OS14 / Profiling 2.0 Public Beta Discussion

Quote from jaeger 28

While all of this is true, I bought my Kemper 14 months ago, not years. Imagine how that feels for a second. Many Software Companies have an upgrde scheme with pricing depending on date of purchase. Here it’s in or out.
That said I do enjoy the sound of Mk2 profiles even on my Mk1.

I think you are basing this on your belief that its just a software difference and somehow its held back for MK1 machines.

Few companies provide an upgrade path for hardware which is what they have done.

So you are saying, you bought a unit 14 months ago, had the use of it all that time. It still works as well as it did when you bought it, plus sounds a bit better with the new software and still has some secondhand value, albeit its depreciated quicker de to the new release - no different to a car manufacturer btw...

I understand you are frustrated a little but I'm not sure what you expect Kemper to do here?

Quote from Clselby

“If” this is the case, what a flat out lie, they really should say something before it gets to far down the road.

This is flat out BS. They have already said it many times, it is NOT a Software limitation. How often should they repeat it? Some people just do not want to hear what they do not like and see conspiracies everywhere...

Quote from Kellerblues

This is flat out BS. They have already said it many times, it is NOT a Software limitation. How often should they repeat it? Some people just do not want to hear what they do not like and see conspiracies everywhere...

But people are able to see the resonance and Q factor on MKI, that was an MK2 feature. We were told it couldn’t do MK2 things and it clearly is. I’ll leave that there.

Quote from Burkhard

The Cabinet Resonance that you found in these older software versions dates back from our first prototyping and research to create a faithful adjustable resonance. These parameters definitely sound attractive, but they do not belong to the cabinet and thus don’t match the PROFILE plus have technical limitations. For example: they impact the MONITOR OUT even while Monitor Cab. Off is activated (so no cabinet), resulting in a possible boomy sound which was not intended to be released.

Sorry, for these accidental ghost parameters!

Everything keeps repeating here over and over.It helps me internalize it.

Quote from Clselby

But people are able to see the resonance and Q factor on MKI, that was an MK2 feature. We were told it couldn’t do MK2 things and it clearly is. I’ll leave that there.

That is only a tweaking parameter (that don't work properly on MKI, it's just a parametric eq)), and doesn't imply that all the rest is also possible.

Quote from Clselby

But people are able to see the resonance and Q factor on MKI, that was an MK2 feature. We were told it couldn’t do MK2 things and it clearly is. I’ll leave that there.

You've added 2+2 and got 35....its the same conclusion as "I've looked at the chip and it looks the same therefore..."

My two cents: I think the root of this issue is trust in Kemper. I have peers who were really turned off by the Player release - a product that only did a couple things, then later Kemper offered multiple paid upgrades for it to do a lot more. Right or wrong, Kemper intentionally hindered it at a software level and then sold upgrades to unlock it.

Fast forward to MK2 and it has been stated only one processor was updated. So while many Kemper supporters on here are screaming that this one processor is why you can't run 2.0 profiles at the same quality on a MK1 device, other users are still remembering when Kemper sold a product and later revealed they had intentionally held it back. Add to this people finding controls for features they were told simply could not work on MK1 and the trust level just keeps going down.

As always, it's up to the users to decide if they want to buy the product for what it is at the time of purchase. But in my opinion, this really comes down to trust. Do you trust what Kemper is telling you, or do you not.

Quote from nwmusic32

other users are still remembering when Kemper sold a product and later revealed they had intentionally held it back

First sold, then held back?

What do you mean by that?

Quote from nwmusic32

As always, it's up to the users to decide if they want to buy the product for what it is at the time of purchase. But in my opinion, this really comes down to trust. Do you trust what Kemper is telling you, or do you not.

I trust in a company which builds a high tech hardware unit which is working and is up to date since 13 Years, show me one other Hardware which did this

in the last 10 Years

Heads up and thanks Kemper , my Toaster costed me less than 100 Bucks a Year, that's a sensation, an did work and still does since 13 Years

THANK YOU incredibly good value for Money

If you don’t trust them - it’s real simple:

Buy something else and go away.

I trust what I hear from the product, and it inspires me to play music with it—especially the Kemper and the new 2.0 updates. I don’t really need to know what the manufacturer says or doesn’t say. What matters to me is the result I get from the product, not what might be missing or what’s under the hood. I couldn’t care less whether it’s made of paper or plastic. I’m happy with it, and that’s all that matters. And if I’m not… the door is always open.

Quote from G String

The resonance parameter in the MK1 is an early prototype, and the implementation is quite different from what we have in the MK2. Unlike the MK2 version, it’s a "static" implementation that you can emulate fairly closely with an equalizer. I realize this thread is approaching 500 posts now, so it’s totally understandable if the original post got buried along the way.

Here's a link:

Post

RE: OS14 / Installation and Rig Manager Discussion

[…]



It is of course not a coincidence. We have done prototyping back then and these parameter numbers are simply next in line. You were able to test here, that the algorithm prototype behind that does not belong to the cabinet. And actually it does not match the cabinet profile.

Anyway, there is a good method to control and emphasize a cabinet resonance and it has always been there for everyone. Position a peak equalizer after the cabinet and tune it to somewhere between 75 and 120 Hz to catch…

ckemper

March 9, 2026 at 3:18 PM

I give it another 5 posts until someone else who thought TLDR asks about it again!

If what I feel is correct... The direction Kemper's profiling pursues seems a little different. Countless captures.. clone.. Although the terms are different, such as "etc." Unlike the concept of copying sound, such as taking pictures, Kemper brings acoustic characteristics. It is characterized by acting like an actual AMP.

I don't want to mention competitors' products, but... Some great person... There is a rig that profiles an older model called Fractal Axe II. If you apply liquid profiling to that rig, It becomes so similar that it is difficult to distinguish it from the actual axe-ii. Kemper is... It's like creating your own modeler.

The sound of the mk1 is still more familiar, so it sounds good. It is judged to be a sweet spot that has been accumulated for 14 years.

Nevertheless, the sound of the MK2 is too outstanding in terms of these sweet sound and dynamics.

OK, I would like to give some feedback on my experiences with 2.0 so far.

I am a professional guitar player and guitar teacher (since 1990) and a Kemper owner since 2014.

The Kemper MKI was used in I think at least 300 to 400 gigs over the years and never let me down. I played 50 people audience blues gigs in bars till 10.000 people audience stadions and some national radio and tv shows with my toaster and it always was spot on.

But....I always noticed that I play different over a tube amp than over Kemper MKI. I was more adventurous while using the amp versus the Kemper because I missed dynamics while playing that I did have in the real amp. I am mostly a Tele guy over a Fender amp so dynamics are a very important part when you work with a rig like this.

Last year I bought a player (and upgraded to level III) because I needed a small rig and did a lot of gigs where I had to be on and off the stage in like 5 minutes or and the KPP was the best thinkable piece of gear for that purpose and I really like it!

So now back to Kemper 2.0 that I installed on my player.

The missing dynamics are there in 2.0! Where I would never think of using a Kemper to record a bluesy solo with a little grit over a blues progression I now did that and I liked it very much. The 2.0 profiles sound way more direct in a pleasant way and really feel like playing the real amp. So that is a huge achievement I never heard or felt in a digital device before. I think lifted of a sheet what MD and TJ talked about is a pretty much a good description about how the profiles sound and feel.

Some questions come to mind.

Is MKI still good and would I use it again for live gigs?
Yes absolutely

Do you really need to upgrade to MKII hardware if I am performing with the Kemper or play a lot at home?
No MK1 is still more than good enough, but I am glad I did because it really is more inspiring to play over

Will the future MK3 release in maybe 10 years be better than MKII?
I think so but I'll deal with that when the time comes

For now I am really happy with MKII. I have 3 gigs coming this weekend so then I will know how well it performs live!

My experience with 2.0.....I caveat this highly with the fact that I've had about 10 mins to mess around with it whilst my puppy kept jumping up and down on my laptop...

I have a Mk1 rack and player, I upgrade the player only to 14 and kept the rack at 13, so there is a direct comparison.

I loaded a few 2.0 profiles and they sound great...but....back to back with my rack, very similar sound and I'm not feeling or hearing much difference.

Couple of points that could explain this:

1) I didn't do a true A/B test as I was using different profiles and a slightly different set up for each ( different power amps).

2) As mentioned I didn't spend a long time on this

3) I'm a fairly clumsy player, not listening for dynamics etc so I might not be picking up the nuances

I nearly didn't post this because I don't think its helpful and I'm certainly not concluding that 2.0 is not worth it.

I'm also not bothered about "proving any difference", but my observations are that I can hear a minor difference, mainly around clarity. The Peavey 6505 Dill rigs sound really good BTW!

It also did remind me what a fantastic starting point we already have.

Another point to mention, as I've had previously, when I upgraded, few settings seemed to shift? Now this could have been me trying to load some rigs I built on my rack into a Level 1 player, which does throw some things, so I'm unsure if this is correct. The settings are reverb and delay where the mix seemed very high. The cause could also be legacy effects...

Quote from V8guitar

My experience with 2.0.....I caveat this highly with the fact that I've had about 10 mins to mess around with it whilst my puppy kept jumping up and down on my laptop...

I have a Mk1 rack and player, I upgrade the player only to 14 and kept the rack at 13, so there is a direct comparison.

I loaded a few 2.0 profiles and they sound great...but....back to back with my rack, very similar sound and I'm not feeling or hearing much difference.

Couple of points that could explain this:

1) I didn't do a true A/B test as I was using different profiles and a slightly different set up for each ( different power amps).

2) As mentioned I didn't spend a long time on this

3) I'm a fairly clumsy player, not listening for dynamics etc so I might not be picking up the nuances

I nearly didn't post this because I don't think its helpful and I'm certainly not concluding that 2.0 is not worth it.

I'm also not bothered about "proving any difference", but my observations are that I can hear a minor difference, mainly around clarity. The Peavey 6505 Dill rigs sound really good BTW!

It also did remind me what a fantastic starting point we already have.

Another point to mention, as I've had previously, when I upgraded, few settings seemed to shift? Now this could have been me trying to load some rigs I built on my rack into a Level 1 player, which does throw some things, so I'm unsure if this is correct. The settings are reverb and delay where the mix seemed very high. The cause could also be legacy effects...

Display More

I am wondering anyway how much "better" the mk 2 can be since I am very happy with the current profiles I have on the mk1.

I still have to get me a PLAYER so when I get it I will do my first steps into the mk2 world. We will see..

But to be honest I don't expect to much. For the simple reason I am already very happy with the sounds I have and hardly can imagine how much "better" they could get.

PS

You are mainly a high gain player if I remember correctly; Would you say that high gain leads feel more dynamic/react "better to the fingers" (legato,hammer on/pull offs etc)?

Anybody up for profiling the same rig with both mk1 and mk2 hardware? Would love to try both profiles on my mk1 hardware.

Quote from Nikos

I am wondering anyway how much "better" the mk 2 can be since I am very happy with the current profiles I have on the mk1.

I still have to get me a PLAYER so when I get it I will do my first steps into the mk2 world. We will see..

But to be honest I don't expect to much. For the simple reason I am already very happy with the sounds I have and hardly can imagine how much "better" they could get.

I updated my Stage MK1 to the 14.0 beta for 2.0 profiling. The 2.0 profile does react better on the beta for MK1. Here's what I've noticed so far using a Marshall 2.0 profile on my Player and MK1 Stage:

• Clean up with volume roll off and dynamic response is significantly better with 2.0 profiling (even on the MK1 Stage)
• The texture of the gain is better with 2.0 profiling
• Michael Britt described 2.0 as taking a blanket off of the speaker/profile - I would agree
• Michael Britt described 2.0 as a more 3D sound - I would agree
• The low end of the profile has cleaned up a lot (even on the MK1 Stage)

Quote from nwmusic32

I updated my Stage MK1 to the 14.0 beta for 2.0 profiling. The 2.0 profile does react better on the beta for MK1. Here's what I've noticed so far using a Marshall 2.0 profile on my Player and MK1 Stage:

• Clean up with volume roll off and dynamic response is significantly better with 2.0 profiling (even on the MK1 Stage)
• The texture of the gain is better with 2.0 profiling
• Michael Britt described 2.0 as taking a blanket off of the speaker/profile - I would agree
• Michael Britt described 2.0 as a more 3D sound - I would agree
• The low end of the profile has cleaned up a lot (even on the MK1 Stage)

Thank you!