Not even that, IME.
I also like the U5, although the Countryman's a lot more convenient if you're packing your own. None a "real" version of the amp + cab rig, though.
Sorry. /derail
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Sorry. /derail
- Aug 3, 2007
- 1,678
- 2,146
- Disclosures
- Current: Blackstar, DR strings, Nady. Previous endorsements with: GK, Rotosound, Ernie Ball, Cleartone, EMG, Dean, Dava Picks, Rebel Straps, Dickies
The kemper is expensive, and isn't a hot item that's produced and sold in huge numbers. I don't think they'll make a significant dent in the amp market, it's an acquired taste, no different than any boutique amp. I respect them, but don't feel they threaten the amp market in any way.
None whatsoever. I'm glad you figured that out. I make socks. Would you like to buy a sock?
(sarcasm)
Hmmm… accusing me of making one common misunderstanding about modelers after another -- rather than what I'm actually writing about? Are you even paying attention?
On Page 8 | Post #142 -- before you and I interacted I wrote: "…a modeler is like copying/approximating a function while sampling/profiling is copying the function's results. Also note that modeler implementations are not necessarily purely modeled. They may use profiling/sampling/impulse responses for certain parts and modeling in other parts. Proper tube amp circuit emulation has a ways to go before it's available in real time. Simple (real time) circuit modeling has been available for years, but the complexity of guitar amps' circuits puts full modeling out of reach."
That ought to answer your question.
Ok now that you understand what I am saying a little better… go on and tell me what exactly is "incorrect" when you wrote: "I am sure this will come off rude, but I don't know how else to say it. Where are you getting all of this information? Because, frankly, it's pretty incorrect.". Don't just dodge direct questions and accuse me of making one beginner misunderstanding after another. As far as I can tell, you (probably) understand how to operate an Axe-Fx and I understand (roughly) how an Axe-Fx operates. I think you're just being defensive.
And for the third time - go ahead and quote me where I said the modeler you're defending doesn't sounds/feel good. Sure, I later said some parameter combinations sound "nasty", but that applies to everything with many parameters. So that doesn't count.
Finally, some YouTubers have made good comparisons and some (not all) people can identify the modeler.
Last edited:
True but,
The Kemper hit's the niche of those who say "No Modeler sounds like my Amp"
If they don't agree that the models that ship with the Kemper don't match, they can can profile their own.
If they can't get a good profile, it might be operator error, or just how it goes.
It'll knock out 50% of those who doubt modeling can't capture their own individual amp.
It'll be appreciated by those who just changed their tubes, got a recap and really like the sound they're getting right now. Might as well archive it.
But I agree, that it will become obsolete as software is going to get cheaper and eventually do "profiling" or similar also. Some packages already do this for Studio gear.
Half of the Guitar Amps at Sweetwater's "What's Hot" section are modeling amps.
Marshall, Yamaha, Kemper, and Fender all have modelers in the top 20 most popular guitar heads at Sweetwater. The reviews for the Kemper go back to 2013. Modeling has a big market, IMO. It's obviously bigger for guitarists but…
buldog5151bass
Kibble, milkbones, and P Basses. And redheads.
Just like people people showrooming instruments or amps in the store and then buying on line - unethical.
From my narrow use case the Kemper saves me a boatload of setup time in the studio. If I could leave a vintage B15 set up, mic'd, and EQ'd with no one else putting their grubby hands on it
, I'd maybe go that route. Can't do that though. My take is that profiling an amp with a Kemper doesn't propose to replace a vintage or my favorite amp, but it does save me from things like bringing my rig to some sh*****e club where some drunken idiot is going to throw a shot glass at my V4B (that actually did happen guys!).
, I'd maybe go that route. Can't do that though. My take is that profiling an amp with a Kemper doesn't propose to replace a vintage or my favorite amp, but it does save me from things like bringing my rig to some sh*****e club where some drunken idiot is going to throw a shot glass at my V4B (that actually did happen guys!).
buldog5151bass
Kibble, milkbones, and P Basses. And redheads.
Nothing wrong with the amp itself - the issue is people buying it, and then profiling other amps they don't own (even worse, "buying" with the sole purpose of getting the sound and then returning). You are using it on amps your already own.
Seen some gig damage here, totally sucks and can sometimes get bloody ugly.From my narrow use case the Kemper saves me a boatload of setup time in the studio. If I could leave a vintage B15 set up, mic'd, and EQ'd with no one else putting their grubby hands on it
True. And yes, buying an amp, profiling it, then returning it is totally unethical!
And to my previous post, some drunken idiot could throw a shot glass at a Kemper as well, but that's not a vintage amp under attack!
buldog5151bass
Kibble, milkbones, and P Basses. And redheads.
BIG difference between reverse engineering, or finding your own way to recreate a sound, and this. One is doing it on your own (like practicing and being able to play a song like the original artist), one is buying something and then returning it after you record it to steal the tone.
The point I was making is that modeling and profiling amps do have a big market -- in response to blubass.
What reverse engineering? I highly doubt any modeling amp manufacturer approached the amps they have modeled as a black box, but go on and show me.
Well, the Kemper does because it just profiles it
…but that's not modeling.
Last edited:
buldog5151bass
Kibble, milkbones, and P Basses. And redheads.
Of course there is a big market for it, just as there is a big interest in showrooming instruments in a store before buying it on line, and illegally downloading music.
Yeah, I'll bet B&M stores lose a big percentage of sales to internet dealers - from kit demoed in their shop.
I don't have time, or the real interest in going around and around with you. If you want to discuss off topic stuff, feel free to shoot me a PM, but, I'm about to leave for several weeks of vacation and likely won't see or reply for awhile. Sarcasm is wonderful, and a good way to not further the discussion. I have better things to do - like perform, and record - than to argue.
The "you" in post 169 is a general "you", as in the talkbass audience. Not "you" as in "you, eigentone".
YouTube is probably about the worst platform to try to do anything critical listening. There is so much compression and "optimizing" of the data that you could toss up two recordings of the same amp and they'll sound different. A lot of what people like to try to say is missing is "feel" or "response", which I don't even know how someone can claim to get that without trying for themselves.
I do suggest looking up modern modelers, and even strike up a conversation with Cliff, the lead guy at Fractal. If you are someone who has industry experience, he'll talk your ear off about it. In fact, he's hunting for an engineer right now as well for his team.
Yes. I used sarcasm in response to: "Cool. So you have no direct experience with what we're actually discussing. Good to know.". You're saying that years of professional software development (including much audio/music) is meaningless in this discussion and that owning an Axe-Fx is all that matters. If I bought one more Axe-Fx than you own, would everything I say about it be more right than you?
No - I don't know your exact non-compensated commercial affiliation with Fractal, but our exchange has turned me slightly off of ever buying an Axe-Fx. I responded with a comment marked as sarcastic. Who cares if it didn't "further the discussion"? You had already killed that discussion by getting defensive and dragging it out into the illogical/absurd territories. At least, I hope you realize that… ??Reality is, audio software developers reuse a lot the same techniques and processes and we have a lot of the same tools and educational resources available to us. You telling me what techniques are in use by your favorite modeler does not prove I wrote anything which was incorrect in this thread. Did you realize I outlined the processes earlier in the thread, granted at a higher level and for a greater audience? If you read post 152, you'll see I was explaining to JimmyM that variety of component combinations in software is achieved by separating them component-by-component. And then there's more in #142, etc. You were explaining things I had already explained to support saying I was "incorrect". This is why I asked if you are paying attention to what I have written. So what if I didn't load general discussion down with Fourier or complex equations? People don't need to bring their DSP books to TalkBass. Audio developers can often identify technologies/processes used in a music/audio program like they can identify… toppings on a pizza! Ok, ok. It takes a little longer. Sure, Axe-Fx has mic/cab selection and mixing capability but even Guitar Rig 1 had that (IIRC). 12 years later, somebody/everybody is just doing it better and with more options/flexibility/quality because hey, computers are faster and because we can use the processors for stuff we've wanted to do for years already. Most (not all) of the techniques/processes used today are used by multiple software developers. Sometimes, we even share (*Gasp*).
As far as "looking up modern modelers", you've still got me wrong. I've been to the Fractal site and I know who Cliff is. Sometimes I peruse the forums over brunch. Nothing new here. I can do that without buying one
But yes, this discussion is going nowhere. I'm out too
I actually sent Cliff my resume years ago. They are located not terribly far from me (MA->NH?). I'm not looking for work right now, thanks.
Have a good vacation and relax a while
Last edited:
So I'm no expert on the plethora of different molders out there, but I do know that the molders I have tried really don't come close to the real deal.
Case in point: When playing tube amps, if I set the amp with some gain to get distortion when my instrument is turned on full, I will get distortion. When I back off the volume on my instrument, it doesn't drive the tubes as hard, and the result is a cleaner tone, and little to no distortion. Modelers don't understand how to do that.
So to say that a modeler mfg is stealing IP.....I don't completely buy that
Case in point: When playing tube amps, if I set the amp with some gain to get distortion when my instrument is turned on full, I will get distortion. When I back off the volume on my instrument, it doesn't drive the tubes as hard, and the result is a cleaner tone, and little to no distortion. Modelers don't understand how to do that.
So to say that a modeler mfg is stealing IP.....I don't completely buy that
Kemper and Axe-Fx actually nail that precisely. I didn't try it a whole lot with the Helix I played with, so I can't comment on that sadly.
I do it with my guitars and basses all the time. It has taken a long while to get that and that edge of breakup (where say, you dig in and get that grind, but play easier and it's fairly clean) tone, but both are definitely there. It was really cool when, I think it was around firmware 9 of the Axe-Fx II they got close with that, and then over the past 12 more firmwares have only improved on it
. Everyone's different, so you'd have to try it for yourself in direct comparison to the amp(s) you're used to, to see if it does it exactly how you expect.
