Neve , ssl,

    Of course, the Profiler's ability to faithfully profile an audio device depends on the difference in linearity and bandwidth between the two. I've no figures here, but if you profile a 20-20000 Hz +/-3 dB device you can't probably expect the profile to sound the same: the Profiler has not been designed with such tasks in mind.
    When comparing mix desks, nuances often make a difference. A well-trained engineer can appreciate one model/brand over another for subtle differences in the way female voices are rendered, or in the way mid-bass gets damped. This is often a matter of few dBs here and there, or fractions. The differences among guitar amps are order of magnitude greater.

    Quote from chick

    So can place a whole mix through the kemper and use it like a mixing desk and how


    Not really as large format consoles are used "to mix" rather than just passing audio. An SSL is usually chosen for flexibility (i.e. routing as well as automation). It depends on your workflow, how you use the desk and how you gain stage. Even between SSLs several iterations of G series will sound different, E series will sound radically different from a 9K or a newer Duality. Again it is how you use it so merely passing the audio through a profiling (or a desk for that matter) won't give you that "mixed with big board" sound.

    Profiling outboard works fine (you can profile a recording chain where the interactions are less than in a large format console). I always profile through outboard preamps including Neve, Telefunken, API, Helios and so on. Sometimes though a complete chain with a touch of eq and compression. I have also taken profiles of quite a few different D.I.s

    Quote from nakedzen

    Have you tried doing an A/B of say, reamping a bass di track through a good coloured preamp and its profile (or just use an y-splitter to record through both simultaneously)? Sounds as good as the real thing?

    Yes it does. Extremely close, most of the times indistinguishable from the real thing.

    For me (personal opinion and workflow) it is either a time saving option when I need to reamp because we did not have enough time (or budget) at the tracking stage, or the bass player is not well experienced or simply because the production has steered towards a different sound later on at the mixing stage. In other words if I have time and budget I will record the real thing and keep a D.I. track for emergencies, on the other end with limited time/budget or very inexperienced players I will usually go straight into the KPA (still keeping a D.I. track as a spare).

    In an ideal world I would do what we used to do in the (now distant) past when most if not all players would have their sound and their rigs dialled in and the engineer would have some time to listen to the rig and mike it accordingly. Having said that I find the KPA is about 90% there with both bass and guitar sounds, not 100% yet.
    Talking to several producers (award winning ones) in the past few months I have also realised that opinions are well split, close to 50%-50% between those who fully endorse the KPA as a very useful tool and those who discard it altogether without even giving it a go....

    Taking SSL as an example you could profile either one the several Eq iterations (G had more than one version built, E, 9K) and/or the dynamics, namely one of the channel comps. These would work on the way in (i.e. profiles after the microphone preamp). Profiling the desk would be out of the question for the above mentioned facts. A large format console responds to the way you use (or abuse) it, the way you bus and multi your tracks, subgroups and in case specific of certain SSL desks (but not all) if and the way you use your VCAs that as mentioned in some of those desks are part of the sound. people who have used both the E, iterations of the G and G+ and )k series will know what I am talking about. For others let's juts say that profiling a chain would work, an entire console makes very little sense.