Observed differences between original and 2.0 Profiling

    The Profiler Model referred to in this thread is ...
    ☑️ Profiler Head/Rack

    For me the 2.0 profiles seem thicker, meatier. It is not a subtle difference.

    Today I created three profiles from the exact same amp settings/microphone set up. They were all done in rapid succession.

    One is a classic profile without even using RM (TNRM).

    The second is a classic profile but with RM fired up (TV1RM). Did not change any settings.

    The third is a 2.0 profile, obviously with RM running (TV2).

    For me the first two don't sound any different. The 2.0 profile is noticeably different, but I'm not sure I can say it is closer to the real amp. It sounds fatter. However that could be a more realistic interpretation of what the microphone is getting. I have no idea.

    You can try the rigs for yourself. Link is good for 6 days. https://filebin.net/uyw0cpgae6t0wtfj

    I've tested all three...i've never made a profile, because I just want to use the better ones and I'm not a profiler, I'm a guitar player. These profiles are the type I would put in the trash, but I can notice that 2.0 is clearly thicker and better sounding. It's great to have these comparisons, but honestly I still use some 1.0 over bad 2.0 profiles. Hope soon we will have very good 2.0 profiles. Maybe someday I'll try to make myself one profile, but honestly I don't really want to be a profiler guy, just want to play guitar and make music.

    I have some news about what is going on here and to be honest I'm not sure what to think about it.

    I did some more profiles this morning and they did not have the "thick" sound. I poked around a bit and found that the "thick" ones had a Definition value in the range of 1.5-2.0 (amp module). The ones that were sounding more like the real amp had a Definition betwern 4.0 and 4.8.

    Then I figured out that it is related to the "starting" profile; the profile that I was set to before switching to PROFILER mode. It looks like the profile is just copying the definition value and not setting that from the profile that was taken. I find that a little odd.

    I don't think an IR would help this. It's a problem in the AMP module.

    So this whole thing about getting an accurate copy of an amp, it depends greatly on already having an accurate copy of it to start with. I don't see that as much of a step in the right direction.

    I think I might just open a ticket on this because something isn't right here, and it might be my process or it might not be. In any case the profiles I'm making sound more like the starting profile than the amp I'm doing.

  • Burkhard April 14, 2026 at 5:34 PM

    Changed the title of the thread from “Observed differences between original and 2.0 profiling” to “Observed differences between original and 2.0 Profiling”.
    Quote from nero1983

    I've tested all three...i've never made a profile, because I just want to use the better ones and I'm not a profiler, I'm a guitar player. These profiles are the type I would put in the trash, but I can notice that 2.0 is clearly thicker and better sounding. It's great to have these comparisons, but honestly I still use some 1.0 over bad 2.0 profiles. Hope soon we will have very good 2.0 profiles. Maybe someday I'll try to make myself one profile, but honestly I don't really want to be a profiler guy, just want to play guitar and make music.

    Lemme hear or direct me to these good 2.0 profiles, if you please.