Note the first was the Kemper and edited by me. Adjusted definition and EQ.pretty noticeably different again, honestly I wouldn't be thrilled if I was trying to capture a tone and that was the closest the unit was giving me. Tbh I usually think the Kemper is closer than that, otherwise I never would have bought one in the first place.
I prefer the first one. Low end sits in a totally different place between the two, low end in the first one is big and loose, 2nd one is leaner and a bit fizzier as a result.
No. Because that isn't an accurate description of the Kemper. It isn't how I've ever described it.Just curious here: didn't anyone pick the kemper clips by hearing "Kemper's characteristic, and unavoidable, mid hump"?
No, and that was one of the points of the post.Just curious here: didn't anyone pick the kemper clips by hearing "Kemper's characteristic, and unavoidable, mid hump"?
Can we then conclude that said "mid hump" is a myth? Or...No, and that was one of the points of the post.
As long as we also conclude now and forever that the Kemper isn't accurate when profiling amps, and that any time you purchase a profile pack, you are buying something that isn't really representative of the real amplifier.Can we then conclude that said "mid hump" is a myth? Or...
Maybe I just got lucky, I don't know...Can we then conclude that said "mid hump" is a myth? Or...
I'd say the third one is the real amp, first is the profile and second the refined profile
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.
I can usually home in on it if I really try. For me it takes reference listening to a known "egregiously bad-mids" Kemper example, then I can usually identify it in other high gain Kemper tones that have less of it but it's still usually there.Can we then conclude that said "mid hump" is a myth? Or...
I don't doubt you can identify it. It's just that, in this case, nobody picked the Kemper clips based on perceived "bad mids". So maybe it's not that noticeable. Just thinking out loud here.I can usually home in on it if I really try. For me it takes reference listening to a known "egregiously bad-mids" Kemper example, then I can usually identify it in other high gain Kemper tones that have less of it but it's still usually there.
But were you based on the mid hump or...?Maybe I just got lucky, I don't know...
Yeah, I think that's pretty proved.As long as we also conclude now and forever that the Kemper isn't accurate when profiling amps, and that any time you purchase a profile pack, you are buying something that isn't really representative of the real amplifier.
Nobody here is saying the Kemper can't get the job done.I might be a heretic in saying this, but I think Kemper/Helix/Fractal/QC and even Tonex to a degree are usable enough though we can still argue about details, but all can get the job done in most scenarios.
I don't think I'd want to go back a generation though. And I certainly remember what my Podxt sounded like (2 generations ago)
Yeah, mid hump = cocked wah for me. Are they supposed to be two different things?But were you based on the mid hump or...?
That's why I asked if someone detected the mid hump. Is it the cocked wah that you mention?