Kemper Profiling Amp Vs 3 Classic Amps + The OX Box - Blindfold Challenge! 

I usually don't "play along" because I like to watch. But this time I did because they did it this way and I had all 3 right. I was always wondering if I could hear the "tube" sound, and the way I distinguished them was that I chose the warmer more organic sounding. The kemper breaks up a bit .. different and sounded more dull. So I do like the sound of tubes better is seems.

@@IrLosin ok

@@IrLosinnah you just biased. Kemper sounded objectively better in each scenario. The “real” amps sounded either super thin or way too dark

Yngwie awakened xD

Aren't arpeggio's chords?

classic Chapman

Glorious

tasteful isn't a big part of his vocabulary

Yup. And Pete too!

Yes!

i think he said that because bea uses a kemper in recording quite a lot.

He has a Kemper in his studio. Not sure if he has done any blindfold challenges but he has some reviews on it.

He'll just say the Katana is the best out of all

Well put

Oisin McPhillips Agreed. I picked the “real” amp as my favourite for the Fender and Vox and the Kemper for the “Marshall” sound. I would have no idea which was real or Kemper... just as Rob didn’t... it was all a matter of preference and clearly that was about the settings on the individual amps/Kemper as I didn’t consistently like the real amps more.

Best Audio/Music Production Course I don’t think anyone was ignoring it. Plus, we weren’t saying that the “real” amps sounded worse than the Kemper so not sure where your comment about OX sucking came from. I think most open minded people acknowledge that the Kemper (depending on the particular profile) sounds really good and very close to the real amp, whether DI’d as here or in a more conventional setting into a guitar speaker can. I don’t think we need to try to find an explanation as to why the “real” amps (in our opinions) don’t uniformly sound “better” than the Kemper as if there is something inherently bad about the way a Kemper sounds.

Is anything real? Or do we live in a simulation

The clean Fender sounds more alive. The Kemper couldn't do that. The other real amps however, are very dark in real life. The Kemper added extra spectrum to the dark amps. That makes you think that's better.

SZCZERZO KŁY right?! I’ve been waiting a long time, he’s been acting like a real snob the past few months

There already are two videos with the Kemper from 2 years where they both got it wrong

that sequence was very Lynch

Chappers got mugged!

same

I 100% agree with you. A great guitarist can make any gear sound awesome.

I think if you gave Jimi Hendrix an Axe Fx he would fiddle with it for a few hours and come up with a sound he'd be satisfied with honestly. "Real pros" and session guys would make whatever work, it's like these gear snob vids floating around RU-vid have these guys with all sort of gear but their playing honestly isn't that amazing and they don't really make original music, they just own gear.

That’s why I use a Headrush. Ease of use and tone make it a no brainer.

At 16-26 I imagined the beach ball. And inserted it into my mind.

We were a bit worse. We used textbooks stood up on their sides, it was a small village school...

Best Audio/Music Production Course well teachers would tell us to do so

Best Audio: Yeah, we HAD to put something between us, but I usually leaned back a little when I was done and corrected my neighbour's tests… ^^' I mean, why would you sit next to someone you despised so much that you didn't wanna help him out?!

Chris Hepburn finally! Thanks for the honesty!

Yeah, it even feels like the Kemper is an « exaggerated » version of the original amp. Especially with the Vox, we expect it to be bright and jangly, and the Kemper is almost a caricature of that, which makes the original sound reaaaally middy.

it *has* to sound 'pretty good' to sell a single unit today. the problem with these comparisons is that there is no standard or measurable definition of 'good'. where they set the controls of the amp is not necessarily where you or i will likely set the amp, due to many variables. also, there is *nothing* to prevent a salesman from dialing in a drabber sound on 'the real thing' in order to 'convince' you that the pseudo is 'pretty good, too' - (see what i did there?)

Yeah because they're going straight into a desk. Cuts out the actual amp part of it

Alan Angel, Best line in the entire video. I literally laughed out loud

Followed by evil laughter from Danish Pete! I had a feeling then that Chappers was going down.

nha..there is a lot of cheaper ways to get that muddy sound xD..

I bought a kemper after having the Axe FX2. Plus I have owned a bunch of really nice amps. I own the Marshall JVM 410H now and never use it anymore since I got the kemper. I got rid of the Axe FX because it didnt sound real. Got the kemper and Im never looking back. Dont need any amps any more.

I get what your saying but I really didn't like the kemper sound! Especially the vox (but then I am vox owner)

It really depends on what you are using it for. In the studio is the best place to use it really. Ive used it once for live, it works pretty well, but I was direct lined in to the PA. I have an amp that can power it too through a cab and I can get some good sounds out of it. It really depends also on what profiles you are using. There are some bad profiles out there. Buy the best ones and you wouldnt be disappointed.

@@encryptor6710 There are extremely good free ones as well. Go on the forums and people trade them after profiling their incredibly expensive gear!

Yes I wondered why they never mentionned that. Rob just don't like the OX or prefer cab emulation (IR) of the kemper that's all it says...

Yeah, a different (maybe not necessarily better) IR will make a huge difference to the perception of your sound.

True, the "tube amp sound" is what everyone is after, and what all the SS amps copy (or try to). You don't see tube amps trying to emulate anything!

drdrums1 older tube amps?

Nah, it's just that we're used to tube amp sounds and it has been established as the 'norm'. We search for the distortion and amplification characteristics found in tubes, and, well, a modelling amplifier like the kemper can just model anything. If we skipped the whole solid state era before modellers there would be way less snobbiness. The only reason people feel tube amps are 'superior' is because people don't understand modelling/profiling. Modelling basically just digitally models the behaviour of a tube/amp, and if done correctly, it does that exactly. Profiling is just probing an actual amplification circuit and then constructing the system behaviour from the system response. Kemper does this beautifully, with good, solid hardware. We're long past the age of untransparent amplifier circuits and signal processing in the audio range. Every computer can do what a kemper can do. The only thing a kemper does over a computer is that A) the ADC and DAC is a given invariable thing (as opposed to using an audio interface, which all use different circuits) and B) since it's a purpose built system with no background tasks system behaviour can be assured. Basically, Kemper could release an Audio interface with all the in- and outputs of the kemper, but without the actual DSP hardware, and just provide the DSP as software. Would work exactly the same way, would produce the exact same results. This is just not done because it would maybe shave off only 200€, since DSP hardware isn't THAT expensive, and then you'd always need a computer to work your Kemper. Modellers get a bad reputation because of cheap modelling combo amps that use very, VERY cheap DSPs, ADCs and DACs that aren't transparent, with relatively bad models that don't accurately behave like the real thing, since for example a majority of the cost for a katana goes into the speaker cabinet and all the hardware, the power amp etc; you just can't put 100€ of DSP hardware into an amp that only costs 200€ to the end consumer.

have you been on tour before? nuances in sound are so much mess noticeable live then in the studio wich is why so many pro touring guitarists have switched to profiling, not to mention the drastically easier to transport hardware. the only place i still see amps is in the studio, bands who tour by bus (or purist rock bands) or just in the backline where there is usually no choice of amp

It's all about how you profile it. It's only as good as how you set it up.

You are right. I hate it that you're right. This is how the whole world goes down the U-bend.

@@PFB-yo6wi So, if I'm right, if the Kemper profile has been undertaken 'mic' ed' in a studio, then used in a live band scenario, the sound output on stage should be (if profiled accurately or the same as a particular song) will sound the same, or very close to the recorded song. Give or take the odd variables like room size, acoustics, etc.

The Kemper is incredibly accurate to the source. The ‘profiled’ sound is more just like the sound of the amp through mics in a studio, the Kemper doesn’t really add it’s own colour or ‘sound’ to the profiles. To my ear the OX is trying to emulate a cab in a room, whereas the Kemper is a profile of a close miced cab in a studio. Just due to familiarity I can understand why bedroom guitarists would prefer the OX tone, but also why recording engineers like myself or performing guitarists who spend a lot of their time listening to their guitar tone miced up through studio monitors or foldbacks/in-ears would prefer the Kemper. That perfectly explains why Rob preferred the Kemper and Lee preferred the OX, too.

Nope. Ox box sounds great.

no name LOL. Nope to your Nope.

Joseph Smith Yes it is. That way you can also profile all your amps yourself if you also have a Kemper.

You nailed it.

The Kemper is fake crap that doesn't sound like the amps it supposedly models; that doesn't make it useless, and I can see somebody using it at a gig, if you're stuck with one, but one decent tube amp will sound better than this top and bottom-end tweaked imitation.

Whoo Mel, why are you so riled up on this subject? You have commented a dozen times on this video and about how "crap" and "unrealistic" the Kemper is, why so pissed off about gear? I just don't understand the weird emotional bond people have with how they think amps etc. should be built.

Tomi Reunanen I can understand the emotional bond with how an amp “should” be built... what I can’t understand is calling the Kemper “fake crap”: it clearly sounds great and certainly not “crap”. I can, however, understand someone still preferring to use a real amp... emotion and how gear makes you feel is an integral part of being a musician and especially being inspired as a musician. For some people that inspiration could come from the latest tech which gives them lots of great options and for others from that one vintage piece of gear that does one thing great, or for other people a bit of both.

I agree totally, JCM Kemper profile did sound better although I wasn't keen on either tone.

It's supposed to sound THE SAME, not better.

I understand what it's supposed to do, it didn't do it but I preferred it over the actual amp.

Also, they used profiles they didn't make from the same amp. Every amp sounds a tiny bit different - they just used MBritt profiles. While that gets close, it's not the same as actually profiling the same amp with the exact same settings.

@@iFireender yup, should have took time to profile the same exact amps they had in stock, maybe even a direct profile with a load box and play the Kemper with the same cab for the vid.

They explained why at the very beginning of the video. They said this comparison is to try and see if it is worthwhile to invest in real amps and a cabinet emulation or a modeller, for I’m assuming a silent recording setup. Not to directly compare the real amps to profiles of the amps or the Kemper’s amp modelling without it’s own cabinet emulation.

That was my take too.

Smell does play the role too!

He is one of those many people who do that constantly. Different for the sake of being different, and logic out the window.

Same, I only got Fender with TS on wrong. But to some extent I understand him. For example Vox emulation with TS sounded very modern, very bassy, like something you expect from modern amps and humbuckers. But The real reacted very aggressively to the pickups, that twangy sound and super high frequencies were a lot lot lot louder, weird that Chappers didn't put any attention to that, because I went with my with my guess only because of what I've learned from his Sherlock-like investigations of tone lol.

That’s because tubes, dynamics, and frequencies rule over shitty emulators.

True, nothing like a good old Soviet tube

I think he just prefers darker tones because of his metal background. All the Kemper tones were kind of dark and muffled compared to the tube amps.

They did that on 8 out of ten cats, even Yuri Geller was better liked.

It was so easy that is mindboggling what rob had in mind the only excuse i could come up with is that he had some preconcept in his mind that the kemper would have been louder just because its a 120w amp but nearly at the same volume the kemper is just mud and he might have confused that muddiness in low power in the amp and made him think it was the real amp.. and a lot less detailed in evey aspect of it.. and im kind of happy about this kemper fail..

In all fairness: he had heard the profiles before. Rob did not. Even if you are not doing it consciously, it is much easier to say "that is what I heard before" than to say "that is the valve and this is the kemper."

he chose the worst sounding one

who?

XD

Jaskinia Męstwa It's an interesting point that people aren't prepared for. Sometimes an emulation can be like a caricature of a particular sound, but sound better.

No, it doesn't sound more like an amp; it doesn't sound like any of these amps. The Kemper just has a bit more top end, which is what lots of people like; but it's about being the same, not better or worse.The Kemper doesn't sound the same at all, so it fails the test.

mel obrien also tends to lack some low mids, mid bass and has a more raspy character, often the mids going more in a "wah zone". But they'd have to profile the amps themselves for a good comparison. And cab modelling also comes into play. You cannot really tell much about how accurate kemper is without profiling the amps at hand and then compare.

mel obrien also kemper is not really meant to profile dual distorting stages. Preamp + power amp gain usually causes issues, if that is something one is after.

Bottom line the kemper just sounds better....suck it tube snobs!

Chris that would’ve been the best way but they never say they did that :/

@@nickmathews6226 "As close as they could get", should have included profiling the actual amps they had in the test and refining the profiles used in the test. Two of the same model amps from the same era could sound different from each other. To add to the point, the guitar, pickups, cab and mic used in the profile all make a difference to how close the profile will sound to the setup profiled. Michael Britt profiles are VERY good, but he makes it very clear that most (if not all) of his profiles are made using the same 3rd Power 212 cab , guitar with P90s and usually the same two mics. I might be missing something in the video, but I don't think it was mentioned what cab and mic combination was being simulated by the OX Box.

Even 3 years later, this is such a shit comment.

William Nett I agree, and it makes me wonder if the UA attenuator box was doing something to create that slight muddiness

What does it do?

@@ImpostorModanica it adds sag...

Ha. What does sag do?

..... it sags.

jmcsquared: you're right; the Kemper shit is jizzed-up copies of the real thing; close, but no cigar.