Kemper Profiling Amp

[JeffTD]

I too prefer the in-profile boost; just sounds better. Josh, boosting it does what you'd expect running two boosts to do; tightens it up even more and the pick attack gets a little gnarly. I'm not a fan of the results, but it does get pretty djenty.

 

[jamvanman]

Just to make sure I understand this, by 'in profile' boost do you mean you profiled the amp and tube screamer together, rather than profiling the amp and then using the kpa screamer?

 

[JeffTD]

BoostInProfile = Profile(OD808 + 5150 + Mesa 4x12 + 57 + API 312), guitar straight into Kemper.
NoBoost = Profile (5150 + Mesa 4x12 + 57 + API 312) with a physical OD808 in front of the Kemper.

 

[jamvanman]

Cheers!

 

[Trevoire520]

Boost in profile really seems to let the thump of the mutes jump out a TON more! Using the external boost is really flat and undynamic in comparison.

 

[006]

I prefer the first one as well, big difference being in the profile.

 

[Capitancambarro]

Boost in Profile sounds definitely better, not only in the low end, also the midrange is less flat and the whole profile sounds more vivid and dynamic.Just out of curiosity, did you refine both profiles the same way?
I am really a little suprised by the results. I profiled a ton of amps with boosts in profile and also with adding the boost later and always thought both were save ways. Kemper even recommends not profiling with a TS in front, though I never understood, cause my results when profiling with a TS or other boost in front have always been quite accurate.

 

[Clark Kent]

BoostInProfile = Profile(OD808 + 5150 + Mesa 4x12 + 57 + API 312), guitar straight into Kemper.
NoBoost = Profile (5150 + Mesa 4x12 + 57 + API 312) with a physical OD808 in front of the Kemper.

I much prefer the NoBoost. Seems like the BoostInProfile has problems in the low end. It has more low end all along and it jumps bit too much when muting. Ofcourse it's something you can easily fix with EQ and multibandcomps.

Personally I'd probably have the mic a bit more to the center of the speaker to get rid of that fizz and low end problems from the get-go. But the top end of that mic position sounds pretty awesome.

 

[Trevoire520]

Are you serious? I thought your major complaint about the Kemper was that the low end was too undynamic so you didn't get any thump on chugs????

 

[Clark Kent]

Are you serious? I thought your major complaint about the Kemper was that the low end was too undynamic so you didn't get any thump on chugs????

My complaint was about the accuracy in profiling and the "oomph" that a real amp has after you chugg, not meanwhile you chugg which the Kemper didn't capture in the profiles we did. It has nothing to do with this clip. I don't get your point.

 

[JeffTD]

I much prefer the NoBoost. Seems like the BoostInProfile has problems in the low end. It has more low end all along and it jumps bit too much when muting. Ofcourse it's something you can easily fix with EQ and multibandcomps.

Personally I'd probably have the mic a bit more to the center of the speaker to get rid of that fizz and low end problems from the get-go. But the top end of that mic position sounds pretty awesome.

To each his own; you've said it, we go for very different tones. Where you hear jumping low end I hear the amp being way more 'alive' and responsive than the NoBoost profile (which still has a boost, just for the record).

Why would you move the mic more towards the center to get rid of fizz?

As for not capturing the oomph after the chugs, did you ever refine your profiles? Your video review seemed to indicate otherwise.

 

[Clark Kent]

To each his own; you've said it, we go for very different tones. Where you hear jumping low end I hear the amp being way more 'alive' and responsive than the NoBoost profile (which still has a boost, just for the record).

Why would you move the mic more towards the center to get rid of fizz?

As for not capturing the oomph after the chugs, did you ever refine your profiles? Your video review seemed to indicate otherwise.

I actually like your tone very much. I like beefy guitars for sure but maybe not having a substantial amount of dynamics down there because I feel like that the purpose of bass but once again that just the way I mix and it's not "the right way" since it's a taste issue.

That guitar tone is deffo not fizzy. IMO there's always fizz in guitar tone and I just use the word fizz to describe the presence area of driven guitar. My personal preference for the SM57 sweetspot is when the treble and presence areas roll off evenly. This way although there is more fizz, it's maybe a bit more pleasant sounding like static noise rather than some certain frequencies. But what kind of fizz is more pleasant varies from ear to ear ofcourse.

We did refine the profiles. I must say that when we made those profiles at the studio I wasn't the only person there and we all agreed on the low end "oomph" thing. One of the guys had actually just bought the Kemper and even he said it although you'd think he'd be biased. He still owns his Kemper since the issue is very small. I get it that people don't want to hear anything bad said about their gear was is big or small. The low end thing was most noticable when we profiled the Mesa Roadster.

I don't know what the right word is to describe the missing thing. Is it the word "purr" that djent kids use? I dunno, it's the sustain of the low end when you chugg that was different. This was actually the only thing I was concerned about since I know that the low end is a pain in the ass when match EQing. That's something that takes a long time tweaking if you want it perfect. But like I said it's not a big thing at all.

 

[JeffTD]

I think we're on the same page, I was just confused why you'd be moving towards the cone to get rid of fizz when I find that dead-center usually has the most top end junk. I think I reached a pretty good middle-point on this one, although I have re-profiled with a different speaker in the cabinet in a similar mic position since. Going to be profiling the JVM410H today, that one is a bit more of a tricky beast, settings wise. You have one, right? Any tips you can share as far as which OD channel/color you're into?

I might go for a more tamed low-end if I was tuning lower than E standard like I was on that clip, and certainly dial it back with pickups not as tight as EMGs.

The purr thing makes sense, but I'm not sure I agree on the low end. When I do A/B clips of the reference vs KPA, it sounds ridiculously identical to me. Having the cabinet in the room is going to influence things a bit since you're not getting the same huge speaker response through the KPA but when you compare purely recorded tones I just cannot tell the difference.

 

[Clark Kent]

I think we're on the same page, I was just confused why you'd be moving towards the cone to get rid of fizz when I find that dead-center usually has the most top end junk. I think I reached a pretty good middle-point on this one, although I have re-profiled with a different speaker in the cabinet in a similar mic position since. Going to be profiling the JVM410H today, that one is a bit more of a tricky beast, settings wise. You have one, right? Any tips you can share as far as which OD channel/color you're into?

I might go for a more tamed low-end if I was tuning lower than E standard like I was on that clip, and certainly dial it back with pickups not as tight as EMGs.

The purr thing makes sense, but I'm not sure I agree on the low end. When I do A/B clips of the reference vs KPA, it sounds ridiculously identical to me. Having the cabinet in the room is going to influence things a bit since you're not getting the same huge speaker response through the KPA but when you compare purely recorded tones I just cannot tell the difference.

I haven't actually owned one but I'm familiar with it. The EQ on Marshalls is a bit weird as it isn't really changing the tone all that much or atleast that's how I feel. IMO it was more about finding the right amount of gain and having EQ knobs pretty close to noon all the time. I just couldn't get enough low end out of it but that's the Marshall sound.

Here's a picture that demonstrates some of that low end oomph lacking. The volume is the same on both clips! The first one is the real amp and the second was is the Kemper refined etc.

So... kind of like the signal went through a limiter.

 

[FIXXXER]

I haven't actually owned one but I'm familiar with it. The EQ on Marshalls is a bit weird as it isn't really changing the tone all that much or atleast that's how I feel. IMO it was more about finding the right amount of gain and having EQ knobs pretty close to noon all the time. I just couldn't get enough low end out of it but that's the Marshall sound.

Here's a picture that demonstrates some of that low end oomph lacking. The volume is the same on both clips! The first one is the real amp and the second was is the Kemper refined etc.

So... kind of like the signal went through a limiter.

no need for a MBC!

 

[JeffTD]

Yeah, there is a small difference in the low end but I honestly think it's something post EQ or even the EQ on the Kemper can fix. Here's a comparison of a refined profile, single tracked:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/392637/MP3/Kemper/Profile vs Amp/MeloriffA.mp3

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/392637/MP3/Kemper/Profile vs Amp/MeloriffB.mp3

The I could get a bigger difference by using a newer pick; it's not enough for me to stress about at all.

 

[ArthurD]

Yeah, there is a small difference in the low end but I honestly think it's something post EQ or even the EQ on the Kemper can fix. Here's a comparison of a refined profile, single tracked:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/392637/MP3/Kemper/Profile vs Amp/MeloriffA.mp3

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/392637/MP3/Kemper/Profile vs Amp/MeloriffB.mp3

The I could get a bigger difference by using a newer pick; it's not enough for me to stress about at all.

Would you mind sharing this BRUTAL profile?

 

[Clark Kent]

Yeah, there is a small difference in the low end but I honestly think it's something post EQ or even the EQ on the Kemper can fix. Here's a comparison of a refined profile, single tracked:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/392637/MP3/Kemper/Profile vs Amp/MeloriffA.mp3

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/392637/MP3/Kemper/Profile vs Amp/MeloriffB.mp3

The I could get a bigger difference by using a newer pick; it's not enough for me to stress about at all.

Honestly I can't really hear much of a difference here. Is one of these clips the Kemper profiler raw or going through a power amp and cabinet?

EDIT: A very nice guitar tone BTW!

 

[JeffTD]

Would you mind sharing this BRUTAL profile?

I can definitely do that! Been profiling all day, will post a choice one or two when I get a chance to sort through them all.

Honestly I can't really hear much of a difference here. Is one of these clips the Kemper profiler raw or going through a power amp and cabinet?

EDIT: A very nice guitar tone BTW!

One was the amp + cab mic'd up, the other was the KPA straight into my FF800 (no cab).

A is the real amp, B is the KPA; I think this is pretty obvious as B is a bit tighter/has more of an 'edge' to it, but the difference is really quite subtle. This toaster is incredible.

Glad you dig the tone though, finally.

 

[Josh Burgess]

Yeah, there is a small difference in the low end but I honestly think it's something post EQ or even the EQ on the Kemper can fix. Here's a comparison of a refined profile, single tracked:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/392637/MP3/Kemper/Profile vs Amp/MeloriffA.mp3

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/392637/MP3/Kemper/Profile vs Amp/MeloriffB.mp3

The I could get a bigger difference by using a newer pick; it's not enough for me to stress about at all.

These sound really dry and un-amp-like to me... not squishy or dynamic enough..

EDIT: Just saw you said the first was the real amp. I might actually like the Kemper better here... but can't say I really dig either sound all that much...