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

[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%.

 

[Orvillain]

@Deadpan so which is which?? And how come you weren't going for an exact match?? And why didn't you say that from the outset?? Why did that comment only come up after a few of us already took the time to give sincere feedback??

 

[DLC86]

Is there a cocked wah tone in any of them?

I hear it a bit in the first sample, that's the reason why I said it was the unrefined profile, in addition to the fizz which seems to be more "coherent" in the third sample (which imo is the real amp) compared to the other two. But that cocked-wah might be the real amp as well depending on how you set the geq, if that's the case the captures failed to replicate that.
Anyway, as others said, all 3 sound pretty different (especially on the low end) so there goes the accuracy of the kemper.

Axe fx on the other hand... https://forum.fractalaudio.com/threads/axe-fx-iii-firmware-24-03-release.200627/post-2504431

 

[Deadpan]

@Deadpan so which is which?? And how come you weren't going for an exact match?? And why didn't you say that from the outset?? Why did that comment only come up after a few of us already took the time to give sincere feedback??

I deliberately gave as few details as possible to see if there were obvious signs of which was the real amp.

Many feel the Kemper has a signature sound and I wanted to see if it was the case here.

After questions and assumptions, I felt it appropriate to clarify.

 

[AutomationBias]

I keep waiting for someone to pull the old switcharoo on one of these - post the answer, wait for the 'I knew it/I told you so' responses to roll in, then say, "Actually, the real amp was number 4!"

 

[MirrorProfiles]

Tbf, the thread is called

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

and the kemper produced 2 different sounding results, and gave a different response based on different refining process. So it’s not really capturing it with ease here.

A bit concerning too that the refining process gave different results each time (neither of which sound close to the amp) - to me it leaves more questions than answers.

 

[Mongillo19]

Tbf, the thread is called

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

and the kemper produced 2 different sounding results, and gave a different response based on different refining process. So it’s not really capturing it with ease here.

A bit concerning too that the refining process gave different results each time (neither of which sound close to the amp) - to me it leaves more questions than answers.

And then you have your posts trying to match the fractal to a dual rec. Is it 1:1, no, but it is very very close. You also then have the luxury of tweaking the tone more accurately with the fractal vs a capture device.

 

[Orvillain]

I deliberately gave as few details as possible to see if there were obvious signs of which was the real amp.

Many feel the Kemper has a signature sound and I wanted to see if it was the case here.

After questions and assumptions, I felt it appropriate to clarify.

I feel like you weren't expecting people to hear a difference.

 

[JiveTurkey]

 

[Deadpan]

I feel like you weren't expecting people to hear a difference.

Honestly, I had no expectations. I hear the differences but feel the takeaway is that the Kemper can profile Mesa gain. Which was a contention.

I didn't edit the profiles at all. In other instances, at least York's, they were adjusted by ear.

IMO, load boxes and IRs are always going to make things sound more similar.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

And then you have your posts trying to match the fractal to a dual rec. Is it 1:1, no, but it is very very close. You also then have the luxury of tweaking the tone more accurately with the fractal vs a capture device.

For me, it’s about how easy/intuitive it is to do those last few tweaks. I never really found the Kemper parameters intuitive to dial in, so I couldn’t tweak things with much confidence. With other modellers, you have to put a bit more work in dialling the tone in but from there I think the process is easier, AND you get a fuller experience of the entire amp and its different modes and settings and behaviours.

Kemper is fine for a quick snapshot, but it’s clearly not as accurate as other methods in 2024. Doesn’t mean it isn’t useful

 

[yeky83]

UBER DICK KICK

1 - palm mutes do not have the same kind of UBER DICK KICK resonance that the other two have.
2 - palm mutes are properly OTT; the low frequency content is really OTT altogether here.
3 - palm mutes are somewhere in between the previous two in terms of how OTT they are; but there is a sort of nasally mid-scoop going on here that the other two don't really have.

I heard the same yesterday listening through my office call headphones. Different bass responses, and the mids-thing in 3, so I thought 1 was amp. With your confirmation, Imma say 1 is amp too

 

[Orvillain]

Honestly, I had no expectations. I hear the differences but feel the takeaway is that the Kemper can profile Mesa gain. Which was a contention.

I didn't edit the profiles at all. In other instances, at least York's, they were adjusted by ear.

IMO, load boxes and IRs are always going to make things sound more similar.

I'm just gonna put my cards on the table. If you were looking or hoping to demonstrate that the Kemper can accurately capture a Mesa Boogie Dual Rectifier, then unfortunately you were unsuccessful.

It doesn't really matter which one I think is the real amp. What matters is whether I - or anyone - can hear a difference, and we clearly can. That means the Kemper isn't accurate.

Whether the sound is good or not is irrelevant.

To my mind, you've just added to the data that says the Kemper is no longer up to snuff when it comes to the job of capturing amplifiers accurately.

 

[Deadpan]

And if I try to make the sound similar:



Of course, you can nitpick differences. That's ok.

 

[Orvillain]

And if I try to make the sound similar:



Of course, you can nitpick differences. That's ok.

So I don't know which one is the real amp. But the first one has a more scooped sound to it, whereas the second one has a bit of a mid bump. The second one also doesn't have as much resonance on the palm mutes as the first one does.

I'm saying the first is the Kemper, and the second is the real amp. But I don't know that for sure. I just know I don't really like the first one because of how honky and scooped and weird it sounds. The second one sounds much more balanced.

The first one also seems to have some sort of panning issue?? The left is much louder than the right. But that isn't the case with the second clip.

 

[DLC86]

And if I try to make the sound similar:



Of course, you can nitpick differences. That's ok.

Still quite different to my ears...

 

[yeky83]

I'm just gonna put my cards on the table. If you were looking or hoping to demonstrate that the Kemper can accurately capture a Mesa Boogie Dual Rectifier, then unfortunately you were unsuccessful.

It doesn't really matter which one I think is the real amp. What matters is whether I - or anyone - can hear a difference, and we clearly can. That means the Kemper isn't accurate.

Whether the sound is good or not is irrelevant.

To my mind, you've just added to the data that says the Kemper is no longer up to snuff when it comes to the job of capturing amplifiers accurately.

Agreed.

But for the fun of discussing... what is the sound of a MB Dual Rectifier anyway? If @Deadpan posted any of those three clips by itself, would any one of us point out how it's not a Dual Rectifier sound? In that sense, isn't the Kemper good 'nuff? It promised a Dual Rect and as far as you know and believe, you got it... unless you're doing the profiling yourself that is.

 

[DLC86]

So I don't know which one is the real amp. But the first one has a more scooped sound to it, whereas the second one has a bit of a mid bump

I'm actually hearing the opposite, the first one seems to have a bump around 1-1.5 kHz to my ears (and speakers)

EDIT: this different perception might be caused by the panning issue you mentioned though

 

[Orvillain]

I'm actually hearing the opposite, the first one seems to have a bump around 1-1.5 kHz to my ears (and speakers)

Lower mids. More like the 300-700hz range.