An Interesting Finding While A/B'ing the AFII and KPA

H

hoth

Inspired
Wow. So I did not think that I would be making this post. Some people have been following my latest debate of KPA vs AxeFXII as I am primarily looking to pull out money from my AxeFX rig. I have really loved the rig but I really wanted to test both modelers' latest FWs to see if I can make the switch. In the past it was primarily a toss-up with the sound but the workflow led me to the Axe. However, I decided to setup a bit of an experiment to test the two to the best of MY inaccurate abilities. So I setup both modelers to be able to A/B test them using the same guitar, headphones, power, etc.... I then identified amps/profiles on each modeler that I was reasonably sure should correspond to similar amps at similar gain level. I know this methodology is not perfect, but it let me find some generalities that I could state between the modelers. I then tested approximately 10 amps extensively and A/B'ed back and forth quite a lot. I looked at each of these amps at mid gain and high gain as I was not particularly interested in clean comparisons.

I started with the assumption that KPA was going to blow the Axe away in pure amp tone and feel. I have heard this over and over and over again on the forums and I guess it stuck in my head. Well here is what I found. If I modified the Axe amp parameters as below, I could get the two boxes extremely close in the character of the gain and the feel. Over and over again these modifications seemed to work and made me understand the differences I was hearing between the two boxes. Once I made these equalizations, I found the tone and feel of the Axe to be much better FOR ME. The Axe was much more "present" and forefront in the sound field compared to the KPA, it sounded fuller and it felt bouncy in the same way the kemper did. The kemper seemed to have consistently these weak and nasally characteristics across profiles.

Again, THESE ARE JUST ONE MAN'S FINDINGS. AND THESE ARE PRELIMINARY FINDINGS. But I find these results really interesting at least for myself. Let the flaming begin.


Xformer Match: about +1.5 to 2.5
Sag: about +2.0
Character: about -1.5
(Treble: to taste but generally approximately -1db at 1k, 2k and 4k)
 
Last edited:
Interesting. I've never been in the room with a KPA so I don't know.

But I'm just not motivated to try with the Axe II. Completely happy with it.
 
Mmm we don't need an Axe FX vs K in this forum, and i know is not your intention, but this one could get ugly real quick... or not.
 
nicolasrivera said:
Mmm we don't need an Axe FX vs K in this forum, and i know is not your intention, but this one could get ugly real quick... or not.
Click to expand...

It doesn't need to. I'd like to hear some objective data about the two.

I have no experience with the KPA. What I know of it leads me to believe it's essentially an audio Xerox machine. You can get a snapshot of a tone that's remarkably accurate, but where do you go from there? I understand it has tone controls and effects so you can play around with your snapshot, but doesn't that end there? What if you want to modify behaviors? To me, that's where the Axe excels. It's the difference between a copy and an artist who can create an original, or if (s)he prefers, a copy.
 
hoth said:
Xformer Match: about +1.5 to 2.5
Sag: about +2.0
Character: about -1.5
(Treble: to taste but generally approximately -1db at 1k, 2k and 4k)
Click to expand...

interested to try these out, but i don't know what you mean by "treble" - are you referring to PEQ?
and sag normally defaults to about 2.0, so are you talking about adding 2 points to whatever the default setting is?
 
hoth said:
I started with the assumption that KPA was going to blow the Axe away in pure amp tone and feel. I have heard this over and over and over again on the forums and I guess it stuck in my head.
Click to expand...

Glad to hear the conclusion that the Axe is as good or better but I'm not too sure about the initial assumption - I wouldn't assume the same based on discussions here but I guess the Kemper forum would place KPA at #1.

For a while I gassed to have both boxes but, in addition to the cost and added complexity issues, I don't want to spread my limited tweaking time across two units for a limited return value if the AxeFx can do it all which I believe it can. Still, it's nice to see posts like this that confirm my beliefs.
 
Last edited:
simeon said:
interested to try these out, but i don't know what you mean by "treble" - are you referring to PEQ?
and sag normally defaults to about 2.0, so are you talking about adding 2 points to whatever the default setting is?
Click to expand...

By treble I mean the amp eq tab and for sag I mean adding basically 2 points. These are more generalities than precise settings. I guess my point is that the differences between the two boxes seemed to come down to these general things. Just trying to give people clues if they want to get closer to that sound and feel for what it's worth. Also made me wonder if it would be useful to have a global sag or global xformer match offset parameter.
 
sprint said:
Glad to hear the conclusion that the Axe is as good or better but I'm not too sure about the assumption - I wouldn't assume the same based on discussions here but I guess the Kemper forum would place KPA at #1.

For a while I gassed to have both boxes but, in addition to the cost and added complexity issues, I don't want to spread my limited tweaking time across two units for a limited return value if the AxeFx can do it all which I believe it can. Still, it's nice to see posts like this that confirm my beliefs.
Click to expand...

I think I overstated it a bit by saying "blow it away". I just meant I feel like there is this meme taking shape out there that you get the kemper for superb tone and simplicity and you get the axe for good enough tone, effects and routing options.
 
hoth said:
Xformer Match: about +1.5 to 2.5
Sag: about +2.0
Character: about -1.5
(Treble: to taste but generally approximately -1db at 1k, 2k and 4k)
Click to expand...

I'm really surprised about that Xformer Match number. that's a pretty significant change- I use transformer match all the time and I've never come close to adjusting something that much. Usually I'm trying to slightly clean up and uncompress an amp.
 
Gamedojo said:
That list tells me to make the Axe Fx more similar to the Kemper you have to compress the crap out of it and darken the overall output.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's the effect of those parameters. Reminds me of that axiom that to make something sound less "digital" sounding just take off some treble. A lot of "digital" sounding amp tones in the 60s & 70s on some well known records!

Hoth, did you notice some differences in the lower mids as well which I've heard commented about the KPA (IIRC)?
 
hoth said:
I think I overstated it a bit by saying "blow it away". I just meant I feel like there is this meme taking shape out there that you get the kemper for superb tone and simplicity and you get the axe for good enough tone, effects and routing options.
Click to expand...

Having owned both units and comparing them back and forth, I can state that the Kemper is capable of very good sound.
Did it blow away the Axe FX2, "No", definitely not with the amps that I played, nor with the collection of guitars I own.
The grass is always greener....
I sold the Kemper and have not looked back.
 
Cagey said:
It doesn't need to. I'd like to hear some objective data about the two.

I have no experience with the KPA. What I know of it leads me to believe it's essentially an audio Xerox machine. You can get a snapshot of a tone that's remarkably accurate, but where do you go from there? I understand it has tone controls and effects so you can play around with your snapshot, but doesn't that end there? What if you want to modify behaviors? To me, that's where the Axe excels. It's the difference between a copy and an artist who can create an original, or if (s)he prefers, a copy.
Click to expand...

This is how I feel as well. One could argue that if the KPA nails those sounds then you don't need all the extra control. But I'd rather have the flexibility of the AxeFX because so far, I haven't felt that the KPA does anything better than the Axe other than possibly jiving with some people's workflow preference.
 
If comparing 2 devices helps someone better understand what they like and how to get it, then that's a worthwhile endeavor. If this discussion helps others in getting their tone - even better.

The Axe is a powerful tool, I've found better ways to do my thing with the Axe by comparing/analyzing the Axe with other gear and implementing what I've learned on the Axe.
 
I had a KPA for a while but I sold it. Its a really good unit with some nice tones and feaures but I found every profile, clean or overdriven, had an underlying similar tone character like there was an extra speaker emulation going on at the end of the chain. The AxeFX delivers fuller, richer tones in my experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom