I'm gonna go with:

1 - Real amp
2 - Kemper EVH riffing
3 - Kemper palm muted riffs

I already said what I heard in my previous response.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

I didn't go for a perfect match which may or may not have been possible.

I think Profiling should really all be about going for the closest possible match to the real amp - otherwise why profile to begin with? if it just needs to sound good and somewhat like the amp, anything will do. It also gets a bit vague if there is no fixed reference point/target to aim for.

A bit strange to me that both refining methods yield such different results, and that all 3 end up sound different (and quite drastically in the low end).

The trade off’s in accuracy might be fine for certain applications but there are also better solutions now if you want a more accurate representation. I think the Kemper ship has sailed for me, too many drawbacks and not enough convenience.

For my requirements (recording), accuracy, and a plugin are paramount. Kemper gets trumped on both from free/open source software. and the IR loader inside the Kemper is a serious drawback which I never used because it changes the sound so much.

Someone elses needs might require playing live, having setlists, MIDI sync, FX, portability etc where accuracy and a plugin have no real relevance. Can totally understand why they might want to use a Kemper.

 

[Iron1]

I don't honestly care which is the real one - they both sound amazing and I'd guess the subtle differences would be lost in cymbal crashes, etc of a mix.

 

[BenIfin]

....... and the IR loader inside the Kemper is a serious drawback which I never used because it changes the sound so much.

Hey MP !

^^ This has me genuinely intrigued.

When I jumped back into the Kemper-verse in the 2nd half of '23 ...... one of the first things I did was to check its IR use ..... not how cumbersome it is to load IR's ... which it is ... but the sound.

Reason I did this was back in the day when I used the Kemper for a few years ... I always used the full studio profiles with the baked-in cab ... never ever bothered to even load an IR.

Over the years with my Fractals / Helix's / GT's ..... I found my favorite IR and always just used that.

So one of the first things I did when I got my Stage was loaded OS10 ..... wiped everything ..... just loaded the LP Packs .... then I D/L a few D.I only profiles to check / make sure my IR "worked" properly.

I recorded a KPA DI Profile into my DAW ... used NAD-IR and loaded my fav. IR ... then did the exact same thing but loaded the IR into the KPA and recorded .. turned-off NAD-IR in my DAW .... and compared ..... bang-on identical.

Was/is this a " IR changing the sound " issue a previous issue / current issue for some people ?

Only asking as it certainly .... at least with my Stage and OS10 .... is perfect.

Ben

 

[BenIfin]

Pure Cab ... Space ... etc..... all set to zero when I doing something like this

 

[MirrorProfiles]

Was/is this a " IR changing the sound " issue a previous issue / current issue for some people ?

First question to ask when comparisons don’t add up: was pure cabinet & space at zero in the master section?
If it’s not, or any other master parameter…comparisons go out the window

It totally depends on the length of the original IR, and how much information is being truncated. If you use a shorter IR that isn't getting truncated, then it will sound the same. If you are using longer IR's then they'll get shortened to fit in Kemper's format.

not related to this (but there is plenty of posts on kempers forum about IR Truncation):

On the implicit Low-Cut Filter of the CABINET Slot - Kemper Profiler Forum

Short version If you plan to profile (bass) amps or want to use (bass) cab IRs: Be aware of the implicit low-cut filter at 70Hz of the cabinet slot. Humble suggestion to the Kemper team: How about having frequency and slope of the low-cut filter as…

www.kemper-amps.com

oh, and some info from Cliff: https://forum.fractalaudio.com/threads/question-about-kemper.68284/post-839005

They use 256 point IRs augmented with parametric EQ. This is easily demonstrated by examining the data structure of the profile and by measuring the device (or by using their IR converter which converts long IRs to 256 point IR plus EQ). What they say is "we use something more advanced" or something like that. By "more advanced" they mean they augment the IR with parametric EQ. However they must augment the IR with parametric EQ because the IR is too short to reproduce low frequencies accurately. The frequency resolution of an IR is proportional to its length: the longer the IR the better the resolution. To accurately reproduce a guitar cabinet requires at least 1000 points from my research. (Note: I'm using the term "parametric EQ" as a substitute for IIR filter since most people don't know what an IIR filter is.)

This technique has been around since the early days of modelers (I believe the Pod 2.0 was the first to do this). The impetus for this is that it uses much less processing power since the amount of processing power required is directly proportional to the length of the IR. A 256 point IR plus, for example, an 8-band EQ can be equivalent to a 512 point IR but uses less processing power. The downside is the phase response isn't the same but that is usually inaudible.

In their specific case the amplifier output frequency response and cabinet frequency response are combined into a single IR plus EQ since they aren't measured separately. See my MIMIC whitepaper for more information on frequency response, etc. You can make assumptions about the amplifier output frequency response in order to separate it from the cabinet response. In their case I believe they assume there is a 6 dB resonance at 125 Hz plus a 6 dB highshelf (incidentally this is the same power amp frequency response model that the Marshall JMP-1 used albeit using analog filters). For many amplifiers this is a reasonable approximation.

 

[BenIfin]

It totally depends on the length of the original IR, and how much information is being truncated. If you use a shorter IR that isn't getting truncated, then it will sound the same. If you are using longer IR's then they'll get shortened to fit in Kemper's format.

not related to this (but there is plenty of posts on kempers forum about IR Truncation):

On the implicit Low-Cut Filter of the CABINET Slot - Kemper Profiler Forum

Short version If you plan to profile (bass) amps or want to use (bass) cab IRs: Be aware of the implicit low-cut filter at 70Hz of the cabinet slot. Humble suggestion to the Kemper team: How about having frequency and slope of the low-cut filter as…

www.kemper-amps.com

oh, and some info from Cliff: https://forum.fractalaudio.com/threads/question-about-kemper.68284/post-839005

Great read ... thanks !

From memory my fav IR is very small / short, hence why - no doubt - this has never been an issue to me.

Thanks again,
Ben

 

[Sascha Franck]

Middle one is the most different to me. My guess is that is the unrefined profile.

That'd be my guess as well.

 

[laxu]

I don't honestly care which is the real one - they both sound amazing and I'd guess the subtle differences would be lost in cymbal crashes, etc of a mix.

Which is the "accurate vs useful/sounds good to me" argument.

Captures/profiles straddle both sides of that. When I made captures of the amps I had using the QC, I could hear they were not 100% there, but at the same time they were still say 95% there. Which meant I had a great facsimile of my 10-20 kg tube amps in a compact little box and that would be valuable.

But that's the scenario when you are the one doing the capturing. Anything else would have to be just "sounds good to me" evaluation, like in this comparison we can hear they sound different, but at the same time I have a hard to saying "that's the real amp" and all of them sound good.

 

[Iron1]

Which is the "accurate vs useful/sounds good to me" argument.

Captures/profiles straddle both sides of that. When I made captures of the amps I had using the QC, I could hear they were not 100% there, but at the same time they were still say 95% there. Which meant I had a great facsimile of my 10-20 kg tube amps in a compact little box and that would be valuable.

But that's the scenario when you are the one doing the capturing. Anything else would have to be just "sounds good to me" evaluation, like in this comparison we can hear they sound different, but at the same time I have a hard to saying "that's the real amp" and all of them sound good.

Yep, agree with all that.

In the end, Id happily use either on stage. And if I could profile my Badlander tone 95% and use the profiler vs lugging the actual amp, Id do that and not lose any sleep. Granted there would need to be a time or two of Badlander on stage cause 100% beats 95%.