Not looking to start anything but Kemper vs Fm3?

pcutt

Member
Messages
1,693
in my opinion use Kemper ONLY if you have used certain real amps and you know exactly what type of sound and know how to dial these specific amps to get that exact tone. If you want to experiment with different amps then go for a modeller like the fm3 or the helix.
How does the upcoming Quad Cortex compare? Does it use the modeling or snapshot approach? From reading the website a while back it seemed to be the snapshot approach but it wasn't clear. Any ideas?
 

Deadpool_25

Member
Messages
842
Quad Cortex uses modeling and also their version of profiling. So you can use a model or a “profile”. I forget what they call it.

Kemper has a lot of fans.
Fractal has a lot of fans.
Some Kemper users have switched to Fractal.
Some Fractal users have switched to Kemper.

Evidence strongly suggests that both are excellent and a person could be happy with the tones of either. Probably a lot depends on how each person would get along with the units’ UIs.
 

Ejay

Member
Messages
4,626
unless you know exactly what you are after, you ll be looking for a needle in a haystack. In my opinion, the kemper is good only for people that want to profile specific dials of specific amps they already have played with and know. Otherwise tone searching from scratch is pure chaos given the myriad of profiles out there.
pretty simple actually...you listen to some demos of profile makers...and you choose the one you like best.....done.

Ppl tending to look for greener grass of neighbours obviously are screwed...but if not for the kemper that would have resulted in pedal/amp flipping ;)
 

ColdFrixion

Member
Messages
5,407
unless you know exactly what you are after, you ll be looking for a needle in a haystack. In my opinion, the kemper is good only for people that want to profile specific dials of specific amps they already have played with and know. Otherwise tone searching from scratch is pure chaos given the myriad of profiles out there.
That's the kind of experience I would've expected to have using the Kemper before I owned one. The truth is, I don't have to know exactly what I'm looking for. As long as I have some idea of the gain level I'm interested in, I can sort profiles on the Rig Exchange based on gain level, and those that sound moderately close to what I'm looking for can easily be shaped to fit my needs using the front panel tone controls.

Having said that, finding the perfect tone via building a rig from scratch using a modeler (eg. Line 6, FAS, Headrush, etc.) isn't necessarily faster. You still have to find an appropriate amp and IR(assuming you don't have a list of favorites) and to be honest there are times I enjoy browsing profiles on the Rig Exchange as much or more than building a rig from scratch using the Axe-Fx III.
 
Last edited:

Billinder33

Member
Messages
1,569
Probably a lot depends on how each person would get along with the units’ UIs.
There is some merit to this. Most people love AFX's and L6's UIs, so much so that you occasionally see people leave Kemper for those units on that reason alone. Kemper IU is something you'll find a broader range of opinions on.

I'll add for the OP... Kemper overall isn't really a tweaker's paradise. Your tweaking is more relegated to profile surfing, then fine-tuning those. A better paradigm for some, worse for others.
 

BraveHeart

Member
Messages
1,422
Amplifire

...and a new guitar

;-)
yeah, the Amplifire (I have the "3" version) is tweakable like a synth. There are parameters in the editor, I've even never heard of...but as with all modelers:there are crappy and better models...
 

ColdFrixion

Member
Messages
5,407
it's like an optimized/updated digital camera...more MP,finer resolution,better sensor..but same technology
Not exactly. Here's a quote from Cliff in 2015, "The only thing common between the Axe-Fx Ultra and the Axe-Fx II is the word Axe-Fx. The hardware is completely different. The algorithms are completely different." In 2017, the algorithms were overhauled again:

"We discovered some fascinating things recently. I was reading a paper about measuring the distortion characteristics of microwave amplifiers and that led us to a new class of analytic signal that reveals a lot about the distortion characteristics of tube amps. The reason the release took so long is we had to remeasure nearly every amp and collect and enter this new data. I'm so happy with the new modeling that I've removed the old algorithms to make space for new stuff."

The algorithms for the Axe-Fx III's effects have also been overhauled within the last year, not simply optimized/updated.
 
Last edited:

Gtrbldr

Member
Messages
107
Not exactly. Here's a quote from Cliff in 2015, "The only thing common between the Axe-Fx Ultra and the Axe-Fx II is the word Axe-Fx. The hardware is completely different. The algorithms are completely different." In 2017, the algorithms were overhauled again:

"We discovered some fascinating things recently. I was reading a paper about measuring the distortion characteristics of microwave amplifiers and that led us to a new class of analytic signal that reveals a lot about the distortion characteristics of tube amps. The reason the release took so long is we had to remeasure nearly every amp and collect and enter this new data. I'm so happy with the new modeling that I've removed the old algorithms to make space for new stuff."

The algorithms for the Axe-Fx III's effects have also been overhauled within the last year, not simply optimized/updated.
Well, isnt that exacly what he said? Modelling is still modelling. A t Ford is a car, Just as much as the latest model ... (Pick your manufacturen of a car with a combustion engine). Only older and less refined
 

ColdFrixion

Member
Messages
5,407
Well, isnt that exacly what he said? Modelling is still modelling.
It's possible that's what he meant, but that's not the way I interpreted his comments. It's not about whether the Axe-Fx uses modeling. Obviously it's called a modeler for a reason. The question is whether it's based on optimized old modeling technology. Modeling tech is defined by its algorithms. Compared to earlier incarnations, the current Axe-Fx uses entirely new modeling algorithms, not simply refinements/improvements to pre-existing ones.
 
Last edited:

BraveHeart

Member
Messages
1,422
Not exactly. Here's a quote from Cliff in 2015, "The only thing common between the Axe-Fx Ultra and the Axe-Fx II is the word Axe-Fx. The hardware is completely different. The algorithms are completely different." In 2017, the algorithms were overhauled again:

"We discovered some fascinating things recently. I was reading a paper about measuring the distortion characteristics of microwave amplifiers and that led us to a new class of analytic signal that reveals a lot about the distortion characteristics of tube amps. The reason the release took so long is we had to remeasure nearly every amp and collect and enter this new data. I'm so happy with the new modeling that I've removed the old algorithms to make space for new stuff."

The algorithms for the Axe-Fx III's effects have also been overhauled within the last year, not simply optimized/updated.
still the same technology with better analyzing...still not profiling ...
 

ColdFrixion

Member
Messages
5,407
still the same technology with better analyzing...still not profiling ...
Modeling is inherent to profiling. According to Christoph Kemper, profiling is a sort of automated modeling where a very complex base model of a generic guitar amp is filled with settings that ultimately form a specific amp model. A key difference is that the Axe-Fx simulates an amp in its entirety while the Kemper simulates an amp at specific settings.
 
Last edited:

Watt McCo

Member
Messages
10,307
yeah, the Amplifire (I have the "3" version) is tweakable like a synth. There are parameters in the editor, I've even never heard of...but as with all modelers:there are crappy and better models...
"Like a synth". You seem to know neither synths nor the Atomic stuff. The amp section is about as amp-like as they come in modellers with nothing much deeper than what you'd find on the front panel of an amp. And the effects section offers a deeper level of tweaking within each block than I've ever seen in a synth. There are no assignable LFOs or envelopes. Fractal products with their assignable modifiers are the only modeler/profilers that really get into synth-like approaches

I mean, I guess what you're saying is "Atomic effects are like synths to me - I don't understand either of them."
 

JiveTurkey

Trumpets and Tants
Silver Supporting Member
Messages
18,527
"Like a synth". You seem to know neither synths nor the Atomic stuff. The amp section is about as amp-like as they come in modellers with nothing much deeper than what you'd find on the front panel of an amp. And the effects section offers a deeper level of tweaking within each block than I've ever seen in a synth. There are no assignable LFOs or envelopes. Fractal products with their assignable modifiers are the only modeler/profilers that really get into synth-like approaches

I mean, I guess what you're saying is "Atomic effects are like synths to me - I don't understand either of them."
I'VE HEARD THAT A SYNTH BLOCK IS ON THE QUICK WIN SHORT LIST
 

ljholland

Silver Supporting Member
Messages
2,708
Kemper profiles are not static. Just because a profile is recorded at a certain level or with specific settings doesn't mean that this is how that profile is used when you play the amp. Of course, the person recording the profile needs to know what they are doing - just as the engineer needs to know what they are doing when they design an amp model. I use profiles and dial them from clean to mean just like I'd do with any tube amp or modeler and have complete control of gain, EQ, compression, and other amp behaviors. It's a different approach than a modeler but just flexible.
 

BraveHeart

Member
Messages
1,422
"Like a synth". You seem to know neither synths nor the Atomic stuff. The amp section is about as amp-like as they come in modellers with nothing much deeper than what you'd find on the front panel of an amp. And the effects section offers a deeper level of tweaking within each block than I've ever seen in a synth. There are no assignable LFOs or envelopes. Fractal products with their assignable modifiers are the only modeler/profilers that really get into synth-like approaches

I mean, I guess what you're saying is "Atomic effects are like synths to me - I don't understand either of them."
Of course it was totally exaggerated,but with the EQ and FXs alone you can already turn the Amplifire into a "synth"...it's a tweak station..
 




Top