I don;t use e.q. on any profiles...
You are also using 2 totally different outputs and so balancing those will be difficult, do you get the problem with both or just 1?
To me (and its just me) if you have to use anything like a sonic maximiser or TC spark, there is something wrong with your base sound.
Headphones will give you an accurate sound of the profiles. Compare that to whatever speakers you might use.
Try some other profiles besides the two you use and see what you find out.
I have a BBE (stomp pedal version) in my Kemper's FX loop, but it's not for major EQ surgery or anything like that; just a little extra depth or sparkle as a mastering corrective. Small amounts of effect, nothing radical.
You can emulate the BBE's effect using a Studio EQ. Set the frequency for one of the bands to 9 kHz and the Q to 0.248. Adjust the gain to taste.
but soon as i engage 8 band on any profile even with no adjustments it goes all muddy and shitty
that sounds really weird - please make a backup and contact support, I'm sure they'd like to take a look at that 
Sold my Sonic Maximizer after getting a Kemper because I never needed it. Definitely a solution inside the Kemper for the desired effect of the Maximizer. I would try Coldfrixion’s advice.
You can emulate the BBE's effect using a Studio EQ. Set the frequency for one of the bands to 9 kHz and the Q to 0.248. Adjust the gain to taste.
Actually, no. The BBE effect was designed to delay the phase of low frequencies in order to compensate for frequency-related impedance skew in speakers with crossovers. The "Lo Contour" & "Process" knobs make the product more interesting, but the original intent of the patent was to make mixes played through hi-fi speakers sound better.
Actually, no. The BBE effect was designed to delay the phase of low frequencies in order to compensate for frequency-related impedance skew in speakers with crossovers. The "Lo Contour" & "Process" knobs make the product more interesting, but the original intent of the patent was to make mixes played through hi-fi speakers sound better.
I never said EQ can emulate exactly what the BBE is doing, but it can emulate the end result it produces, no question. How do I know? Well, if you EQ match a signal with the BBE engaged and A/B the results in a blind test, I'd wager you'd be unable to tell the difference. If you disagree, try it, or let me know and I'll put a blind test together.
I never said EQ can emulate exactly what the BBE is doing, but it can emulate the end result it produces, no question. How do I know? Well, if you EQ match a signal with the BBE engaged and A/B the results in a blind test, I'd wager you'd be unable to tell the difference. If you disagree, try it, or let me know and I'll put a blind test together.
You're missing the point, as there is no EQ to match - the Sonic Maximizer process is phase-only, flat. In fact, on single-driver speakers you can't even make out the phase correction. The Lo & Process knobs are niceties but most people don't realize that they are there for convenience and are not, actually, the effect. I can point you to the patent if you wish.
You're missing the point, as there is no EQ to match - the Sonic Maximizer process is phase-only, flat. In fact, on single-driver speakers you can't even make out the phase correction. The Lo & Process knobs are niceties but most people don't realize that they are there for convenience and are not, actually, the effect. I can point you to the patent if you wish.
Well, no, it's not phase only. Let's look at the empirical data. Regardless how the Sonic Maximizer might affect phase, it does change the frequency response of a signal as evidenced by before and after analysis using a spectrum analyzer.
The above image demonstrates how the Sonic Maximizer affects the frequency response at a setting of 3.0 for both, the Lo Contour and Process controls. The purple outline is the BBE post processed signal, and it clearly shows that both the high and low frequency content has been altered. If you're not willing to acknowledge that then you're simply denying reality.
To my ears, EQ matching the post processed signal yields a result that's audibly indistinguishable. If you think you'd be able to hear a difference, try the following blind test. You'll find 6 audio clips below. The first sample is the original, unprocessed signal. However, can you guess which sample(s) have been processed with the BBE Sonic Maximizer vs. EQ matching? It should be pretty easy to distinguish between them if, as you claim, the Sonic Maximizer only affects phase.
ColdFrixon, a setting of 3.0 means that you've got some corrective EQ (Lo and/or Processing) going on so of course your EQ isn't flat. If you'd set the knobs to zero (i.e., phase correction only), everything is as I said. The Yellow curve below is white noise running through my BBE Sonic Stomp with Lo & Process controls at zero. Behind it, which you can barely see, is with the pedal in bypass. The curves are almost completely flat, and overlap entirely.
The white curve is what things looks like with the pedal on and both Lo & Process controls set to maximum. I also tried 3.0 as you did, but the curves were as you'd expect, similar to the white line only much shallower.
So again - obviously you can hear the Lo & Process EQ's, if they're being used - that's not up for debate. But if you leave the controls at minimum, the Maximizer effect is nearly inaudible from a EQ perspective. Like I said... those knobs are for convenience only, like any EQ - and not responsible for the Maximizer's loudspeaker correction effect (which is why BBE got a patent.)
a setting of 3.0 means that you've got some corrective EQ (Lo and/or Processing) going on so of course your EQ isn't flat.
The frequency spectrum isn't flat with the controls set to 0, either.
I'm going to say this again, so please peruse the following statements carefully: I never claimed EQ can emulate what the BBE is actually doing. I stated that EQ can emulate the effect it produces. The audible effect, which is the only thing I'm concerned with.
If you can't hear a difference between the BBE and an EQ model of the audible effect it produces, what difference does it make?
So again - obviously you can hear the Lo & Process EQ's, if they're being used - that's not up for debate. But if you leave the controls at minimum, the Maximizer effect is nearly inaudible from a EQ perspective.
If the effect is nearly inaudible, that would mean it's audible to some degree, and if it's audible and demonstrably affecting the frequency response, which it is, then it wouldn't solely be phase oriented.
If you follow the entire thread, posts, the main reason I commented at all was to supply additional background re: the BBE in order to clear up any misunderstandings implying that EQ was all the BBE had to offer. Casual users who weren't familiar with the history of the box could easily think that, and I suspect my information was new to you as well. So don't take it personally, this is how urban legends start - "You don't need a BBE, because any old EQ will do!"
Addressing your "if you can't hear a difference, what difference does it make?" question, I believe I already answered that but the point is that woofers & tweeters can get smeared in time due to their crossover networks, leading the upper harmonics to detach from the lower fundamentals, taking away some of the impact or "punch" of the bass if you will. This problem is speaker & time dependent, it's not an EQ thing and it's more of a problem for PA designers & hi-fi enthusiasts perhaps but there you go. On some speakers, flat BBE will make your mix sound better in a subtly psychoacoustic way, whereas on others it may not matter.
I used the word "nearly" inaudible to cover the edge case that a straight wire may sound slightly different from a buffered circuit etc. Just being lawyerly, because some people like to make those kinds of arguments.
tl;dr - There's more to sound than just EQ.
If you follow the entire thread, posts
The entire thread? The entire thread was a whopping 5 posts long before I replied, and 8 posts long before you chimed in.
the main reason I commented at all was to supply additional background re: the BBE in order to clear up any misunderstandings implying that EQ was all the BBE had to offer.
It's my post you originally replied to, and I never implied that the BBE is exclusively EQ based, nor did anyone else.
Casual users who weren't familiar with the history of the box could easily think that, and I suspect my information was new to you as well.
I had a nearly identical discussion on another forum two years ago about the BBE after posting my recipe for emulating the BBE's effect using a PEQ block in the Axe-Fx II. So, no new information here.
So don't take it personally, this is how urban legends start - "You don't need a BBE, because any old EQ will do!"
For my use case, any old PEQ would do just fine. In fact, for my use case, the BBE is nothing more than a glorified tone control.
Addressing your "if you can't hear a difference, what difference does it make?" question, I believe I already answered that but the point is that woofers & tweeters can get smeared in time due to their crossover networks, leading the upper harmonics to detach from the lower fundamentals, taking away some of the impact or "punch" of the bass if you will. This problem is speaker & time dependent, it's not an EQ thing and it's more of a problem for PA designers & hi-fi enthusiasts perhaps but there you go. On some speakers, flat BBE will make your mix sound better in a subtly psychoacoustic way, whereas on others it may not matter.
Firstly, I don't know anyone who actually uses the BBE with the controls set to 0. Secondly, depending on the playback system, if you think you can hear a difference that's not reproducible via EQ, then by all means, listen to the clips I posted on whatever playback system you believe will allow you to clearly hear the differences, and let me know which sample(s) are based on the BBE vs. EQ.
I used something similar in my old signal chain before I got the kemper. Now use the 'stereo widener' in a post amp effect slot to similar effect! Hope that helps
thank you all for the advice
i figured the problem i was having and noticed the high cut was on 145.8hz on the kemper eq
thank you all for the advice
i figured the problem i was having and noticed the high cut was on 145.8hz on the kemper eq
yup, that'll do it 
glad you figured it out!
