Some interesting news from Kemper (Profiler Player)

Ed DeGenaro said:
i actually prefer the Mk2 to that fwiw
Click to expand...
The petrucci one seemed very odd to me. He is a well known iic+ user (amongst other mark series amps), they have a iic+ plugin, but the amp in petrucci plugin didn't look like it was iic+ based at all.
 
Foxmeister said:
Interesting test here from Leo Gibson - in particular, how Liquid Profiles "improve" the Kemper's performance, but the ToneX still performs better than the Kemper even with changes to gain.
Click to expand...

It's funny, but ever since Plague Scythe Studios's shootout video where Ryan highlights how Kemper puts this signature sheen on profiles, i cannot unlisten it anymore. It's particularly obvious here when Friedman tones are compared - Kemper is the only one standing out as sounding clearly different.

Not bad sounding, mind you. Just not the best representation of the amp it's supposed to be emulating.
 
Foxmeister said:
Interesting test here from Leo Gibson - in particular, how Liquid Profiles "improve" the Kemper's performance, but the ToneX still performs better than the Kemper even with changes to gain.

Click to expand...


I'm a *big* fan of Leo and his tests .... and have held back on "commenting" on this video .... for fear of being accused of being a "Kemper Fan-Boi" ..... but here goes as "balnced'ly" as I can.

Leo has [doubtlessly] inadvertently "missed" the biggest issue ..... he only tried the "reduced gain" test ie: what the Tonex and Kemper actually "hear" ..... not much more importantly, what they "don't hear".

Not surprisingly, at the reduced / "known" settings ... where both the Kemper and Tonex both did hear and "understand" the Gain and EQ they were hearing ...... the results stayed-broadly the same as at the original "static" settings.

This "same difference" is exactly as you would expect and is not a new revelation ... why ?

When they Profile or Capture .... Kemper, QC, Tonex NAM etc..... are all verygood / accurate at "reading" the gain levels and EQ's up to the gain and EQ levels set on the real Amp as that is what they are actually "sampling" / "hearing"

Nothing controversial here .... this has been well known since Day 1 of the Kemper and the other devices.

Pre-LP's ...... Kemper, QC, Tonex, NAM etc.... had *no idea* what is going on beyond the real Amp settings ...... they all just applied a generic db gain boost and generic post-eq.

The QC, Tonex and NAM ... still all just apply a generic db gain boost and generic post-eq beyond the real amp settings ... its a very rough "guess" ... with rough being the nicest word I could use

To better demonstrate ..... and I really don't like self-referring -my-own-posts ... but check:-

=> here for the Plexi LP vs Plexi Generic test and

=> here for the Fender Deluxe Normal LP test vs Fender Deluxe Normal Channel Generic test.

You will notice how up until around 12.00 the Generic Profile and the LP very-loosely stay in the same-ish zone ...... then listen what happens at the 3.00pm setting and the full settings .... its an utter undignified putrid mess.

And I'll save you the ear-ache and time.....for the record .....before I sold my Tonex ..... I did the exact same A/Bíng with the Tonex Pedal and it was equally horrendous at the 3.00pm and full settings compared to the Kemper LP's

My point ?

"Down-gaining" a Kemper Static or LP or a Tonex is no biggie ...... they both pretty much know what is going on up to the actual real Amp settings ... hence why the static LUFS comparison and the down-gained LUFS comparison "differences" are %99.99 identical .... notwithstanding that the LP did improve a bit

The key and big leap forward with LP is not -"down-gaining a profile" ...... but rather "matching" the Kemper modelled Amp Channel to a Profile of the [same] real Amp during the profiling stage .... so the Kemper LP now has a pretty excellent idea of what the Gain and EQ should do when set beyond their actual real-amp-profiled-settings . [ this of course only works as long as the Amp you are profiling is on the current list of 44 Kemper Amp Channels and you do the LP as per the Manual instructions ].

And for the record, Leo did not set the Amp up in one of the 2 C.K recommended ways to do a proper LP .... ie: Gain on full and EQ all at 12.00 -or- Gain on the "max-non-flub-out-setting" and the EQ all on 12.00 ...... check the video ..... but that's another issue.

Obviously ... in his video ..... Leo did not demonstrate this difference of how Tonex and LP's respond when the Gain and EQ is pushed beyond the real amp settings.

If he had ...... he would have shown exactly what I showed above in my 2 links ...... and the Tonex .... I can assure you.....would have [and does] sound just as horrific as the Kemper Generic Profiles when pushed beyond the Amps known settings ... whereas the Kemper LP's all respond "authentically" across the full real amp-range.

Its a bit confusing ..... I hope I've explained this well / clearly :)

All the best,
Ben
 
BenIfin said:
I'm a *big* fan of Leo and his tests .... and have held back on "commenting" on this video .... for fear of being accused of being a "Kemper Fan-Boi" ..... but here goes as "balnced'ly" as I can.

Leo has [doubtlessly] inadvertently "missed" the biggest issue ..... he only tried the "reduced gain" test ie: what the Tonex and Kemper actually "hear" ..... not much more importantly, what they "don't hear".

Not surprisingly, at the reduced / "known" settings ... where both the Kemper and Tonex both did hear and "understand" the Gain and EQ they were hearing ...... the results stayed-broadly the same as at the original "static" settings.

This "same difference" is exactly as you would expect and is not a new revelation ... why ?

When they Profile or Capture .... Kemper, QC, Tonex NAM etc..... are all verygood / accurate at "reading" the gain levels and EQ's up to the gain and EQ levels set on the real Amp as that is what they are actually "sampling" / "hearing"

Nothing controversial here .... this has been well known since Day 1 of the Kemper and the other devices.

Pre-LP's ...... Kemper, QC, Tonex, NAM etc.... had *no idea* what is going on beyond the real Amp settings ...... they all just applied a generic db gain boost and generic post-eq.

The QC, Tonex and NAM ... still all just apply a generic db gain boost and generic post-eq beyond the real amp settings ... its a very rough "guess" ... with rough being the nicest word I could use

To better demonstrate ..... and I really don't like self-referring -my-own-posts ... but check:-

=> here for the Plexi LP vs Plexi Generic test and

=> here for the Fender Deluxe Normal LP test vs Fender Deluxe Normal Channel Generic test.

You will notice how up until around 12.00 the Generic Profile and the LP very-loosely stay in the same-ish zone ...... then listen what happens at the 3.00pm setting and the full settings .... its an utter undignified putrid mess.

And I'll save you the ear-ache and time.....for the record .....before I sold my Tonex ..... I did the exact same A/Bíng with the Tonex Pedal and it was equally horrendous at the 3.00pm and full settings compared to the Kemper LP's

My point ?

"Down-gaining" a Kemper Static or LP or a Tonex is no biggie ...... they both pretty much know what is going on up to the actual real Amp settings ... hence why the static LUFS comparison and the down-gained LUFS comparison "differences" are %99.99 identical .... notwithstanding that the LP did improve a bit

The key and big leap forward with LP is not -"down-gaining a profile" ...... but rather "matching" the Kemper modelled Amp Channel to a Profile of the [same] real Amp during the profiling stage .... so the Kemper LP now has a pretty excellent idea of what the Gain and EQ should do when set beyond their actual real-amp-profiled-settings . [ this of course only works as long as the Amp you are profiling is on the current list of 44 Kemper Amp Channels and you do the LP as per the Manual instructions ].

And for the record, Leo did not set the Amp up in one of the 2 C.K recommended ways to do a proper LP .... ie: Gain on full and EQ all at 12.00 -or- Gain on the "max-non-flub-out-setting" and the EQ all on 12.00 ...... check the video ..... but that's another issue.

Obviously ... in his video ..... Leo did not demonstrate this difference of how Tonex and LP's respond when the Gain and EQ is pushed beyond the real amp settings.

If he had ...... he would have shown exactly what I showed above in my 2 links ...... and the Tonex .... I can assure you.....would have [and does] sound just as horrific as the Kemper Generic Profiles when pushed beyond the Amps known settings ... whereas the Kemper LP's all respond "authentically" across the full real amp-range.

Its a bit confusing ..... I hope I've explained this well / clearly :)

All the best,
Ben
Click to expand...
No offense, but I cannot just take your word for this based on a few audio clips. I need to do my own liquid profiles with my amps.
 
Orvillain said:
No offense, but I cannot just take your word for this based on a few audio clips. I need to do my own liquid profiles with my amps.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Absolutely could not agree more ! :)

Just to re-iterate ..... my clips were only comparing LP to Generic Profiling and adjusting the knobs the same on each and comparing the results.

I haven't had any Tube amps for years now so am not in a position to compare a range of settings on a real amp [in the list of 45] -vs- a properly done LP on that same range of amp settings.

I was only trying to highlight how much "better" / "more authentic" [i.m.h.o] a LP is to tweak compared to tweaking a generic-static KPA profile.

Could well be that ... for example ... a LP of a real AC30 or a real Plexi tracks the real amp at different settings really closely (?) or in a really sh%t way (?) I don't know.

To me ..... it is the only unit that is attempting to do this ...... and probably will be for a long time [patents pending].

How accurate is it across the full range of all the controls (?) ..... I dont know ..... and as I've said before .... for me ... accuracy is of no value ... where as for you, accuracy is very important ..... I totally get that !

All I am interested in is (a) is it better than Generic profiling and (b) is it "convincing"" and "real" sounding and feeling ..... %100 yep to both ... for me.

If you do grab a KPA I'd be **really** interested in a real-amp -vs- LP apples-to-apples-comparison at various different Gain and EQ settings :)

All the best,
Ben
 
Last edited:
BenIfin said:
Not at all. Absolutely could not agree more ! :)

Just to re-iterate ..... my clips were only comparing LP to Generic Profiling and adjusting the knobs the same on each and comparing the results.

I haven't had any Tube amps for years now so am not in a position to compare a range of settings on a real amp [in the list of 44] -vs- a properly done LP on that same range of amp settings.

I was only trying to highlight how much "better" / "more authentic" [i.m.h.o] a LP is to tweak compared to tweaking a generic-static KPA profile.

Could well be that ... for example ... a LP of a real AC30 or a real Plexi tracks the real amp at different settings really closely (?) or in a really sh%t way (?) I don't know.

To me ..... it is the only unit that is attempting to do this ...... and probably will be for a long time [patents pending].

How accurate is it across the full range of all the controls (?) ..... I dont know ..... and as I've said before .... for me ... accuracy is of no value ... where as for you, accuracy is very important ..... I totally get that !

All I am interested in is (a) is it better than Generic profiling and (b) is it "convincing"" and "real" sounding and feeling ..... %100 yep to both ... for me.

If you do grab a KPA I'd be **really** interested in a real-amp -vs- LP apples-to-apples-comparison at various different Gain and EQ settings :)

All the best,
Ben
Click to expand...
You wouldn't happen to be a documentation guy, would you? Like, for a living?
 
BenIfin said:
Not at all. Absolutely could not agree more ! :)

Just to re-iterate ..... my clips were only comparing LP to Generic Profiling and adjusting the knobs the same on each and comparing the results.

I haven't had any Tube amps for years now so am not in a position to compare a range of settings on a real amp [in the list of 44] -vs- a properly done LP on that same range of amp settings.

I was only trying to highlight how much "better" / "more authentic" [i.m.h.o] a LP is to tweak compared to tweaking a generic-static KPA profile.

Could well be that ... for example ... a LP of a real AC30 or a real Plexi tracks the real amp at different settings really closely (?) or in a really sh%t way (?) I don't know.

To me ..... it is the only unit that is attempting to do this ...... and probably will be for a long time [patents pending].

How accurate is it across the full range of all the controls (?) ..... I dont know ..... and as I've said before .... for me ... accuracy is of no value ... where as for you, accuracy is very important ..... I totally get that !

All I am interested in is (a) is it better than Generic profiling and (b) is it "convincing"" and "real" sounding and feeling ..... %100 yep to both ... for me.

If you do grab a KPA I'd be **really** interested in a real-amp -vs- LP apples-to-apples-comparison at various different Gain and EQ settings :)

All the best,
Ben
Click to expand...
It is absolutely not the only unit on the market that attempts to track controls at different settings on the real amps or let’s you change tonestacks in different models .
It’s a cool feature that was basically added to address the ToneX , Qc more accurate profiling claims most likely
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Stone
Dilemma !
Replies
8
Views
202
unix-guy
unix-guy
la szum
Fun & Interesting News
2 3
Replies
59
Views
4K
la szum
la szum
DLC86
SKNote/RedSound Sublymia
Replies
8
Views
720
Cirrus
Cirrus
eggpl@nt
Free yourselves from the chains of this mortal coil
Replies
15
Views
860
Alex Kenivel
Alex Kenivel
texhex
Kemper Rack vs Stage
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
Antipodes
A
Back
Top