Posts by Grooguit

Quote from Ibot39

Of course, it’s far too early to draw any final conclusions. But why doesn’t Kemper release a professional, convincing comparison video?

Honestly: please listen carefully, one after another, to the palm mutes, then focus on how the real amp cuts or compare the presence and pay attention to the dynamics during soft picking. The amp sounds different (for me better) in every aspect. This is not a good video to represent the new profiling.

Well if they literally changed the settings between the clips, why would we expect them to sound and respond similar to our playing? In fact, if the response wasn't different after we made adjustments, that would be problematic. It seems they were trying to show how dynamic the profile is, rather than to show how similar it is to the original. (Kemper mk1 has had 100s of can't-tell-the-difference comp videos for the past 14 years). I agree that posting such a comparison created confusion. However, I'm inclined to believe it will really achieve what they are saying it will achieve. Let's not forget that Mk1 profiles respond pretty darn close to the original (as others have indicated that some extremely touch sensitive amps, when profiled weren't quite as dynamic). But once this thing gets dropped, lots of people will be posting all sorts of comparison videos and we'll get to try out the profiles ourselves. I think we're all going to be happy.

Quote from V8guitar

But why? Are you seriously going to do this live? I think the dynamics would change at each gig and so you'd be trying to change the level of blend on the spot at a sound check? Or would you want the sound guy to alter the blend? You certainly wouldn't want different sounds out of different speakers as the audience will get a odd effect...

This reminds me of the stereo debate, I just don't think its worth it.

I'm not going to keep challenging this as clearly some people see the need, personally I think its overkill. It sounds like a " wouldn't it be good if" but then is rarely used.

I agree with you on the left right panning of it all. The biggest issue of using such features on the units that offer this (QC/Helix/TMP etc.) is that should you need to make adjustments to either or both amps, you trying to make changes to 50% or your sound. Worse, changes on the gain level of these other competitors affect volume as well, so now your left-right balance is off.
However, I think people might enjoy experimenting with getting a blended profile they like at home, and then be limited to adjusting the non liquid EQ and generic gain as needed to the blend as a whole in a live setting, just as they would adjust a typical single profile. Finally, I think if they were to offer some sort of blended profiles, it would have to be a mono blend, since the amp section is currently mono anyway. The process could work the way I describe above.

Quote from AleFretMaster

Would be cool if different profiles could be blend externally, maybe with a rig manager extension. Something like for the IR. In this way maybe two Profiles (or profile +OD) could be run in one slot only

To me, IF they were going to ever allow two amps in parallel in a single Rig, this would be the way it would have to operate. Here's how it could potentially work:

Suppose the Rig Manager software could take profile A and profile B and combine them into one profile? Maybe the process takes 45 seconds to process? Once it's done, you have a new blended 50/50 profile, and that is what is sent to the kemper Player/Stage/Rack/Head for you to audition in the current active Rig. Just like you can currently browse through you various profiles to swap the profile in an active Rig now. The only difference is that this would just take a little longer while you wait for the new blended file to process. Once it's done, your unit will be sent the blended profile which it then lets you play in the current active Rig.

However, suppose you don't like the blend at 50/50? You adjust a blend control in Rig manager to be 70% profile A and 30% profile B. Rig Manager processes the new blend into a single profile. 45 seconds later, you can audition the 70/30 blended profile in your current active Rig. Repeat this process until you are satisfied. Then either save the Rig or make a preset of the blended profile.

The limitations on this hypothetical idea would keep you from morphing the blend setting like you morph other parameters while in the same Rig. It would also be a mono blend, not panned left and right, since the amp section is mono.

I’m not sure this will sound like a praise or a critique. From the very beginning of Kemper amps, touch sensitivity has been the hallmark of the experience.
that not only did profiles sound, and distinguishable from the reference amp as it is mic’d, but the touch responsiveness and feel where there as well. Maybe I don’t play enough real amps anymore to have as much credibility on this as some of you here, but I’ve never felt there was anything lacking in the touch sensitivity of MK1. So I’m not sure exactly how MK2 can improve on this significantly, at least not at the level of watching someone else play it on a video and be like wow what a difference. So yeah, it sounds great, but if you had told me this was a 10-year-old video of mk1 I wouldn’t have questioned it. In any case, the announcement should renew our hopes that it’s going to be dropping soon.

There’s a Facebook post on their page tonight:

On public demand: PROFILING 2.0 is here. Check out the profiled Plexi vs. the Reference!
Availability to be announced soon!

might be an old repost though

A possible source of delay:

Kemper has never made us worry about DSP. The signal path is fixed and all the features (output eq, looper, input transpose; any effect in any slot) are ALWAYS available. Therefore, Kemper has never needed to make a big announcement like some that QC and Helix have made: "hey our amps, delays, reverbs, or transpose now use 40% less DSP so you can build bigger presets."

In my extremely novice understanding of writing code, making it efficient takes a lot more development time. (compare Protools to Reaper) Once people begin making new profiles in 2.0, any inefficiency in file size and processing needed to play the new profiles becomes a hard cap on whatever processing, RAM, or whatever, that's left over for future updates.

For example, suppose Kemper would like to offer some synth effects? But profiling 2.0 was offered inefficiently. Do you really think they want to have to say "these synth effects are DSP intensive and may cause unwanted drop offs and glitches if you use them with 2.0 profiles that were created before release 17.3.4.2." Or worse, they decline to offer updates they could have made if 2.0 was more efficient, opting to prioritize stability over features.

So some of you who are a little bit more knowledgeable about processors and that sort of thing answer me this:

Couldn’t Kemper just use two of them in a unit? Dedicate one to the left and the other one to the right signal paths. Double the processing power.

[Off topic content removed

]That the delayed release of MK two has been a disappointment is undeniable. But I think the company that actually invented the technology that everyone else copied (and negligibly improved in practical terms) deserves a Mulligan.

Quote from sailor

I'm certain it's already been 2 years, at least, since Kemper started working on the new profiling.

And that's the concerning issue for me. It seems to be consuming a lot of their development resources. And for what? The best they can hope for is that it will make their profiling accuracy comparable to the competition. I doubt that's going to move the needle much for them in the marketplace.

The problem with this plan is they have so much that deserves attention, for example things like rig manager, and I fear those things are losing resources in favor of the new profiling. Every month that goes by is another month spent away from working on things I'd prefer they work on.

Remember the short video, I believe in the early fall, that showed CK demonstrating 2.0 and with Rig Manager. And Rig Manager was glitching out on the screen, while CK explained something about it needing to switch between 1.0 and 2.0? (don't quote me). This led me to believe that the delay had something to do with Rig Manager itself. And it got me thinking:

Suppose they agree with you that Rig Manager itself needed some major attention? Perhaps even a major overhaul? If so, would it be a good use of their time getting 2.0 to be stable with an old version of Rig Manager they want to phase out as soon as possible? Probably not. I guarantee that they don't want to role out 2.0 and tell people that it's not going to work with Rig manager for a while. It MIGHT be that they delay is because they want to role out 2.0 with a Rig Manager overhaul. This is just my theory, but it would explain the delay. Because I guarantee they have every incentive in releasing 2.0 as soon as possible and have vastly more reasons to be anxious about it being delayed than any of us have.

Quote from nero1983

Normally, Kemper comes with some MBritt profiles. If he didn't made MK2 profiles yet...we won't be lucky yet...😁

A person who knows their gear can make a few profiles of a few amps in a couple days. This MIGHT indicate we aren't days away, but certainly in the realm of weeks if profile makers are actually being encouraged to make profiles. But we keep faith and remember:

2 Profiling 3:8 “But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with MK2, one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”

Quote from taylorphototexas

That word "materially" is the pivot point of your statement. They did add liquid profiles. Is that a direct update to profiling? Maybe not. I'm sure there were bug fixes; also maybe not fitting "materially".

The other thing is ... I'm not sure when the ability to do merged profiling was introduced but that is still really more of an after-effect than a change in how profiling actually works.

I would be curious to see how Kemper answers this, but I am going to surmise that at a basic level they have not changed it. Things like the introduction of liquid profiling, Kones, and merged cabs have enhanced the process but I do not know if it required a change to the profiling technology.

There was this update to profiling in the early years: see the addendum PDF: (Firmware 2.6)

"
We have analyzed and revised the PROFILING™ algorithm. This has led to the following two improvements:Due to a software flaw from day one, a number of existing PROFILEs feature a little too much energy in the region below 60 Hz, when compared to the original amp. The effect is very subtle and the basic character of the PROFILEis generally not affected. Nonetheless, we have taken the opportunity to correct this with the latest operating system. The result is an increased authenticity, even of PROFILEs created previously, and an improved Performance -especially when played through a speaker system with a linear response down to the lowest frequencies, such as a PA, or studio monitor system. Since we know that sonic improvements are not necessarily perceived as such by those who are familiar with the original sound, we have also added an option to compare the two versions, and to disable the correction if desired.

Go to page 8 in the System Menu and activate softbutton “LFC Off”. It will illuminate to show the correction is disabled. If pressed again, the frequency correction will be reactivated. The correction (or its cancellation) will be applied globally, and not on a per-Rig basis. Please be aware that a reset of global parameters (“Init Globals”) will bring the frequency correction back into effect. Any PROFILE captured by this or future operating system version will take full advantage of this improvement. When you disable the frequency correction, this will only affect PROFILEs created using earlier operating system version. In response to some users complaining about a lack of bass response when a PROFILE of a tube amp has been captured, we have found a way to improve the profiling algorithm. You will notice that less effort is needed in the PROFILING refinement procedure, as well as a moderate improvement in authenticity, even without refining. Although this improvement also affects the bass response of PROFILEs, it is not related to the improvement described above. Please note: this improvement will only affect new PROFILEs captured by the latest operating system. Existing PROFILEs and Rigs will not be affected, and will keep the sound that you are familiar with.

"

Quote from taylorphototexas

Balancing quality with time-to-market is a thing. I do that in my job every day. Waiting until something is "perfect" before you release it - that is not a good approach. Firstly it will never be perfect; second, your client base will help you with prioritizing what things need fixed.

Having said that, maybe there is good reason they are still working on it with a small group. Maybe they are making sure that their group of most prolific profile producers are going to be able to work well with the results. Maybe they are getting good feedback/new ideas and adding some functionality. Finally, there's nothing the rest of us can to other than complain, or wait, or using what we have. Personally I find complaining wears me out. Meanwhile I'm enjoying what I do have and pushing that to the edge of its ability. Still looking forward to Mk 2 profiling, but I'm not _waiting_.

I think that’s totally correct with a typical update. But people will use whatever is released to begin making profiles. And they’ll expect whatever profiles they make to continue to be supported into the future. They’re not gonna wanna release profiling 2.1 which allows some additional parameters that weren’t available in 2.0, for example. Or to have an accuracy or something that’s slightly different than 2.0.
whereas if we were talking about a new form of reverb, sure maybe people delay presets we get screwed up if they made some changes to it but that’s about it.

None of Kemper’s products will disappoint in terms of sound and feel. Which one, if any you should buy, depends on how you plan on using it though, and with whatever other equipment. Do you wanna put it on a pedal board to use with other pedals? Are you looking to use it as an all in one device? What kind of flexibility do you need for turning effects on and off and switching between songs. Are you OK regularly using a mobile app with it?

Quote from djdyer

In tuner mode, pressing the up/down performance switches will increase/decrease the rig transpose in semi-tone steps. This would be even more usful if it was a performance level global transpose. With the pitch change displayed on the remote/stage screen as the number of half steps selected. This would remove the need to use another switch to engage the transpose effect and would be more flexible in use as we can select any value for the pitch change.

Edit : wish list No 4 added.

This is a great idea! Perhaps it should be something that people can turn on or off globally. As well as only available when the fixed pitch is locked. Because the goal would be to tune yourself down while in tuner mode and stay that way as you switch rigs. But then allowing you to go back to standard or another tuning when ever you want by again going to tuner mode and hitting the up or down.

You should put this idea in feature requests.

Quote from where is christophe

Well, it depends on the Profile in question. Some are simply not good or can sound dull with some guitars, pickups or cab if one is used.

Also, how is it possible to trust what you see or hear over the internet ? Editing has become possible for everybody with a laptop and some content "creators" are willing to do anything for views.

It would be cool if someone from here who owns both units would make a comp video. (if they are careful to check that the global and output and any other settings are the same so it is an apples to apples comparison.

I really like idea 1. I think it's something they might add quite easily, and perhaps are even planning on, but have bigger fish to fry with the delay in profiling 2.0. I think they could eventually allow the fixed effects to be assigned to switches like the regular effects. They just need to work out the logistics because the current system of assigning effects is holding down the effect button and tapping on the switch you want to toggle it. The fixed effects don't have their own button as they are inside the Rig menu. (However, I suppose they could be assigned however the delay hold or infinity thing can be assigned to a switch)

I like idea 2 as well. have a global short and long press on each of those two foot switches would be great for things you might turn on at the beginning of a song and leave on until its over (such as transposing down). I believe you can lock the fixed effects. So say you tune down -2 a fair amount? you could lock the transpose at -2 and with your idea #2, you could assign its toggle status to the tuner button. Then toggle it on and off anytime you want with that one switch, and continue to use whatever Rigs and performances you use with standard tuning. (you wouldn't need to create a performance just to play down -2.)

I don't think they'd ever do idea 3. I wouldn't be compatible with the current simply system of holding down the effect button while tapping the desired foot switch. Since now, you'd have to dive into a menu to determine whether that assignment would correspond to a short and long press.

I think you hit the nail on the head: The KPA was designed to make ease of switching Rigs easy. It has no gap and with spillover between Rigs, the ability to lock effects, no preset/stomp modes to switch between, and front row permanent assignments of those five ergonomic switches. Add the ability morph with the same five switches, gives you ten combinations with no more than a double press and without lifting your foot high enough to reach the second row. Whether they add additional switching options in the future, the fixed layout of the remote and stage ensures that it will always be easier and more ergonomic to organize around using all the rigs in and their morphs in a performance bank, before you begin assigning less used toggles to the 2nd row effect switches, let alone reprograming the 3rd row switches.

Quote from StratUS90

I saw some comparizon videos on youtube between MK1 and MK2 one on clean and one on hi gain (both using I guess a 1.0 profile) For clean both are identical I would say. For high gain MK2 looks to sound much better already. Would you say the same? Is it something expected that a profile 1.0 sound better on an MK2 Kemper profiler?

That’s interesting. Could you share a link? I’d be surprised if 1.0 profiles sound different in mk2 units. If the video seems to show this, bet it’s a global setting they forgot about that is on in their mk2, but not mk1.
For example, there’s a global pure cab setting that could be different between units. The pure cab, I believe will be more noticeable in gained up profiles and negligible in cleaner settings, if I remember correctly. That could be the difference between the two units; if one has the global pure cab setting active, and the other one doesn’t (or the rig specific pure cab setting if the global is inactive)

I might be wrong about this, but I believe if the global is active, whatever the settings of pure cab in that rig are inactive. So the user could be using a profile that actually has some pure cab dialed in on the profile, but those are bypassed if the global pure cab is active in one unit. But if the other unit has the global setting bypassed, then the settings in the profile itself would be active?

It’s also important to realize that getting 2.0 right is quite critical. It’s not like whether a new set of effects may need some later refinement after user feedback. The day this is released people will begin the time consuming work of creating unique profiles of all their amps. And whatever the algorithm that gets used to make 2.0 profiles needs to be supported by the current gen and potential next gen for decades to come. I’m glad they aren’t rushing the process

The new version of this keyboard bag that I bought for my MK2 stage is only $60. And the only difference I can tell from my old one that I got in 2020 is that the side pocket is bigger, so it fits more stuff.

I go through the mental cycle every few months as follows.

1. My Stage sounds and functions great; I don't use an expression pedal regularly, so my $60 Gator padded bag is perfect, just sit the Stage directly on the floor.

2. Wouldn't it be cool to add a couple drive pedals in the loops? Then I could set them to taste on the fly.

3. Plan out pedal board layout. I should get a compressor as well and put all three in front of the Stage so I don't add latency and extra DA/AD conversion using the loops. (which I can't hear the difference anyway). Well, then I can never use the fixed pitch effect since it would be after my drives (which I never end up using anyway).

4. The board will need to be at least 25x14.5 to fit all the pedals and power supply. I should probably mount a power strip in the back since I now need to plug in the Stage and a pedal power supply. The power strip gets in the way of the Stage's jacks.

5. This seems like too much trouble, all so I can use a couple real drive pedals that aren't any better than Kemper's built in drives. I don't want to have to yank my velcro'd Stage off this board every time I have an acoustic or bass gig, and would feel silly lugging such a big board for those occasions.

6. My Stage sounds and functions great; I don't use an expression pedal regularly, so my $60 Gator padded bag is perfect, just sit the Stage directly on the floor.