Who is now considering the Kemper instead of the Axe-II?

[stratzrus]

Originally Posted by Rogue

I tried the digital route before. Fool me once....

When the original CD vs. vinyl debates broke out most CDs sounded pretty bad in comparison to what's being produced today. Twenty-five years later CDs sound much better and that debate, while still alive, has much less steam and credibility.

Digital guitar preamps are much better than they were years ago. I wouldn't dismiss them out of hand due to past experiences.

[s0c9]

Great tone or not... I have no interest in adding another "plastic" desktop box to my collection. With all the L6, Boss and Roland gear I've got lying around the Axe-II does it for me. No Kemper gas at all. Rather get a GR55 !

[ejecta]

Great tone be damn... we can't have anymore "plastic" on the desktop! On the floor............why not.

[zentman]

Originally Posted by Rogue

The clips of the Kemper have been pretty impressive. Enough to pique my interest. On the other hand, I tried the digital route before. Fool me once....

So that original Pod bean didn't quite cut it for you at Madison Square?

[forum_crawler]

Originally Posted by guitarnet70

Why is everybody thinking that the FXs of the KPA are not good enough? I'm not saying that they are as good as the Axe, but on the other hand how many people you see gigging around with Eventide? All the demos of KPA 'till now are focused on the profiles, nobody knows what the FXs are capable of. Looking at the quality of the FXs on the Virus (well, maybe apart from the stomp boxes, but it seems that they have been improved on the KPA) and the sound quality of the profiles, there are good chances that the FXs are going to be very good as well.....

Originally Posted by paulmapp8306

Not saying there not usable, or indeed quite good. im saying they dont have the options, and parameters the AFX offers, the number of FX usable at one time, possible the quality of the AFX (even if that is overkill), the routing possibilities etc.

Actually, nobody knows for sure since the unit has not been released. I would wait until the unit is available for the general public to test before deciding if the FX are as good as "___".

[desdinova]

Several good posts and I'm glad the discussion is always on topic and in a civilized manner.

Now, as I said in the OP, I would like to introduce another parameter for the two units.

I believe, though they cover the same bases, their conceptual philosophy is miles apart.

The Axe is in fact a computer in whichyou specify all the parameters making up a full rig, concerning tone and feel. And I mention the "whole rig" and not just the amp, because there is also the issue of interactions between the modeled elements. Plus it can run external, third party "programs" (IRs).

The Kemper is a digital "amplifier" that can compare the signal fed in with a "standard" set of parameters (the internal "amp") and then reproduce it almost identically (allegedly and from what we have heard in clips). Since it is the "internal amp" that does the job, it also has the capability of extending the original tone. I don't mention the effects at all, since they are "conventional" digital effect algorithms (like in the Axe and every modeler).

This distinction between "modeler" and "profiler" goes, IMO, deeper than it seems at first. I believe for example, that a guy with a background in IT will "understand" the Axe better. Same for a guy that used to build or repair his own amps. There always were a number of people intimidated by the Axe's "depth" of editing. I think they are closer to the Kemper, since (the final product, don't bother with the profiling procedure) acts and behaves as a real amp. Or a thousand of them.

So I'd say the Kemper is closer to "old school" musicians, that like to plug in, set a number of controls and play, instead of setting parameters that are more relevant to electronics experts.

I don't say one path is better than the other, just offering this for discussion. The main question is, what side of the field most of the potential users are.

[Scott Peterson]

Originally Posted by desdinova

Several good posts and I'm glad the discussion is always on topic and in a civilized manner.

Now, as I said in the OP, I would like to introduce another parameter for the two units.

I believe, though they cover the same bases, their conceptual philosophy is miles apart.

The Axe is in fact a computer in whichyou specify all the parameters making up a full rig, concerning tone and feel. And I mention the "whole rig" and not just the amp, because there is also the issue of interactions between the modeled elements. Plus it can run external, third party "programs" (IRs).

The Kemper is a digital "amplifier" that can compare the signal fed in with a "standard" set of parameters (the internal "amp") and then reproduce it almost identically (allegedly and from what we have heard in clips). Since it is the "internal amp" that does the job, it also has the capability of extending the original tone. I don't mention the effects at all, since they are "conventional" digital effect algorithms (like in the Axe and every modeler).

This distinction between "modeler" and "profiler" goes, IMO, deeper than it seems at first. I believe for example, that a guy with a background in IT will "understand" the Axe better. Same for a guy that used to build or repair his own amps. There always were a number of people intimidated by the Axe's "depth" of editing. I think they are closer to the Kemper, since (the final product, don't bother with the profiling procedure) acts and behaves as a real amp. Or a thousand of them.

So I'd say the Kemper is closer to "old school" musicians, that like to plug in, set a number of controls and play, instead of setting parameters that are more relevant to electronics experts.

I don't say one path is better than the other, just offering this for discussion. The main question is, what side of the field most of the potential users are.

Good discussion points and interesting theory.

I'd disagree with what the Axe-FX 'is' though. You can call it whatever you like; but ignoring that there is a Gen1 and Gen2 version of the actual hardware is problematic.

The Axe-FX 2 with default parameters is pretty close to on the money from the get-go on any effect, any amp emulation and setting a cabinet up is child's play. Routing your signal on the grid isn't difficult - folks have been doing that since the G-Force came out from TC Electronic.

Also calling IR's 'programs' is a misnomer IMHO. They are more akin to 'samples' but even that isn't technically correct either. But 'programs'? I disagree on any way you can look at it.

I'm no IT expert, I don't know anything about IT. But I have to tell you that for such an advanced level technology oriented cutting edge box, the Axe-FX 2 in particular extremely easy for even a newbie to get into and get a massive range of raw tones.

As a parallel to your discussion though, you have a micro-boutique company in Fractal Audio vs. a mass distribution network with the Kemper. I think that is a very valid and interesting talking point. That is what has the European guys' interest piqued so much... availability. Fractal is not a volume production outfit; never was. Kemper - for all intensive purposes - is.

The lofty expectations that the hype buildup has created has set the bar very high - folks are utterly convinced this is the best thing since sliced bread from even a cursory read of some of the posts on different boards. Much like the Axe-FX though, they are ignoring the ancillary gear setup needed to actually work with it.

I think a lot of the guys that will be in on the initial wave of this will find out that - much like the early adapter Axe-FX guys learned - there is a much bigger picture than just the box in question.

I think all this is great and new gear is exciting and I'm glad to see a well respected company like Kemper getting into the guitar market. Much like Fractal coming out of nowhere and setting everything on it's ear, it's great to see other companies finding new ways to make playing guitar even more fun.

It's a good time to make noise with an electric guitar. I love that we have even more choices for the methods to make that noise now. Let's hope someone takes some of these new fangled boxes and gets electric guitar driven music back into the mainstream again.

[RayRay]

Originally Posted by scott peterson

...

It's a good time to make noise with an electric guitar. I love that we have even more choices for the methods to make that noise now. let's hope someone takes some of these new fangled boxes and gets electric guitar driven music back into the mainstream again.

fcuk yeah baby!!!

[forum_crawler]

Originally Posted by Scott Peterson

It's a good time to make noise with an electric guitar. I love that we have even more choices for the methods to make that noise now. Let's hope someone takes some of these new fangled boxes and gets electric guitar driven music back into the mainstream again.

Well there is nickel crap, theory of a dead man, seeder, and who know what other nickel crap wannabes out there who are polluting the airwaves with their absolutely wrong depiction of rock guitar.

So sad indeed...

[mattball826]

Originally Posted by forum_crawler

Well there is nickel crap, theory of a dead man, seeder, and who know what other nickel crap wannabes out there who are polluting the airwaves with their absolutely wrong depiction of rock guitar.

So sad indeed...

what is rock guitar? 4 measure of finger tap copy solos between choruses of any 3.5 min song? maybe the end of "southern man?"

we dont need another era of 80's wankeries or sloppy players tripping during tracking

knock current players all you want to, but every genertaion has had their day or 10 years. to say those other bands are not musically talented is moot since they are not after a certain market that doesn't like them.

isnt like 80's glam or classic rock didnt convey a basic sound or general format. adam jones, navarro, tremonti, even nickelback's, pearl jam, smashing pumpkins, guitarists and others are great musicians

i am no rap fan, but to say it has no artistry or is crap is imo..crap

otoh i can listen to several famous neil young songs and cover my ears during solo breaks! those songs used to air for 5 min outro cover your ears solos. there was no ipod, stream your favored genre, or cd playlist to substitute then.

[stratzrus]

Originally Posted by Scott Peterson

Also calling IR's 'programs' is a misnomer IMHO. They are more akin to 'samples' but even that isn't technically correct either. But 'programs'? I disagree on any way you can look at it.

IRs are probably best described as "profiles" given where the conversation is today.

Aren't they produced pretty much the same way Kemper profiles an amp?

Originally Posted by Scott Peterson

It's a good time to make noise with an electric guitar. I love that we have even more choices for the methods to make that noise now. Let's hope someone takes some of these new fangled boxes and gets electric guitar driven music back into the mainstream again.

Originally Posted by forum_crawler

Well there is nickel crap, theory of a dead man, seeder, and who know what other nickel crap wannabes out there who are polluting the airwaves with their absolutely wrong depiction of rock guitar.(

Originally Posted by mattball826

what is rock guitar? 4 measure of finger tap copy solos between choruses of any 3.5 min song? maybe the end of "southern man?"
We dont need another era of 80's wankeries or sloppy players tripping during tracking

I'd love to see "guitar driven music" back in the mainstream, but let's remember that Rock isn't the only guitar driven music.

I love rock and play it when I can, but like Matt, I have no desire to see the return of hair bands or any other regurgitation of what was done in Rock and Roll history.

Actually, amps like the Axe FX offer possibilities that may open up new directions in guitar playing. That's what I'm working on and there are many, many others doing the same.

[desdinova]

Originally Posted by Scott Peterson

Good discussion points and interesting theory.

I'd disagree with what the Axe-FX 'is' though. You can call it whatever you like; but ignoring that there is a Gen1 and Gen2 version of the actual hardware is problematic.

The Axe-FX 2 with default parameters is pretty close to on the money from the get-go on any effect, any amp emulation and setting a cabinet up is child's play. Routing your signal on the grid isn't difficult - folks have been doing that since the G-Force came out from TC Electronic.

Also calling IR's 'programs' is a misnomer IMHO. They are more akin to 'samples' but even that isn't technically correct either. But 'programs'? I disagree on any way you can look at it.

I'm no IT expert, I don't know anything about IT. But I have to tell you that for such an advanced level technology oriented cutting edge box, the Axe-FX 2 in particular extremely easy for even a newbie to get into and get a massive range of raw tones.

As a parallel to your discussion though, you have a micro-boutique company in Fractal Audio vs. a mass distribution network with the Kemper. I think that is a very valid and interesting talking point. That is what has the European guys' interest piqued so much... availability. Fractal is not a volume production outfit; never was. Kemper - for all intensive purposes - is.

The lofty expectations that the hype buildup has created has set the bar very high - folks are utterly convinced this is the best thing since sliced bread from even a cursory read of some of the posts on different boards. Much like the Axe-FX though, they are ignoring the ancillary gear setup needed to actually work with it.

I think a lot of the guys that will be in on the initial wave of this will find out that - much like the early adapter Axe-FX guys learned - there is a much bigger picture than just the box in question.

I think all this is great and new gear is exciting and I'm glad to see a well respected company like Kemper getting into the guitar market. Much like Fractal coming out of nowhere and setting everything on it's ear, it's great to see other companies finding new ways to make playing guitar even more fun.

It's a good time to make noise with an electric guitar. I love that we have even more choices for the methods to make that noise now. Let's hope someone takes some of these new fangled boxes and gets electric guitar driven music back into the mainstream again.

Speaking about the paradigm used by either company, this has nothing to do with how easy it is to dial a good tone. Even cheap, pedal sized modelers have factory presets that sound superb out of the box, for their intented audiences (e.g. kids using headphones). And some are much easier than others in dialing your favorite tone. I was talking about the philosophy behind tone initial creation in the machine. Sure, everyone can use everything as a black box, this is done even with regular tube amps by some people!

You are correct in your view of the ancillary gear. With the ever evolving improvement of modelers we have to accept a paradigm shift in the way we make noise: e.g. FRFR systems, IRs, etc.

As for Axe's competition, being a small company, it's always in this danger of loosing a lot of customers by an unfortunate situation. Case in point, if there where no supplier issues and Fractal could deliver 4X Axe-IIs in the EU, people wouldn't feel frustrated and considered another option. Kemper's release sometime at this point is just a coincidence. It could be that Avid releasing a much improved 11R upgrade, Line6 releasing a HD PRO with loadable IRs and improved amp list, or a number of other market moves.

The main reason Kemper is considered "against" Fractal is because of the perceived opinion they play on the same field, by the tone quality standpoint, which is above other market offerings.

[blewis]

To me they're both just signal processors taking the input and feeding it into some internally representative model. The parameters of those models and how they are revealed or manipulated by the end user, could conceptually be the same.

To me, the big difference is more how the internal models are created. I think Kemper has possibly created a very rapid developer tool. You can see, from following their blogging progress, that they're able to construct or populate their model very rapidly by sampling the amplifier itself.

In the case of the 11R, the developers claim they open up the amps themselves and take "point-to-point" measurements of the amp. I have read, but cannot validate, that the AXE developer uses schematics of the originals as the basis (with some talented tweaking). Someone will clarify if I'm wrong on that.

Compare that with the Kemper method: send sounds into a black box to capture all the important operating parameters of that black box.

The Kemper guys can crank out amp models so quickly, so easily, that they claim anyone can do it! Even if it isn't true, the developers themselves have a serious leg up on time to market building these amp models.

How much we care or how much we're impressed by those models certainly depends on the quality of the end model.

[stratzrus]

Originally Posted by blewis

The Kemper guys can crank out amp models so quickly, so easily, that they claim anyone can do it!

I'm sure anyone can do it, but with what results?

As I've previously noted, I think that if many users think they will just grab a mic, stick it in front of a speaker, and get the quality of results Kemper got in a professional studio, with studio grade mics, after who knows how much time spent getting the right mic placement, I think they are kidding themselves.

[blewis]

Originally Posted by stratzrus

As I've previously noted, I think that if many users think they will just grab a mic, stick it in front of a speaker, and get the quality of results Kemper got in a professional studio, with studio grade mics, after who knows how much time spent getting the right mic placement, I think they are kidding themselves.

For the end user, I think you've got an insightful concern. One that might lead to customer disappointment. For the developer, they have a very rapid, possibly accurate, developer tool.

I'm trying to compare Kemper building a tool where they squirt some sounds into a blackbox and get a valid model vs having to take apart the amp or schematic and rigorously modeling each component of the signal path.