Kemper Profiling pre-amp it's for Bass too

[johnpbass]

Originally Posted by Passinwind

I read the Sound On Sound review and it says otherwise: that when you tweak the baseline as you describe you get something new, not an interpolation of nonlinear behaviors that you have not actually profiled. That's actually a very cool feature in many ways IMHO. My favorite thing about the VG-8 system I owned was that it could make cool new sounds, whereas the modeling part was somewhat static and "snapshot" like, which the SOS article also cites as an attribute of the Kemper system.

I think that's actually true (getting something new) when you start to move all of the tone controls further away from your original profile - which is part of the mystery to me about this amp. You have controls for bass, treble, presence, pick attack, plus others. Slight changes stay with the character of the amp that is profiled.
I will say that I'm a total newb to the Kemper. I've played through a couple of the bass profiles. My writing partner has the Kemper and he's been doing a lot more with it that I can keep track of!

[Flux Jetson]

Originally Posted by Passinwind

..... but for now I'd rather invest my time and money in just building bass preamps.

Agreed 100%. I'm not smart enough to really exploit this Kemper thing to it's fullest potential, nor wealthy enough to buy one in the first place. Due to my station in the society I live within, I am destined to be "the analog kid" until my wife places my urn on the mantle.

That said I need to get to the bench, the soldering pen is warmed and I have resistors and caps to plug into pcbs.

[Passinwind]

Originally Posted by johnpbass

I think that's actually true (getting something new) when you start to move all of the tone controls further away from your original profile - which is part of the mystery to me about this amp. You have controls for bass, treble, presence, pick attack, plus others. Slight changes stay with the character of the amp that is profiled.

That was one of the coolest things about the VG-8. You could make a Fender Twin model that started breaking up at 3 or 4, and was very responsive to volume changes on your guitar as well. Not much like an actual Twin at that point, but as Flux says, perfectly real and musically useful in its own way. The VG-8 was crazy expensive when it came out, but went for less than 500 bucks at the end of its lifecycle. Bring on the next gen. Kemper and Axe-Fx...

[johnpbass]

Originally Posted by Flux Jetson

Agreed 100%. I'm not smart enough to really exploit this Kemper thing to it's fullest potential, nor wealthy enough to buy one in the first place. Due to my station in the society I live within, I am destined to be "the analog kid" until my wife places my urn on the mantle.

That said I need to get to the bench, the soldering pen is warmed and I have resistors and caps to plug into pcbs.

LOL!
You'll notice that I've said I've "played through" the Kemper. I'm in the same station - even if I wanted to, I can't afford the $2K to buy one either.

[JimmyM]

Originally Posted by Flux Jetson

The thing that I find odd is that some people keep calling the Kemper something other than "the real thing".

It IS "the real thing". 1st thing that has to happen to make either argument valid is to define "the real thing". So what that it captures the sound of the environment of the venue, and the mic's flavor, and so on. So often times you hear purists say "follow your ears, and don't listen with your eyes" (which is actually wise advice). Well ..... touche. What does it matter if the mic is included, or the cab is included, or the sound is arrived at through this process or that process.

Wow, you're fired up!

Foundation Question: Does It sound good? Is it something you can use? Does it respond to your input well enough? Done!

Why do the means matter so much? The age old "double blind test" scenario applies here ... in shiploads.

So before there is any validity to the claim that the Kemper isn't "the real thing" .... I would suggest that the Kemper .. is INDEED .. the real thing. It's OWN Real Thing. It's just not the same "thing" as ~transformers and tubes~. But the Kemper can provide sounds that tubes and transformers will never ever be able to provide.

But you can get those sounds out of anything. Nobody's spending development money to make solid state devices sound like solid state because it already does But I must admit being interested in good sounds no matter where they come from, and if the Kemper does good sounds, then I fully support what they do with everything except my money.

How does anyone know that a given profile won't sound better than an SVT played all by itself? Don't most people add some sort of modifiers to the signal chain anyhow? The speakers, the cab, hell placement of the cab ... those are modifiers .. ~filters~ if you will .. all by themselves. All of which contaminate "the real thing". Even different instrument cables contaminate "the real thing". Not to mention what the engineer and producers do to a given track once it's recorded.

And yet, no matter what I do to tube amps or tube DI's like the REDDI to "contaminate" them, they still sound better to me than emulation.

So it comes down to a matter of pragmatic acceptance or flat-earth stubborness. You either accept and embrace change and progession, or you do not (there is something positive to be said for either approach by the way). But to say that the Kemper is not ~the real thing~ is to compare it to a very narrow frame of reference.

Well when a company makes a product that mimics the behavior of tube amps and claims that it cops the sound and feel of them, it's only natural they get compared.

The Kemper protocols are simply another tool in the box. It is not the same a modeling, it isn't the same as anything, it is it's own self-standing method of creating sound. Adventurous and willing players will learn to use it to it's fullest extent and benefit from that in spades. It's one of the most high -potential inventions to come long in quite a while. It will be interesting to see (hear) what talented users of this new tech come up with, and as available technology improves by leaps and bounds due to the smartphone races, this set of protocols will do nothing but get more and more refined.

It is very much The Real Thing.

No offense, Flux, but I've heard that about the Axe-FX, Guitar Rig, Amplitube, the Pod, the Sansamp...you name it. All make killer products, and I use some of it at times and have been quite vocal about how good a job I think much of it does. In the end, what TRULY counts is what you as a musician do with it, and if modeling gets you where you want to go, then I say "awesome." But tube amps are more popular now than they've ever been, especially for bass, and there is most definitely a reason for it.

[seamonkey]

Originally Posted by Flux Jetson

The thing that I find odd is that some people keep calling the Kemper something other than "the real thing".

It IS "the real thing". 1st thing that has to happen to make either argument valid is to define "the real thing". So what that it captures the sound of the environment of the venue, and the mic's flavor, and so on. So often times you hear purists say "follow your ears, and don't listen with your eyes" (which is actually wise advice). Well ..... touche. What does it matter if the mic is included, or the cab is included, or the sound is arrived at through this process or that process.

Foundation Question: Does It sound good? Is it something you can use? Does it respond to your input well enough? Done!

Why do the means matter so much? The age old "double blind test" scenario applies here ... in shiploads.

So before there is any validity to the claim that the Kemper isn't "the real thing" .... I would suggest that the Kemper .. is INDEED .. the real thing. It's OWN Real Thing. It's just not the same "thing" as ~transformers and tubes~. But the Kemper can provide sounds that tubes and transformers will never ever be able to provide.

How does anyone know that a given profile won't sound better than an SVT played all by itself? Don't most people add some sort of modifiers to the signal chain anyhow? The speakers, the cab, hell placement of the cab ... those are modifiers .. ~filters~ if you will .. all by themselves. All of which contaminate "the real thing". Even different instrument cables contaminate "the real thing". Not to mention what the engineer and producers do to a given track once it's recorded.

So it comes down to a matter of pragmatic acceptance or flat-earth stubborness. You either accept and embrace change and progession, or you do not (there is something positive to be said for either approach by the way). But to say that the Kemper is not ~the real thing~ is to compare it to a very narrow frame of reference.

The Kemper protocols are simply another tool in the box. It is not the same a modeling, it isn't the same as anything, it is it's own self-standing method of creating sound. Adventurous and willing players will learn to use it to it's fullest extent and benefit from that in spades. It's one of the most high -potential inventions to come long in quite a while. It will be interesting to see (hear) what talented users of this new tech come up with, and as available technology improves by leaps and bounds due to the smartphone races, this set of protocols will do nothing but get more and more refined.

It is very much The Real Thing.

+1 So true
I guess an old movie I catch on Netflix isn't the same movie, because it's not projected from nitrate or cellulose film in a projector at the back of a smoked filled theater. As it stands, theaters are all digital now. And I'm glad they've Archived many movies in digital for generations to enjoy.

If Kemper and others can capture the sound, and content of an amp, and Archive it for generations, it's a good thing.

[scotch]

Seamonkey, that analogy is very telling to me. Watching a movie is an entirely passive activity. You don't interact with it, or involve yourself in its' creation in any way. Making music is different- it happens in real time and is very interactive! Part of the experience involves the interplay between musician, instrument and related gear.

I haven't had an ENTIRELY satisfying interactive experience with modelling/emulation yet as it applies to tube amplification. There's a give-and-take that happens as the amp warms up and even fatigues over time in a performance. It can actually be a challenge- making sure not to overexert as compression increases over time (for example). But even these challenges can make for a more enjoyable experience for a musician.

If we want to relegate the experience of making music just to listening, I'd probably be on-board with you. But, as musicians know, there's more to it than listening.


There's definitely some merit to archiving, however. The Kemper seems well suited to that. I just wait for the day that modelling manages to add some of the magic randomness to the equation.

[JimmyM]

Originally Posted by seamonkey

+1 So true
I guess an old movie I catch on Netflix isn't the same movie, because it's not projected from nitrate or cellulose film in a projector at the back of a smoked filled theater. As it stands, theaters are all digital now. And I'm glad they've Archived many movies in digital for generations to enjoy.

I'm glad old wax cylinder recordings have been digitized as well. But do you think Quentin Tarantino is going to shoot his movies with a film camera or a digital vid cam? Get real...of course he's going to shoot on film! Digital vid cams are for game shows.

[fdeck]

History of Modeling:

Is this good enough?

No, it doesn't have "presence."

Is this good enough?

No, it has "presence" but no "warmth."

Is this good enough?

No, it has "warmth" but no "depth."

Is this good enough?

No, it has "depth" but no "dynamics."

Is this good enough?

No, it has "dynamics" but no "feel."

Is this good enough?

No, it has "feel" but not "touch."

Is this good enough?

No, it has "touch" but is not "interactive."

Is this good enough?

No, it is "interactive" but it is not "three dimensional."

Is this good enough?

No, it is "three dimensional," but has no "sound stage."

...

[Downunderwonder]

Originally Posted by JimmyM

I'm glad old wax cylinder recordings have been digitized as well. But do you think Quentin Tarantino is going to shoot his movies with a film camera or a digital vid cam? Get real...of course he's going to shoot on film! Digital vid cams are for game shows.

Many movies are shot on digital cameras these days. New theatres even have digital projectors. It won't be long before only rich arthouse productions are shot on film.

[JimmyM]

Originally Posted by Downunderwonder

Many movies are shot on digital cameras these days. New theatres even have digital projectors. It won't be long before only rich arthouse productions are shot on film.

We'll see how long it lasts

[seamonkey]

Originally Posted by scotch

Seamonkey, that analogy is very telling to me...

I play in front of audiences

[seamonkey]

Originally Posted by fdeck

History of Modeling:

Is this good enough?

No, it doesn't have "presence."

Is this good enough?

No, it has "presence" but no "warmth."

Is this good enough?

No, it has "warmth" but no "depth."

Is this good enough?

No, it has "depth" but no "dynamics."

Is this good enough?

No, it has "dynamics" but no "feel."

Is this good enough?

No, it has "feel" but not "touch."

Is this good enough?

No, it has "touch" but is not "interactive."

Is this good enough?

No, it is "interactive" but it is not "three dimensional."

Is this good enough?

No, it is "three dimensional," but has no "sound stage."

...

History of electric bass

[seamonkey]

Originally Posted by Downunderwonder

Many movies are shot on digital cameras these days. New theatres even have digital projectors. It won't be long before only rich arthouse productions are shot on film.

Yeah - I don't think many realize the fate of Kodachrome, it's gone. Its fate is extending to all film. Maybe a few small film processing plants exist. I think a good director could use any medium and make a great film. Just like some bass players can play through any amp and make it sing. Many directors are embracing the new media. And so are many musicians.

[fdeck]

Originally Posted by seamonkey

History of electric bass

Well played, sir.

[seamonkey]

Kempers at $1580
http://www.jrrshop.com/holidayhardware?manufacturer=307
Coupon code
hardware20

Put in your state and zip or you'll see tax

B-stock is $1439

I'm sure other stores are matching.

[jimfist]

Whether it be the KPA or the AxeFx, it seems there is no big push to indulge bassists in this glorious new technology...just crumbs and scraps, dribs and drabs...oh well. If one of these two companies would give us bassists a big old bear hug embrace, it would go a long way. Not holding my breath.

[Flux Jetson]

My opinions really hold no serious integrity in discussions like these. I mean, here I am sitting here going on and on about this Kemper thing, when I myself play through a bass system made up of modular synth modules (because I can't afford to buy ~real~ bass preamps .. so I have to use what I have to process my bass), economic tube driven mic preamps, used modeling tone benders (POD Pro - Ebay, $125), a couple of used EQs ( a lucky-find Rane PE17, an Aphex 204 that I've had for 10 or so years, and a highly modified Cry Baby that I have converted into a band pass filter). I use a number of DIY circuits (compressors and gain stages). I play a Squier VMJ that I've modified to have 2-channels (about $5.00 investment of on-hand parts), a used Ebay Mackie power amp, and those "horrible" Carvin bass cabs that even though they are made by a proud USA company have very little kewl factor and even less resale value. Five month old bass strings that actually came on said Squier VMJ when I bought it. Yet, I firmly believe this rag-tag hybrid setup of mine is the best bass rig I have ever owned (among the SVT, GK, Hartke, SWR, Carvin, Mark Bass, and so on systems I have previously owned).

So all said and done, I really have a pretty shakey soapbox to stand upon.

My main point, however, is that so many opinions about "what is better" are many times driven by ego issues and matters of prestige. There is a measurable percentage of tube amp owners that don't have the chops to exploit, or the ears to discern the difference between, tube processing, solid state processing, or digital processing. They DO however possess the need to be cool (the mega-overused euphemism for "accepted"). Myself, I believe that many many many things are bought simply to belong. If it weren't true there would not be one single "club" here on Talk Bass. In the USA we are raised to keep up with the Joneses. It's damned near in our DNA by now, after several generations worth of corporate advertizing insisting that we must "own better stuff to win the race and actually be worth anything" and political attitudes that demand that we must shop at the mall to prove our patriotism. We have this need to somehow validate ourselves by displaying our wealth, and/or our material possessions. Nearly everything that has to do with life and living in the USA has some sort of visible logo or trademark on it, and some things exist solely to display said logos and trademarks (ball caps that say "Chevy" on them, window stickers that say "Fender", etc ..)

So to say that tube amps are more popular because it is a "fact" that they sound better holds little integrity. Popular almost NEVER means good. It just means popular. (Take Paris Hilton as an example that most everyone here can understand).

Many bass players would agree that Geddy Lee's bass sound is something desirable. Yet only a portion of his sound (an unknown portion at that) is actually influenced by tube processing. This is just another example supporting my point.

There is .. without any doubt .. a huge paradigm shift in several genres of performing rock music players towards digital processing. For intance modern hard rock guitar players are shifting towards the AxeFX lineup. Why? Well, I'm sure at least PART of it is sound, but I am just as certain that another part (probably the larger part) of the reason is because that many (most?) of the "7-string heros" have gone to the AxeFX systems in their own rigs. Again, the Cool Factor wins over. If it weren't true then those that advertize would not employ "using artist" sections on their websites. Advertizing methods are used by and large because they WORK. You can't find one single "big time" manufacturer that does not have a ~look who uses our stuff~ section on their website.





You must ask yourself ..... why is that?







And when you arrive at the answer, then perhaps reevaluate your beliefs about ~why~ certain things are popular, and why certain other things are not.

For some reason, I've never been able to actually see the Emperor's new clothes. Some sort of flaw in my personality that I've never been able to overcome.

But again .... in all seriousness .... what do I know. This is not disingenuous sarcasm. It's just a set of opinions.

[bongomania]

Well said, Flux.

[will33]

Originally Posted by bongomania

Well said, Flux.

+1

I can appreciate and agree with a lot of what he said there about life in the US in general.

As an example, a good portion of what I play is stuff I made myself...at least all the speakers, and one kit bass. I think the stuff sounds pretty good, but, it has no name, no brand, no marketing, no serial number, most folks wouldn't know what it is and probably wouldn't consider it "cool", and thus, it has virtually no value to anyone other than me.


I still like old tube amps and always will, and I still haven't met a modeller/processor/profiler or whatever you want to call it that played like one though. If someone else does...cool...it has value to them.