How much better are 2.0 Profiles than v1?

1st Official Post
    The Profiler Model referred to in this thread is ...
    ☑️ Profiler Head/Rack

    Hi,

    Maybe it's me or it's because I mainly use high gain tones but I don't hear that much of a difference (I tried 2.0 profiles and I didn't find them better to be honest).
    This week I sat down to improve my lead tone (EVH5153 v1 profile) and I'm really happy with the result as it sounds thick, rich and full of harmonics.
    How much better can a 2.0 profile get than this? It's hard to compare because for a good comparison I would have to use a 2.0 profile that has been created of the exact same amp under the exact same settings and circumstances. Since it's an old profile I never can do that.
    So the easiest solution for me is to stick with this awesome sounding 1.0 profile.
    Is it me or are there more players here having the same 'dilemma'?

    (Disclamer: the song in the background isn't mine but Primal Fear's, I just play along with it)

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    ______________________________________________________
    Living in Zutphen, The Netherlands
    Visit my website

    For tonematched profiles and amp packs:
    AMPIRE TONES

    Edited once, last by MetalMauce (April 30, 2026 at 9:54 AM).

    Judging by the somewhat crappy speakers in my computer monitor that's a really great tone - and playing as well :)

    Note: Looking over what I've written below I guess it's kind of obvious, haha :)

    Disclaimer: I don't have a MK 2 device, so I have no direct experience myself.

    From the descriptions of the V 2.0 profiling benefits, it seems very related to touch sensitivity etc. If you're not actively using a lot of dynamics in your playing, then I suspect you're not missing out all that much. There's also the new cab resonance parameters of course, but it seems like you have exactly the tone you want already. I'd say if you're happy, then no reason to change for now. Perhaps sometime in the future, when there are more v. 2 profiles around you may find something you like better, but maybe it doesn't make sense to chase anything new right now.

    I suspect that many other players feel the same way you do, whereas other players (due to genre/playing style/whatever) find the v2 profiles superior.

    Quote from Michael_dk

    Judging by the somewhat crappy speakers in my computer monitor that's a really great tone - and playing as well :)

    Note: Looking over what I've written below I guess it's kind of obvious, haha :)

    Disclaimer: I don't have a MK 2 device, so I have no direct experience myself.

    From the descriptions of the V 2.0 profiling benefits, it seems very related to touch sensitivity etc. If you're not actively using a lot of dynamics in your playing, then I suspect you're not missing out all that much. There's also the new cab resonance parameters of course, but it seems like you have exactly the tone you want already. I'd say if you're happy, then no reason to change for now. Perhaps sometime in the future, when there are more v. 2 profiles around you may find something you like better, but maybe it doesn't make sense to chase anything new right now.

    I suspect that many other players feel the same way you do, whereas other players (due to genre/playing style/whatever) find the v2 profiles superior.

    Sounds like that makes sense and also explains why I (using merely high gain tones) don't hear that much of a difference.

    ______________________________________________________
    Living in Zutphen, The Netherlands
    Visit my website

    For tonematched profiles and amp packs:
    AMPIRE TONES

    I normally would not post a reply to a question like this, mainly because tone CAN be subjective, and so very personal. That said, I have made a fair number of profiles with a MK1 rack, and now have a MK2 rack. Disclaimer, I have not made many new profiles under 2.0 but I want to talk about a recent profiling session.

    I profiled an old Line 6 Pod XT Pro. Again. I had attempted this under MK1 with not so favorable results. The profiled tone was very different to the original. And at the time, I felt it was just a limitation of the profiling nature of MK1. The MK 2 2.0 profiles of the same amp emulation, a Vox AC 30 top boost were startlingly different. The interesting thing about this experiment is that the source was exactly the same, the same patch, maybe the imput level to Kemper not scientifically exact, but that may have been the only outlier factor.

    The result, the sound was way closer to the original, but also way less compressed and less dark. The gain range was way closer. Maybe the most important was that the resulting profile was more malleable, meaning I could take it in far more directions after the profiling was done. This alone offers some insight into the possibilities of the new 2.0 version. I want to mention that the process is easier now that refining is no longer a part of the profiling.

    This particular sound is telling, it’s a dirt in between clean and overdrive, that place where many profiles go to test against the mountain of tone god, and most fail the climbing attempt. The thing about heavy distortion tones is that they are inherently more compressed by nature. This may be why those sounds still provide satisfaction having been profiled on pre 2.0 profiling. (let’s assume for the sake of argument there is no difference playing these in MK1 vs MK2 hardware, as I believe to be true)

    One final point, when profiling a real amp, the basic amp tone, the mic placement, and the resulting editing of the sound in the kemper still play a very large part of the sound we experience. As a result, and IMHO only, profiling under 2.0 by itself is not the panacea, it is not the golden goose, it will not make a mediocre dialed in amp sound any better then the source can be. We still need to use skill, our ears and our creativity to create next level profiles under 2.0. That said, 2.0 opens up possibilities that were simply not available under the old 1.0 profiling. We have yet to reach it’s zenith. It will take time, and much hard work creating those next level profiles. The irony is that for some sounds, MK1 profiles that were very well executed may just find a place in the new paradigm.I guess that means - use your ears, and go with what works for you.

    • Official Post
    Quote from dgburns

    I profiled an old Line 6 Pod XT Pro. Again. I had attempted this under MK1 with not so favorable results. The profiled tone was very different to the original. And at the time, I felt it was just a limitation of the profiling nature of MK1. The MK 2 2.0 profiles of the same amp emulation, a Vox AC 30 top boost were startlingly different. The interesting thing about this experiment is that the source was exactly the same, the same patch, maybe the imput level to Kemper not scientifically exact, but that may have been the only outlier factor.

    The result, the sound was way closer to the original, but also way less compressed and less dark. The gain range was way closer. Maybe the most important was that the resulting profile was more malleable, meaning I could take it in far more directions after the profiling was done. This alone offers some insight into the possibilities of the new 2.0 version. I want to mention that the process is easier now that refining is no longer a part of the profiling.

    I just want to point out that PROFILING is and always was aimed at tube amps.
    Any amp emulation can be hit or miss, since the methods used in these devices sometimes do not correspond with the analogue reality the PROFILER expects.

    I use almost exclusively high gain tones and I'd say that it's a matter of taste.

    IMHO, the 2.0 profiles are "less compressed" and more roomy (the cab "profile" seems to be the biggest difference).

    Also it feels more amp like... less processed ?

    Yesterday I went back to a Purple Nightmare V1 profile and was wowed by the punch it does deliver and how well it sits in a mix.

    On the V2 profiles I find myself putting a tad of compression, avoid using reverb and increase the definition, otherwise it can feel "too open" or not tight (but punchy) enough.

    Is it desirable for a high gain tone ? I'd say that it depends... for me it's not a must. But it's only an opinion based on a specific use case, which is based on the profiles available at this moment.

    For a clean or rock tone ? The V2 are clearly an improvement.

    To me the 2.0 profiles (on a Mk1 Stage) are as good as my Tonex from a frequency response point of view (openness, overtones, liveliness) but with the way better feel of the Kemper. Tonex feels stiff to play, Kemper gives that organic response to the right hand. IMO YMMV

    Quote from G String

    MetalMauce

    Are you expecting the MK1 presets to sound different now?

    No I'm not. As mentioned in my OP I've made comparisons with other presets. My point was that my MK1 profile I used in the video is that good that I wonder how much better 2.0 could sound.

    ______________________________________________________
    Living in Zutphen, The Netherlands
    Visit my website

    For tonematched profiles and amp packs:
    AMPIRE TONES

    Quote from dgburns

    I normally would not post a reply to a question like this, mainly because tone CAN be subjective, and so very personal. That said, I have made a fair number of profiles with a MK1 rack, and now have a MK2 rack. Disclaimer, I have not made many new profiles under 2.0 but I want to talk about a recent profiling session.

    I profiled an old Line 6 Pod XT Pro. Again. I had attempted this under MK1 with not so favorable results. The profiled tone was very different to the original. And at the time, I felt it was just a limitation of the profiling nature of MK1. The MK 2 2.0 profiles of the same amp emulation, a Vox AC 30 top boost were startlingly different. The interesting thing about this experiment is that the source was exactly the same, the same patch, maybe the imput level to Kemper not scientifically exact, but that may have been the only outlier factor.

    The result, the sound was way closer to the original, but also way less compressed and less dark. The gain range was way closer. Maybe the most important was that the resulting profile was more malleable, meaning I could take it in far more directions after the profiling was done. This alone offers some insight into the possibilities of the new 2.0 version. I want to mention that the process is easier now that refining is no longer a part of the profiling.

    This particular sound is telling, it’s a dirt in between clean and overdrive, that place where many profiles go to test against the mountain of tone god, and most fail the climbing attempt. The thing about heavy distortion tones is that they are inherently more compressed by nature. This may be why those sounds still provide satisfaction having been profiled on pre 2.0 profiling. (let’s assume for the sake of argument there is no difference playing these in MK1 vs MK2 hardware, as I believe to be true)

    One final point, when profiling a real amp, the basic amp tone, the mic placement, and the resulting editing of the sound in the kemper still play a very large part of the sound we experience. As a result, and IMHO only, profiling under 2.0 by itself is not the panacea, it is not the golden goose, it will not make a mediocre dialed in amp sound any better then the source can be. We still need to use skill, our ears and our creativity to create next level profiles under 2.0. That said, 2.0 opens up possibilities that were simply not available under the old 1.0 profiling. We have yet to reach it’s zenith. It will take time, and much hard work creating those next level profiles. The irony is that for some sounds, MK1 profiles that were very well executed may just find a place in the new paradigm.I guess that means - use your ears, and go with what works for you.

    That makes sense, thank you

    ______________________________________________________
    Living in Zutphen, The Netherlands
    Visit my website

    For tonematched profiles and amp packs:
    AMPIRE TONES

    Yeah the cab part of the profile, that makes a difference in that sense that you can configure the resonance frequency you couldn't do with a MK1 progile. But then you could combine your favorite MK1 Amp profile with and 2.0 Cab profile
    Right?

    ______________________________________________________
    Living in Zutphen, The Netherlands
    Visit my website

    For tonematched profiles and amp packs:
    AMPIRE TONES

    So to conclude in general we could say (apart from the fact the tonal preference is subjective):
    The cleaner the tone, the bigger the difference between MK1 and 2.0.
    So for me playing almost only high gain I wouldn't notice a huge difference.

    I do have a few clean-ish (slightly boosted) AC30 profiles I use for ballads, I could search for 2.0 versions of those and see if that makes a difference.

    Thank you for sharing your opinions and experience, it's an interesting topic to talk about.

    ______________________________________________________
    Living in Zutphen, The Netherlands
    Visit my website

    For tonematched profiles and amp packs:
    AMPIRE TONES

    As one who has been considering "upgrading" to the MKII, I have over 1000 profiles of my amps from the MKI. One thing I keep fighting with is "what am I really gaining, going to an MKII?" Is there a difference in the MKI profile to the original amp? Yes, there is a slight mid bump in some MKI profiles. This can be basically dialed out with an EQ in the mixer when profiling. Dial in the amp to your sound with the EQ off. Record your amp onto one track, then record the profile of the same amp, settings, etc. Do a tone match EQ in your DAW of the Kemper track into the direct track. Take that EQ, and add it to the EQ for the mixer. It's not a perfect solution, but it minimizes the mid bump.

    Another question I fight with is "Can I justify the price for the difference, especially since I have more profiles that I will ever use." I would say with high confidence that there is no way anyone would notice a difference "in the mix."

    That's my quandary at the time. If nobody, but maybe me, would notice, what's the point?

    • Official Post
    Quote from lespauled

    Another question I fight with is "Can I justify the price for the difference, especially since I have more profiles that I will ever use." I would say with high confidence that there is no way anyone would notice a difference "in the mix."

    That's my quandary at the time. If nobody, but maybe me, would notice, what's the point?

    the player will notice - this will lead to a more nuanced and simply better performance (if the skill is there), also there is the pure enjoyment of the performer and my impression that the guitar's own unique voice comes through even more now.

    in my personal experience, recordings of 2.0 PROFILEs fit even easier in a mix. So that's another angle that the 'no difference in the mix' crowd might be overlooking IMO.

    Overlooking the main benefit of "upgrading" to Mk2.

    You get to buy something new. Kemper has done a very poor job of providing an endless stream of expensive and pointless opportunities to spend money. One big change in 12 years? Come on Kemper, we are born to shop.