craftm1
New member
Kemper is my vote, that will be one of my next purchases!
Shawn Lutz
New member
I don't own either one but I'd lean towards the Kemper.
Pete (stratotone) had both I believe and he kept the Kemper so maybe he'll chime in.
Cool that you kept the paisley Shiva in the family just in case you want her back after tapping some strange
Pete (stratotone) had both I believe and he kept the Kemper so maybe he'll chime in.
Cool that you kept the paisley Shiva in the family just in case you want her back after tapping some strange
gibson5413
Well-known member
shredhead666":2q7yk6rz said:
I have heard some killer Axe clips. Here are a few of my Kemper clips:
dwizted
Member
I have had both and by no means an expert on either. I started off along time ago with the Axe FX 1 sold it. Got a Kemper and loved every bit of it sold it to try the Axe fx 2 to see what all the fuss was about great unit but ended up back with the Kemper couse it suited me better. It just gets better with updates and never had a problem with new firmware updates. Axe on the other hand dont know if its gonna crash and then have to wait for a new chip... Has happened twice to me and a few times to other folks I know.
shredhead666
New member
gibson5413":10aixpaq said:
Those do sound pretty good!
lester
Well-known member
With the latest firmware on the Axe, the amps themselves vs. the Kemper's...IMO, are pretty close.
But the IR's, that's a different story. This could be something to consider.
Per Cliff, posted a while back-
Cliff mentioned a little drawback in the Kemper - They do use IRs. They use 256 point IRs augmented with parametric EQ. This is easily demonstrated by examining the data structure of the profile and by measuring the device (or by using their IR converter which converts long IRs to 256 point IR plus EQ). What they say is "we use something more advanced" or something like that. By "more advanced" they mean they augment the IR with parametric EQ. However they must augment the IR with parametric EQ because the IR is too short to reproduce low frequencies accurately. The frequency resolution of an IR is proportional to its length: the longer the IR the better the resolution. To accurately reproduce a guitar cabinet requires at least 1000 points from my research. (Note: I'm using the term "parametric EQ" as a substitute for IIR filter since most people don't know what an IIR filter is.)
This technique has been around since the early days of modelers (I believe the Pod 2.0 was the first to do this). The impetus for this is that it uses much less processing power since the amount of processing power required is directly proportional to the length of the IR. A 256 point IR plus, for example, an 8-band EQ can be equivalent to a 512 point IR but uses less processing power. The downside is the phase response isn't the same but that is usually inaudible.
In their specific case the amplifier output frequency response and cabinet frequency response are combined into a single IR plus EQ since they aren't measured separately. See my MIMIC whitepaper for more information on frequency response, etc. You can make assumptions about the amplifier output frequency response in order to separate it from the cabinet response. In their case I believe they assume there is a 6 dB resonance at 125 Hz plus a 6 dB highshelf (incidentally this is the same power amp frequency response model that the Marshall JMP-1 used albeit using analog filters). For many amplifiers this is a reasonable approximation.
The Axe-Fx II IRs are 2048 sample (eight times the resolution) and don't require augmentation.
- though with firmware 13 coming out now, he's on to an even larger jump(ultra rez or something) than from this standpoint.
.
But the IR's, that's a different story. This could be something to consider.
Per Cliff, posted a while back-
Cliff mentioned a little drawback in the Kemper - They do use IRs. They use 256 point IRs augmented with parametric EQ. This is easily demonstrated by examining the data structure of the profile and by measuring the device (or by using their IR converter which converts long IRs to 256 point IR plus EQ). What they say is "we use something more advanced" or something like that. By "more advanced" they mean they augment the IR with parametric EQ. However they must augment the IR with parametric EQ because the IR is too short to reproduce low frequencies accurately. The frequency resolution of an IR is proportional to its length: the longer the IR the better the resolution. To accurately reproduce a guitar cabinet requires at least 1000 points from my research. (Note: I'm using the term "parametric EQ" as a substitute for IIR filter since most people don't know what an IIR filter is.)
This technique has been around since the early days of modelers (I believe the Pod 2.0 was the first to do this). The impetus for this is that it uses much less processing power since the amount of processing power required is directly proportional to the length of the IR. A 256 point IR plus, for example, an 8-band EQ can be equivalent to a 512 point IR but uses less processing power. The downside is the phase response isn't the same but that is usually inaudible.
In their specific case the amplifier output frequency response and cabinet frequency response are combined into a single IR plus EQ since they aren't measured separately. See my MIMIC whitepaper for more information on frequency response, etc. You can make assumptions about the amplifier output frequency response in order to separate it from the cabinet response. In their case I believe they assume there is a 6 dB resonance at 125 Hz plus a 6 dB highshelf (incidentally this is the same power amp frequency response model that the Marshall JMP-1 used albeit using analog filters). For many amplifiers this is a reasonable approximation.
The Axe-Fx II IRs are 2048 sample (eight times the resolution) and don't require augmentation.
- though with firmware 13 coming out now, he's on to an even larger jump(ultra rez or something) than from this standpoint.
.
T
TrueTone500
Banned
New member
My issue with the Kemper is that it does not react to control changes the same way the actual amp does. This includes changes to the tone controls, preamp volume, and also the guitar volume.
Example:
The Cornford RK100 and Hurricane amplifiers are somewhat unconventional by virtue of their tandem preamp potentiometer, and the way it controls signal flow between the gain stages. If you've watched any of Richie Kotzen's videos with his RK100, you will sometimes see him making periodic adjustments to the preamp control... The RK100 can go from Fender clean, to Marshall crunch, to Cornford gain with that single control and the attenuator switch. The Kemper cannot emulate this, since it 'assumes' a conventional protocol. If the Kemper could profile an amp while spanning the preamp control, that would be awesome. Maybe do like 5 or 6 profiles at varied preamp settings, and then somehow combine all of those settings into one usable profile.
The best that can be achieved now, is a 'snap-shot' of each setting - which is huge! What other piece of gear can do that? The user interface is awesome, and the effects are some of the best I've heard. If you get the chance, try a TC2290 in the stereo loop of the Kemper... This is as good as it gets! I was using a Kemper powerhead set to dry cab as the center, and then emulated cab w/effects into my PA... Stellar!
Example:
The Cornford RK100 and Hurricane amplifiers are somewhat unconventional by virtue of their tandem preamp potentiometer, and the way it controls signal flow between the gain stages. If you've watched any of Richie Kotzen's videos with his RK100, you will sometimes see him making periodic adjustments to the preamp control... The RK100 can go from Fender clean, to Marshall crunch, to Cornford gain with that single control and the attenuator switch. The Kemper cannot emulate this, since it 'assumes' a conventional protocol. If the Kemper could profile an amp while spanning the preamp control, that would be awesome. Maybe do like 5 or 6 profiles at varied preamp settings, and then somehow combine all of those settings into one usable profile.
The best that can be achieved now, is a 'snap-shot' of each setting - which is huge! What other piece of gear can do that? The user interface is awesome, and the effects are some of the best I've heard. If you get the chance, try a TC2290 in the stereo loop of the Kemper... This is as good as it gets! I was using a Kemper powerhead set to dry cab as the center, and then emulated cab w/effects into my PA... Stellar!
Bob Savage
Well-known member
Excellent info and perspective guys. You've not got me totally confused on which whereas before I was leaning way towards the Axe-FX (this is a good thing).
I'm not actually looking for either modeler so that I can obtain the tones of X, Y or Z amps, I'm planning on using it like I do any amp and just finding what works best for me. In other words, it could be a Marshall model, a Bogner, Diezel, Peavey or whatever happens to catch my ear at the moment. How authentic they sound compared to the real thing is irrelevant, I just want good sounding tones for recording at the time being, but also through a power section and a cab secondarily. I'm confident both can sound good direct or through cabs though. I saw a video from FastRedPonyCar who I remember from online forums and he got some great tones through a Peavey power amp and two cabs.
Ease of use is definitely important to me, and is part of the reason I have some concerns about the Axe-FX, although the old "with complexity comes versatility" does come into play so there's that but I have definitely become a plug and play guy over the last decade and not interesting in the tweaking I did in the 90's.
The comment on the lack of clips/demos for the Kemper is definitely a detractor for me. It seems many of the videos out there are of people profiling amps, which I'm not really that interested in. I just want a collection of nice sounding models so I can focus on the music.
Time to compare the user manuals. I do want some nice FX, and have to admit I love diatonic pitch shifters though maybe the Kemper has one too... more research to do.
I'd prefer to buy used so I don't lose cash if I decide to go another way after buying but I'm not seeing any used Kemper racks out there (I'm going to build myself a rack whichever way I go, so want a rack mount device).
I'm not actually looking for either modeler so that I can obtain the tones of X, Y or Z amps, I'm planning on using it like I do any amp and just finding what works best for me. In other words, it could be a Marshall model, a Bogner, Diezel, Peavey or whatever happens to catch my ear at the moment. How authentic they sound compared to the real thing is irrelevant, I just want good sounding tones for recording at the time being, but also through a power section and a cab secondarily. I'm confident both can sound good direct or through cabs though. I saw a video from FastRedPonyCar who I remember from online forums and he got some great tones through a Peavey power amp and two cabs.
Ease of use is definitely important to me, and is part of the reason I have some concerns about the Axe-FX, although the old "with complexity comes versatility" does come into play so there's that but I have definitely become a plug and play guy over the last decade and not interesting in the tweaking I did in the 90's.
The comment on the lack of clips/demos for the Kemper is definitely a detractor for me. It seems many of the videos out there are of people profiling amps, which I'm not really that interested in. I just want a collection of nice sounding models so I can focus on the music.
Time to compare the user manuals. I do want some nice FX, and have to admit I love diatonic pitch shifters though maybe the Kemper has one too... more research to do.
I'd prefer to buy used so I don't lose cash if I decide to go another way after buying but I'm not seeing any used Kemper racks out there (I'm going to build myself a rack whichever way I go, so want a rack mount device).
crankyrayhanky
Well-known member
All of that mathematical hocus pocus could be accurate, but keep in mind that's coming from Cliff. Kemper refutes it with some more tech stuff that is over my head. Both parties have a conflict of interest in terms of relaying accurate technological jargon. Even if Cliff is right, it may not matter, as the Kemper still sounds better to me, regardless of the math.
I never played an Axe. But I can tell you why I chose Kemper years ago and love it more everyday:
I'm sure either choice is a solid option, best of luck deciding!
I never played an Axe. But I can tell you why I chose Kemper years ago and love it more everyday:
- Axe interface looks like parameter scrolling headache; KPA is intuitive enough where I don't need to open a manual and can dial things in the way I would a 'real' amp.
The Kemper profiling process incorporates the pushing of air- this is key in getting an authetic response and sound. I always hated modelers, but I think this is the key characteristic that keep s me happy.
I love my real amps. The Kemper has authentically captured the tones to the point that an A/B test is almost impossible to tell. Get a good mic position and the amp is captured. This allowed me to flip some amps and then try some more amps.
The Kemper is great in the studio
The Kemper is great live- I ran it into my 4x12 cab from onstage monitoring and di to the PA. Best sound I ever had
I still haven't heard an awesome Fractal clip that is aggressive hard rock/metal. I'm sure it's out there, but when I was shopping the clips I heard were clearly inferior for this genre- which is my favorite style to play.
Quite frankly Cliff seems unlikable whereas Kemper seems very likable. If it's a tie, I go with the guy I like everytime
I'm sure either choice is a solid option, best of luck deciding!
dfrattaroli
New member
I always dug this demo...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PWlQAJZGto
This one is good too...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VBFk9yOK4g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PWlQAJZGto
This one is good too...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VBFk9yOK4g
LP Freak
Well-known member
I have the Kemper and while it is a great unit, I'm yet to find a profile that didn't need to be tweeked. Most of them sound very flat out of the box. There's also the issue with the feel compared to a tube amp.
syncrodude007
New member
x2...sah5150":1qzfk0fg said:
R
R.D.
New member
Bob Savage":oaz9mqop said:
Based on this alone ..., I'd recommend the Axe-Fx II ....
Plus, w/ the XL about to drop ( in March ) there will probably be a fair # of II Mk II's for sale pretty quick ....
lester
Well-known member
^ good point. They're also closing out the MFC MK II's - http://shop.fractalaudio.com/MFC_101_MI ... fas006.htm
I put this board together a couple weeks back -
I put this board together a couple weeks back -
ejecta
Active member
This my worthless .02 after having owned both.....
I'd go with the Kemper if I knew I was going to go FRFR all the time. If I knew I wanted to use a power amp and cab sometimes then I'd choose the AxeFX2.
I'd go with the Kemper if I knew I was going to go FRFR all the time. If I knew I wanted to use a power amp and cab sometimes then I'd choose the AxeFX2.
A
animal
Member
crankyrayhanky":2qgi7oth said:
With all the tech mumbo jumbo ...for anyone that has done a profile of an axe-fx with the kemper and have it sound identical kinda makes the point moot
I agree especially on the last part also!
SkyhighRocks
New member
I've owned both and prefer the Kemper. I've played my guitar more in the last 6 months than I did in the last 3 years...no lie. I don't waste time tweaking...there are hundreds are really good profiles...and also a lot of really bad ones, like anything else.
As for not many kemper videos/clips...the axe has been around much longer, therefore there are going to be many more demos. I've done a bunch with the Kemper at my soundcloud page here:
https://soundcloud.com/richantonelli
As for not many kemper videos/clips...the axe has been around much longer, therefore there are going to be many more demos. I've done a bunch with the Kemper at my soundcloud page here:
https://soundcloud.com/richantonelli
B
bmi
New member
Axe's models sound compressed compared to Kemper's ones.
Bob Savage
Well-known member
Well I've checked out the Kemper manuals and it's got everything FX wise that I'd want, even a diatonic pitch shifter... Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...
I need the rack version though and I hate buying new. Well, don't hate it, but I don't like the instant depreciation that occurs.
I need the rack version though and I hate buying new. Well, don't hate it, but I don't like the instant depreciation that occurs.
ejecta
Active member
bmi":vizbglb3 said:
I totally agree and it feels that way too. The Kemper felt more amp like but not totally there. I don't care how many people claim the AxeFX feels just like a tube amp. For me and my experience that's BS. The AxeFX' models feel compressed to me no matter if it's a high gain tone where you'd expect compression or a low gain Plexi.