AXE FX II vs Kemper Profile Amp

[SEA]

Originally Posted by Dr.Wu

get one and clone the other!

If I had the budget, no problem!

However, the AXE FX I like for the above reasons as well. I would like something for gigging live that I can control with my Roland FC-300. I have the VG-99 but that I'd use for studio only. For gigging, I'd rather have something like the AXE FX.

[jrod9900]

How do you update the Kemper firmware and add downloaded rigs? I tried to transfer with a flash drive, but nothing happened when I plugged the drive in to the Kemper.

I have to say there may be some differences in sound with the Kemper, but it sounds great and responds like a real amp. The biggest thing I noticed was the low end of the profiles I made myself. So far I did a 5150 and Mesa Rec with a 57 and 421. The amps had more low end, but in fairness, I would probably HPF some of that in the mix.

I really want to play with this thing some more and try some of the Amp Factory profiles...

JROD

[jawgee]

Has anyone actually sold their collection of awesome amps after profiling them with the Kemper? I mean, if the Kemper actually works, what's the use of keeping the real amps other than for collectible purposes?

[Dr.Wu]

Originally Posted by SEA

If I had the budget, no problem!

However, the AXE FX I like for the above reasons as well. I would like something for gigging live that I can control with my Roland FC-300. I have the VG-99 but that I'd use for studio only. For gigging, I'd rather have something like the AXE FX.

the kemper is fully midi controllable-you can select rigs, switch stomps on and off and use the pedals of the fc300 to control volume and wha effects

[gt_jumper]

I went the kemper, am yet to get it in the mail though. Here is what i came across as pros and cons

cons
Its fugly...
Non rack mount

Pros
Cheaper
Can mic up clients amp, steal its soul for easier, more uniform tracking.
steals amp souls
can buy a case to hide its fugliness


I'll let yas know how i go when it gets here, my beloved classic 50 will be the first to be profiled.

[gt_jumper]

Originally Posted by jawgee

Has anyone actually sold their collection of awesome amps after profiling them with the Kemper? I mean, if the Kemper actually works, what's the use of keeping the real amps other than for collectible purposes?

but i wouldnt be as cool coz i would have less amps then my mates....

[mdme_sadie]

Originally Posted by jawgee

Has anyone actually sold their collection of awesome amps after profiling them with the Kemper? I mean, if the Kemper actually works, what's the use of keeping the real amps other than for collectible purposes?

Well the Kemper is about making snapshots of your amp with particular settings and signal chains, who's to say you wont get a new cab, mic, tubes or new recording space and prefer the sound there?

Think of the Kemper less as an amp sim replacement for your amps and more as a general studio tool to be used in conjunction with your existing amps, in some ways it protects your amp investment. It lets you recall a specific setup on a touch of a button, makes it very easy to bring back a specific sessions sound, or take a studio sound out on the road with you.

Sure in addition to that you can also use it like a traditional amp sim and skip using your real amps, but I prefer to think of this as an extension, something that augments my amp's inbuilt functionality.

[Streetspirited]

i have no firsthand experience with matching/profiling but this seems to be the pivot point for those deciding between fractal and kemper. fractal's founder Cliff has a very informative post arguing for the superiority of the axe-fx's amp matching feature over kemper's profiling. his process seems significantly more nuanced:

Profiling consists of four parts:
1. Finding the input EQ.
2. Finding the "shape" and bias point of the nonlinear transfer function.
3. Finding the output EQ.
4. Finding the compression, or sag, characteristics.

The Axe-Fx II with V6 uses a hybrid modeling/profiling approach. The Axe-Fx modeling is much more complex in that it does not use a single waveshaper with adjustable shape and bias point. It uses multiple dynamic nonlinearities including preamp and power amp modeling. Profilers distill everything down to a single static waveshaper and then adjust the shape (probably a x+k/x-k waveshaper) and bias point of that waveshaper to try and match the measured transfer function. They then find the input and output EQ and the compression.

With V6 the Axe-Fx II uses a combination of modeling and profiling. The amps are modeled using our exclusive multiple dynamic nonlinearities that very accurately replicate actual tube triodes and our new power amp modeling which fully recreates the behavior of a tube power amp and output transformer. The models are then refined by applying test tones to the actual amp to find deviations between the real amp and the model. For example, traditional circuit based modeling cannot account for things like parasitics since these are not represented by the schematic. So we now augment our traditional circuit modeling with measurements from the actual amp and store that data in the model.

With Tone Matching you can morph a model to match other amps. This works best if the model and amp are similar.

There are numerous advantages to this approach. These advantages include full control matching. The drive, tone, etc. controls behave just like the real amp. You're not just getting a snapshot of the amp at some setting. Another advantage is full separability of the amp from the cabinet. Due to inseparability of linear responses, profiling lumps the amplifier output with the cab response. The multiple nonlinearities also capture the complexities of amps that rely on both preamp and power amp distortion. Single waveshaper approaches cannot capture the complex interactions of multiple distorting stages and the concomitant duty-cycle modulation, EQ modulation (which produces note bloom and swirl) and the vagaries of feel.

The one disadvantage is that you only get the amps that we have modeled. If you have an amp that is very unique that we haven't modeled then Tone Matching may not fully capture the essence of that amp. Profiling allows you to capture that amp at your favorite settings with your favorite cab. Another disadvantage is that modeling is very labor intensive. We have to enter all the circuit data, measure the control tapers, verify the model accuracy and then apply all the fancy test tones and capture the refinement data.

[mdme_sadie]

Originally Posted by Streetspirited

i have no firsthand experience with matching/profiling but this seems to be the pivot point for those deciding between fractal and kemper. fractal's founder Cliff has a very informative post arguing for the superiority of the axe-fx's amp matching feature over kemper's profiling. his process seems significantly more nuanced:

Profiling consists of four parts:
1. Finding the input EQ.
2. Finding the "shape" and bias point of the nonlinear transfer function.
3. Finding the output EQ.
4. Finding the compression, or sag, characteristics.

The Axe-Fx II with V6 uses a hybrid modeling/profiling approach. The Axe-Fx modeling is much more complex in that it does not use a single waveshaper with adjustable shape and bias point. It uses multiple dynamic nonlinearities including preamp and power amp modeling. Profilers distill everything down to a single static waveshaper and then adjust the shape (probably a x+k/x-k waveshaper) and bias point of that waveshaper to try and match the measured transfer function. They then find the input and output EQ and the compression.

With V6 the Axe-Fx II uses a combination of modeling and profiling. The amps are modeled using our exclusive multiple dynamic nonlinearities that very accurately replicate actual tube triodes and our new power amp modeling which fully recreates the behavior of a tube power amp and output transformer. The models are then refined by applying test tones to the actual amp to find deviations between the real amp and the model. For example, traditional circuit based modeling cannot account for things like parasitics since these are not represented by the schematic. So we now augment our traditional circuit modeling with measurements from the actual amp and store that data in the model.

With Tone Matching you can morph a model to match other amps. This works best if the model and amp are similar.

There are numerous advantages to this approach. These advantages include full control matching. The drive, tone, etc. controls behave just like the real amp. You're not just getting a snapshot of the amp at some setting. Another advantage is full separability of the amp from the cabinet. Due to inseparability of linear responses, profiling lumps the amplifier output with the cab response. The multiple nonlinearities also capture the complexities of amps that rely on both preamp and power amp distortion. Single waveshaper approaches cannot capture the complex interactions of multiple distorting stages and the concomitant duty-cycle modulation, EQ modulation (which produces note bloom and swirl) and the vagaries of feel.

The one disadvantage is that you only get the amps that we have modeled. If you have an amp that is very unique that we haven't modeled then Tone Matching may not fully capture the essence of that amp. Profiling allows you to capture that amp at your favorite settings with your favorite cab. Another disadvantage is that modeling is very labor intensive. We have to enter all the circuit data, measure the control tapers, verify the model accuracy and then apply all the fancy test tones and capture the refinement data.

Tonematching on the Axe is simply match eq, same as you've been able to do for years with Logic or some VST's, it's certainly not more advanced and certainly not more nuanced than profiling (anything but). Cliff is a smart guy, but he talks a great deal of FUD, tonematching doesn't give you the full emulation of an amp at all, but just a snapshot (same as the Kemper in that regards), they both use a model/sim of an amp what Cliff calls a waveshaper in the Kemper, that's all that an amp sim is. With the AxeFX his supposed advantage is that you must manually select an amp sim that matches yourself from the limited internal selection, this isn't really an advantage when the amp sims match only a specific amp. The Kemper meanwhile lacks the different tone stack models, defaulting to a standard stack, Christoph has said that he will add in optional configurations for those that want a Mesa style tone stack. However neither Axe nor Kemper is accurate in the slightest to the original amp once you deviate from the original settings with the tone stack, the Kemper remains faithful within about 2 led's worth of play, the Axe probably even less.

Simply put, Cliff is blowing smoke up your ass and trying to make a significant downside (i.e. manually having to set the values when trying to emulate something, just like any amp sim prior to the KPA) seem like a great selling point and a downside of the Kemper. That's fine it's his product he's trying to sell for a lot more than a KPA and it's a great product in it's own right, but as always be aware of the source.

[AMIEL]

Why people prefer AXE FX over KEMPER for live shows?? I see Kemper as the future for that scenario.

[henryrobinett]

Originally Posted by AMIEL

Why people prefer AXE FX over KEMPER for live shows?? I see Kemper as the future for that scenario.

I can only say from the Axe Fx II perspective. The Axe is extremely versatile. I use mine with a Liquid Foot+ 12+ and three expression pedals. The effects inside the Axe II rival just about any stomp box, wah. Plus the amp sims, tone matching and now with version 9 just released scenes, it has taken yet another big leap forward. Cliff keeps adding amps and improving upon the old ones. All the presets I made myself just keep getting better has he goes deeper into the technology and improving on what already sounds great to me.

The Kemper is great, I have no doubt. I don't think there's a better or worse than here. It's personal preference. The Axe Fx II is just perfect for my live playing. The Kemper has to at the very least make it rack mountable. That seems like a draw back.

[henryrobinett]

Mdme_sadie - yeah, I haven't used the tone matching features as copying an amp is not really what I'm most interested in. But many of the examples I've heard sound great.

There are some non tone matched amps I'm very familiar with I use in the Axe that are spot on. The deluxe reverb and Boogie Mark III are ridiculous for their accuracy.

And I don't know about Cliff blowing smoke up anyone's ass. He's fiercely proud of his Axe and is a perfectionist. And he delivers. I've never seen him not deliver. That is not what I'd characterize as someone blowing smoke. But he's not the type of person to sit back in the face of an onslaught. That probably rubs people the wrong way.

[FretDoc]

Originally Posted by Dr.Wu

get one and clone the other!

As an Ultra owner I'm interested to know if this is possible? I really only use a fraction of the Ultra's capability and stick to a few tones that I have created and like. The KPA looks interesting. Now if I could clone my Ultra tones that would be great.

[Dr.Wu]

Originally Posted by FretDoc

As an Ultra owner I'm interested to know if this is possible? I really only use a fraction of the Ultra's capability and stick to a few tones that I have created and like. The KPA looks interesting. Now if I could clone my Ultra tones that would be great.

sure its possible and in case of the Axe its supersimple because you dont even need to place a mic in front of it but simply use the lineouts.
you only need to switch off the effects in the Axe and stick to the amp section and the cabinet.
There are already a few profiles of the Axe provided by users in the rig exchange

[FretDoc]

Originally Posted by Dr.Wu

sure its possible and in case of the Axe its supersimple because you dont even need to place a mic in front of it but simply use the lineouts.
you only need to switch off the effects in the Axe and stick to the amp section and the cabinet.
There are already a few profiles of the Axe provided by users in the rig exchange

Thanks for that doc! I must get down town and try the KPA out in person.

[chaosgow]

right now I have a kemper and LOVE it. Next year I'll be picking up an AXE II and I'm sure I'll love that too.

I may or may not be selling my 11r. lol

[gt_jumper]

Originally Posted by cortisol

The Peter Thorn videos on YouTube of the Axe FX II are really great! Some of the cleans and low gain sounds are great and the tone matching feature seems really good.

When ever I hear a comparison between Kemper and the amp it just profiled it seems harsh and bright with a little something missing and that's even with the refining process. But I have never played through them so touch and response might sway things in the Kempers favour for all I know.

For guitar production including FX I would suspect the Axe FX II would be the choice as the Kemper seems to lag behind in that regard. Steve Vai seems to love the Axe FX II.

I dont know what you're doing to get this result man, but the kemper nails it every time for me. After a little practice with profiling its MUCH better for the mix to profile the amp and record with that. I havent played the axe fx but heard them side by side and the kemper was the clear winner.

[henryrobinett]

Well the Axe Fx II is so much more versatile and it sounds absolutely killer. To talk about hearing them side by side you have to also say when and what version you were listening to. The Axe Fx II is at 9.02. Tone Matching is now a part of the Axe arsenal, which has it's similarities to Profiling. Cliff keeps improving the amps emulations and keeps adding more, with his improved technological breakthroughs. Now we also have scenes which add 8 snapshots per preset.

Listen, there shouldn't be this us vs them thing. Both the Kemper and the Axe are amazing pieces of technology. Be happy with what you have and let others be happy with what they have. Both are great.

[gt_jumper]

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

Well the Axe Fx II is so much more versatile and it sounds absolutely killer. To talk about hearing them side by side you have to also say when and what version you were listening to. The Axe Fx II is at 9.02. Tone Matching is now a part of the Axe arsenal, which has it's similarities to Profiling. Cliff keeps improving the amps emulations and keeps adding more, with his improved technological breakthroughs. Now we also have scenes which add 8 snapshots per preset.

Listen, there shouldn't be this us vs them thing. Both the Kemper and the Axe are amazing pieces of technology. Be happy with what you have and let others be happy with what they have. Both are great.

I couldnt tell you what model it was man, OR what the guitarist had set it too. But really i totally agree with you but the post i quoted i found inaccurate to my findings.

I would own both in a heart beat for their differences are minor at best. But, I do see the whole Apple/Android, Mac/PC war starting to take hold in the forums. So many owners are so desperate to make out they own the superior product....

[henryrobinett]

Some people feel threatened. I don't. The playing is still in the hands.

[Anadrolic]

AxeFx II ALL DAY! Truly an amazing piece of equipment, they sound there is mind blowing right of the start. I didn't like the Kemper at all, and compared to the Axe Fx's sounds quality and tweaking ability it's really lacking. The Axe Fx is currently in my opinion the strongest piece of equipment you can buy for a guitar. No amp can match it's versatility yet it matches most amps feel and touch, add a small high end boost pedal for some extra flavour and you sound like a beast.

Beside that, visually the Axe Fx looks better, fits in a rack perfectly etc'. The Kemper is just ugly, for me it's important not sure about most people but still.

[oceantracks]

Haven't heard either in person.

I did read that the Axe FX new "profiling" feature is really just a sample of an EQ curve of the source, much like the "Match EQ" in Logic...which is iffy at best on good days.

The Axe does have great effects, and the ability to run a stereo rig, which is really nice sometimes. I just hate the whole cult Axe thing, and Cliff's uniformed attitude about some things (he set the sample rate at a fixed 48K, and said "Hey you can covert that on the fly in your DAW." Wrong in many cases.

I do agree that in most cases on YouTube with the Kemper, when compared to the source, to my ears it always sounds much thinner.

And yes, it's pretty ugly and not rack friendly. Still there are a lot of guitarists with many years of experience who swear by it.

So I don't know what to think.

TH

[Dr.Wu]

the Axe FX profiles in the Kemper sound pretty cool but i prefer the profiles of the real amps.

[henryrobinett]

Everyone likes to talk about how great the effects are in the Axe Fx. And they are. But the amps are truly what makes it great. That and it's versatility.

You hate the whole Axe cult thing. Well how about the Kemper cult thing? Why is one OK and the other isn't? When someone loves a piece of gear, whether it's a mic and mic pre and computer or an amp, people get very excited and possessive. It's natural.

[GMR]

Kemper might be ugly, actually you learn to love it after a while, "like a shapei type thing" but it sounds so real, you fall in love with it. For a synthetic copy guitar sound with tons of effects, AXE does the job nicely. If you are used to playing real tube amps with real tube sound and feel, the only choice is the Kemper !!!!

Originally Posted by Anadrolic

AxeFx II ALL DAY! Truly an amazing piece of equipment, they sound there is mind blowing right of the start. I didn't like the Kemper at all, and compared to the Axe Fx's sounds quality and tweaking ability it's really lacking. The Axe Fx is currently in my opinion the strongest piece of equipment you can buy for a guitar. No amp can match it's versatility yet it matches most amps feel and touch, add a small high end boost pedal for some extra flavour and you sound like a beast.

Beside that, visually the Axe Fx looks better, fits in a rack perfectly etc'. The Kemper is just ugly, for me it's important not sure about most people but still.

[henryrobinett]

Originally Posted by GMR

Kemper might be ugly, actually you learn to love it after a while, "like a shapei type thing" but it sounds so real, you fall in love with it. For a synthetic copy guitar sound with tons of effects, AXE does the job nicely. If you are used to playing real tube amps with real tube sound and feel, the only choice is the Kemper !!!!

No, no, no! This is the stuff I hate. Like I was saying earlier in this thread, there is a bias here against Axe Fx. Not if you like synthetic copy guitar sounds. That's BS. I played real tube amps my whole life. I am a professional guitarist. That is BS. Give it a rest please.

[emitsweet]

Originally Posted by Dr.Wu

the Axe FX profiles in the Kemper sound pretty cool but i prefer the profiles of the real amps.

great guitar tones come from the natural dynamics and compression from tubes and transformers and their interaction with speakers and the room. Harmonic distortion is so pleasing to the soul and speaker breakup is the cherry on top.

2nd order or 3rd order or whatever harmonics from Class A and/or class A/B tube amps are the tone that is electric music. I'm sure these kemper and axe fx devices model these aspects, but It's hard for me to believe it is any better than solid state amps in the end, which no one really uses for the natural harmonic and compression nuances inherit only to tube amps.

Solid state amps have been around now for 50 years since the transfer resistor became affordable due to semiconductor technologies. I realize these kemper and Axe units are more like computers than solid state amplifiers, however with the exception of the roland Jazz chorus (which is only good for limited clean tones) and a few tech 21 solid state amps, all other solid states amps for the last 50 years sound offensive to most people's ears. The Axe fx is no exception. The kemper is a little better since it is more a guitar tone that is reminiscent of miked tone which is being reproduced through studio monitors. This is acceptable for some late night demo tape recording situations and maybe live emulations if you play cover songs but it's just a snapshot of something organic.

Digital recording is already a struggle getting good warm guitar tone even with tube amps. When the average home studios are using prosumer A/D and cheap mic preamps, adding a digital modeling device into the mix and now you even further away from the warm attributes of real tubes and what electric music is all about.

I understand the appeal of these modelers. If you can't use a real amp late night or you play in a top 40 cover band and need to emulate a 100 different guitar tones from 50 different guitar players, one could maybe understand adding one of these units to their arsenal, but to think these can replace a tube amp and expect similar result for professional recording, is perhaps is a stretch. I had an Axe a fx a while back and I thought some of the demos I heard on the net sounded great., so I pulled the trigger on one, but when I got the unit it reminded me of a Pod. It had that same weird sound (though it is obviously better than a pod). When you cover it up with the axe fx effects it sounded good, but I like dry plexi tone, jmp and boogie tone. The clean sounds in the axe were decent for that jazz chorus kind of clean sound, but the distorted sounds hurt my ears and were very harsh. My $100 Korg Pandora sounded better.

Kemper is a unit I only have limited experience with and although I thought it was useful and an incredible technological innovation, it just does not have that natural tube amp feel and harmonic thing at all. It's like a programmable pod only slightly better in tone. I can see someone using cheap interfaces and mic preamps not noticing the difference as far as actual tracking goes, since they are not getting a good snapshot of their tube amp while using that type of inaccurate digital/DAW/comptuer interfacing. So these modelers are going to be comparable in that scenario, perhaps better in in some situations.

However, the better your recording chain is the more these digital modelers get exposed for sounding harsh and unnatural. By all means if these units work for you cool, go for it. But if you don't own one and are thinking this is going to get you classic SRV, AC/DC or Led Zep warm guitar tone think twice before dropping $2000 and do your research first.

If you are one of those people who think you can't get good guitar sounds unless you have a 100 watt Vox stack and two 4x12 cabinets think again. With attenuators and high gain mic preamps you can get great natural tube tone at extremely low volumes, you have to experiment. these modelers are no substitute for the real thing. these devices only make digital recorded music even more unnatural.

YMMV

[GMR]

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

No, no, no! This is the stuff I hate. Like I was saying earlier in this thread, there is a bias here against Axe Fx. Not if you like synthetic copy guitar sounds. That's BS. I played real tube amps my whole life. I am a professional guitarist. That is BS. Give it a rest please.

Well that is my opinion of it and if you don't like it, too bad. Even MW has tried them all too and expressed in another thread that the only one he likes is the Kemper. There are a lot of people who hear it. If you like the tones you get with it , great , but that is my evaluation of it and will say how i feel about it ! Thank you

The OP can read this and evaluate this for himself and try both and let him form his own opinion !

[henryrobinett]

Of course it's your opinion, but don't speak it as if it's god's truth. I respect MW but I don't care what he says. His opinion or anyone else's will never trump my own. Speak your opinion as your opinion.

[Animus]

Originally Posted by Streetspirited

i have no firsthand experience with matching/profiling but this seems to be the pivot point for those deciding between fractal and kemper. fractal's founder Cliff has a very informative post arguing for the superiority of the axe-fx's amp matching feature over kemper's profiling. his process seems significantly more nuanced:

Profiling consists of four parts:
1. Finding the input EQ.
2. Finding the "shape" and bias point of the nonlinear transfer function.
3. Finding the outp

With Tone Matching you can morph a model to match other amps. This works best if the model and amp are similar.

There are numerous advantages to this approach. These advantages include full control matching. The drive, tone, etc. controls behave just like the real amp. You're not just getting a snapshot of the amp at some setting. Another advantage is full separability of the amp from the cabinet. Due to inseparability of linear responses, profilin
The one disadvantage is that you only get the amps that we have modeled. If you have an amp that is very unique that we haven't modeled then Tone Matching may not fullcapture the essence of that amp. Profiling allows you to capture that amp at your favorite settings with your favorite cab. Another disadvantage is that modeling is very labor intensive. We have to enter all the circuit data, measure the control tapers, verify the model accuracy and then apply all the fancy test tones and capture the refinement data.

Welco.e to the forums scott peterson!