AXE FX=metal, Kemper=blues/rock?

PinkFlesh

New Member
Yes, this is a clickbait title, but in my humble opinion, supported from a friend who recorded his last album through both AXE FX2 and Kemper, this is quite close to reality.


After a lot of struggling in recording with microphones, Torpedo Cab and an AMT SS11 tube preamp, I'm considering one of this two machines. Apart from the different concept (amp modeler vs. profiler) and the different use (build your tone piece by piece vs. download your complete tone from the web), the impression that I had after hearing the same songs played on both machines, is that Fractal is more hifi and polished, while Kemper more raw and dirty.
I cannot post any URL as this is my 1st post, but go on YT and try to hear the Comfortably Numb solo played through both machines, and tell me your impressions...
My friend who had both Kemper and Fractal in studio, told me something like this:

I recorded all the rhythms parts with Fractal, I think it has more definition, then the solos with the Kemper which seemed to me much warmer and raw. Basically, I think I understand why Fractal is used by the new metalheads, its definition and precision lead you to be at ease in those contexts. As well as I understand why some guitar legends carry the Kemper with them; bigger, dirty and rough, it leads to sound more visceral, more rock.

In fact, Fractal is more used by metalheads (Dream Theater, Metallica, Trivium, Peryphery, Mesuggah) looking for precise and sharp tones, very tight palm-muting rhythms and high gain soloing, while an old bluesman like Knopfler, a jazzman like Pat Metheny and a '70s rocker like Steve Morse, they all preferred the Kemper.
In my opinion if you are looking for the subtle nuances of the tubes, that tones ranging from clean to crunch to the classic marshall tones, those very expressive Gilmour/Santana/Gary Moore-like bendings that give you goosebumps, the Kemper wins.
This is why I believe the Kemper would be the best option for me. I'm not a metalhead, I don't play with 10/10 Gain all the time, I'm more into prog-rock and classic-rock stuff.


Among other things, this feeling of hifi and polished tone that I feel on Youtube, I felt it amplified x1000 last year at a Brit Floyd concert here in Italy. And I wasn't in an unhappy listening position, like front row or last seat on the right side of the theater. I was in the top center position, very close to the control console, so the sound came to me from all sides.

And as I watched the concert goes by, the question that came back to me was:

these are professional guitarist that played any sort of tube amps and speakers in their life, they are Fractal endorsers so they have maximum support from the company to solve technical issues, get more informations on the machine, hard tweaking, etc. ..and this is the best they can do. So, what John Smith can do by himself in his bedroom? John Smith that has never played the 99% of the amps loaded on the AX FX, without the direct support from Fractal, and the maximum help he can get is through a forum thanks to some American metalhead that has no idea what clean tone is...Will it do much better than them? Will it sound very different? More realistic?

That concert for me represented the maximum of what AX FX can do, the machine squeezed to 100% of its potential.


As mentioned at the beginning, I am only interested in the recording, in fact I will not take any power amp or FRFR cab, and I don't want to replace my tube amp. I'll keep my Laney and Blackstar amps. Whether it's Fractal or Kemper, it will go on my desk between the Audient ID22 and my stereo speakers. I will see it more as an extension of my soundcard, a phonic outboard like an LA-2A compressor or a NEVE preamp, rather than the magic box that have all the existing heads on the planet into it.
Many people get disappointed while switching from their tube amps to a digital modeler/profiler, they miss the feel of a real amp and cabinet, so I will not do the mistake of re-selling my tube amps. They're both great, but they have different purposes.

If you have had both machines, have you ever noticed these differences? Do you agree the AXE FX is more defined and clear, while the Kemper is more raw and dirt?
What's the best to play all the classic rock stuff like Pink Floyd, Santana, Queen, Beatles, AC/DC, Led Zeppelin, Gary Moore, Eagles, and so on?
Thanks
 
Hey there. I don’t know if it would help you make your decision more easily, but I’d suggest that you have a peek at my instagram profile ( @basarozmen).

I recorded some of the famous solo parts of the bands that you have mentioned (eagles, pink floyd, led zeppelin, queen etc.) All Axe FX, direct USB recording.

Although my recordings are only amateur stuff, I honestly think that Axe FX does a perfect job delivering any sound you seek with a bit of tweaking (and maybe some post processing).

Good luck!
 
Last edited:
Having heard both I would say this is a very incorrect statement. I think the heavier use of the Axe FX in metal settings is due to it being cool and trendy in that environment vs the Kemper. I also think the same is true for the kemper in blues/rock circles.
My personal experience with Kemper is that it is harder to get a decent sound out of where the Axe FX iii is more plug and play. The Axe FX III is like being in a professional studio sitting next to the amp, the Kemper is like having somebody else give you a pre programmed sound.
 
Also, in a live setting there are so many variable at play it is hard to make any judgement on gear used in a live performance. They could have been having an off night, the sound guy could have been having an off night, the PA system could have been set up wrong, the acoustics could have been poor where you were standing...
 
Hey there. I don’t know if it would help you make your decision more easily, but I’d suggest that you have a peak at my instagram profile ( @basarozmen).

I recorded some of the famous solo parts of the bands that you have mentioned (eagles, pink floyd, led zeppelin, queen etc.) All Axe FX, direct USB recording.
Although my recordings are only amateur stuff, I honestly think that Axe FX does a perfect job delivering any sound you seek with a bit of tweaking (and maybe some post processing).
Good luck!

Hi Basar,
I could listen to your solos only through the speaker of my smartphone. When browsing from PC (where I have audio card and stereo speakers), the video does't start, it's stuck on the loading process. I hope to hear it through a decent system later.


Having heard both I would say this is a very incorrect statement. I think the heavier use of the Axe FX in metal settings is due to it being cool and trendy in that environment vs the Kemper. I also think the same is true for the kemper in blues/rock circles.
My personal experience with Kemper is that it is harder to get a decent sound out of where the Axe FX iii is more plug and play. The Axe FX III is like being in a professional studio sitting next to the amp, the Kemper is like having somebody else give you a pre programmed sound.

So do you think it's only due to a trend? Nothing relateted to the way the 2 machines treat the sound?
Anyway, even if the AXE FX3 is great, my budget is not so high, so my choice is between AXE FX2 and Kemper.

I'm not so sure the AXE is more plug and play...
A friend of mine has the AXE FX2 since years, he use it for live gigging, and he explained me how he get his sound. Building your tone with the AXE FX is like building a tower, from the amp, to the cab, compressor, enhance, delay, and so on. Starting from the amp section, it offers a lot of parameters to tweak, for example you can swap the power amp section of a Fender combo and replacing it with an EL34 british power amp section. You can set the bias of the tubes, and so on...I don't know your definition of plug 'n play, but it doesn't seem very plug 'n play to me.
I think the Kemper is easier from this point of view, because a profile contains all the amp, cab, effects and microphones needed. It is a pre-programmed sound, as you said.
Two totally different approaches to solve the same problem.
 
I'm not so sure the AXE is more plug and play...
A friend of mine has the AXE FX2 since years, he use it for live gigging, and he explained me how he get his sound. Building your tone with the AXE FX is like building a tower, from the amp, to the cab, compressor, enhance, delay, and so on. Starting from the amp section, it offers a lot of parameters to tweak, for example you can swap the power amp section of a Fender combo and replacing it with an EL34 british power amp section. You can set the bias of the tubes, and so on...I don't know your definition of plug 'n play, but it doesn't seem very plug 'n play to me.
I think the Kemper is easier from this point of view, because a profile contains all the amp, cab, effects and microphones needed. It is a pre-programmed sound, as you said.
Two totally different approaches to solve the same problem.

That might have been true years ago. Today, most amp models are pick it, mess with BMT and play. No need to look at the advanced settings unless you want to.
 
With Kemper, you go through 4000 random and shitty profiles to find the one that you hunt for. With Axe, you tweak towards your own goal that you feel in your head. Experience with recording, live stuff, and real amps helps to know where to steer. If at first you don't succeed, remove the said compressor, enhancer and delay and try again. ;)
 
Hi Basar,
I could listen to your solos only through the speaker of my smartphone. When browsing from PC (where I have audio card and stereo speakers), the video does't start, it's stuck on the loading process. I hope to hear it through a decent system later.




So do you think it's only due to a trend? Nothing relateted to the way the 2 machines treat the sound?
Anyway, even if the AXE FX3 is great, my budget is not so high, so my choice is between AXE FX2 and Kemper.

I'm not so sure the AXE is more plug and play...
A friend of mine has the AXE FX2 since years, he use it for live gigging, and he explained me how he get his sound. Building your tone with the AXE FX is like building a tower, from the amp, to the cab, compressor, enhance, delay, and so on. Starting from the amp section, it offers a lot of parameters to tweak, for example you can swap the power amp section of a Fender combo and replacing it with an EL34 british power amp section. You can set the bias of the tubes, and so on...I don't know your definition of plug 'n play, but it doesn't seem very plug 'n play to me.
I think the Kemper is easier from this point of view, because a profile contains all the amp, cab, effects and microphones needed. It is a pre-programmed sound, as you said.
Two totally different approaches to solve the same problem.
Most of the guitar players I hang out with play low gain stuff and have never heard of Fractal until introduced them to the company. Most metal fans have heard of both Fractal and Kemper. Seems to support my theory.
I play 90% worship music which relies on loose messy distortion tones. It’s fairly rare that I am going for a sharp, aggressive distorted sound. The edge of breakup tones on the Axe FX are just really incredible!

as far as ease of set up, I can creat a simple preset up from scratch on the Axe FX iii from scratch (drive, amp, cab, verb) that sounds fantastic for blues in about 2 minutes. No advanced fiddling with parameters necessary. The Axe FX works pretty much exactly the same way analog gear does.
 
I think i agree with the op in the sense that the axe fx always sounds a bit too hi fi. Don t care about generalizing distinctions between metal or blues.

Also i ve been using fractal for over 10 years with all kinds of setup frfr or poweramp + cab, but haven t heard the lll in real life. I m sure it s still improving, but no axe lll clips yet fully capture a dirty tube sound imo. Still great an impressive gear though 😉
 
With Kemper, you go through 4000 random and shitty profiles to find the one that you hunt for. With Axe, you tweak towards your own goal that you feel in your head. Experience with recording, live stuff, and real amps helps to know where to steer. If at first you don't succeed, remove the said compressor, enhancer and delay and try again. ;)
This^. I Own and use both units, but i much prefer the III, in it’s current point of constant evolution, it is no doubt the most powerful and fully featured unit available, and while tweaking is as deep as you want to go, the over 200 amps in the box sound wonderful at stock settings, and all levels of gain and dirt and clean are at your fingertips,
The KPA has its place to be sure, but I believe that place is with players who have real (expensive and hard to maintain) amps and a need to reproduce their signature sound on tour thru profiling...in the studio the AxeFX III has the advantage easily.
It is a slightly different situation if you are considering an AxeFX II instead of a III....that unit and the Kemper are more easily comparable ...
and at this point debate about it is pointless...get your hands on both and see how they work for you...but I’m somewhat confident you will need to
purchase 3rd party profiles or make your own to be happy..the stock presets on KPA are fairly lame IMO..and everything in the Axe is there for you already..you just have to have the motivation to dive in.
 
Now I want an Axe Fx... wait a minute... I got one 🙂. The Kemper is really amazing, and I had one for almost 7 years until I recently traded it for an Axe Fx 2 Xl. With the Kemper I struggled alot with finding my highgain tone, that would fit my guitar and my playing 'cause they were profiled by someone else with their style and their gear. With the Axe I can build my own "amp" and tones from my guitars/fingers... that is a clear winner for me!! I would love to own the Axe 3... but so far I really dont think I'm missing out on anything 😌👍
 
Now I want an Axe Fx... wait a minute... I got one 🙂. The Kemper is really amazing, and I had one for almost 7 years until I recently traded it for an Axe Fx 2 Xl. With the Kemper I struggled alot with finding my highgain tone, that would fit my guitar and my playing 'cause they were profiled by someone else with their style and their gear. With the Axe I can build my own "amp" and tones from my guitars/fingers... that is a clear winner for me!! I would love to own the Axe 3... but so far I really dont think I'm missing out on anything 😌👍
Yes, I was actually quite surprised when I went to my SouthBeach crib last week for the first time in some months where my AxeFx IIXL lives, after the latest Ares FW update, it was really close to the III tone wise ...

.........til I got back to Chicago and put FW11 on the III.......now everyone else is playing catch-up like it or not.
 
Yes, this is a clickbait title, but in my humble opinion, supported from a friend who recorded his last album through both AXE FX2 and Kemper, this is quite close to reality.

There are tons of pros and amateurs alike using the Axe-Fx for non-metal. You have a biased world view that you're painting with when you say stuff like this.

What's the best to play all the classic rock stuff like Pink Floyd, Santana, Queen, Beatles, AC/DC, Led Zeppelin, Gary Moore, Eagles, and so on?
Thanks

I mean, Brit Floyd, Dweezil Zappa, Herschel Yatovitz from Chris Isaak Band, Brad Paisley Keith Urban -- all Axe-Fx, all not metal, all sounding stellar.
 
Last edited:
I think i agree with the op in the sense that the axe fx always sounds a bit too hi fi. Don t care about generalizing distinctions between metal or blues.

Also i ve been using fractal for over 10 years with all kinds of setup frfr or poweramp + cab, but haven t heard the lll in real life. I m sure it s still improving, but no axe lll clips yet fully capture a dirty tube sound imo. Still great an impressive gear though 😉

I never played or heard the III, nor the II, in real life, but I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who had this hi-fi feeling.
Well, this is not necessarily a disadvantage and I had it not 100% of times, it depends on what you're looking for.

In fact, no digital modeler/profiler "fully capture a dirty tube sound." The point is that any digital representation of a tube amp, it wouldn't be 100% accurate. It's always a compromise, irrespective of the name you see in the front panel of your machine. With his pros and cons, with his unique approach, but it's always copy. Only a tube amp sounds EXACTLY like a tube amp, this is why I'm not selling my heads and combos...


This^. I Own and use both units, but i much prefer the III, in it’s current point of constant evolution, it is no doubt the most powerful and fully featured unit available, and while tweaking is as deep as you want to go, the over 200 amps in the box sound wonderful at stock settings, and all levels of gain and dirt and clean are at your fingertips,
The KPA has its place to be sure, but I believe that place is with players who have real (expensive and hard to maintain) amps and a need to reproduce their signature sound on tour thru profiling...in the studio the AxeFX III has the advantage easily.
It is a slightly different situation if you are considering an AxeFX II instead of a III....that unit and the Kemper are more easily comparable ...
and at this point debate about it is pointless...get your hands on both and see how they work for you...but I’m somewhat confident you will need to
purchase 3rd party profiles or make your own to be happy..the stock presets on KPA are fairly lame IMO..and everything in the Axe is there for you already..you just have to have the motivation to dive in.

The AXE FX3 is out of question, 2600€ here in Europe.
I'm checking the used market, my options are AXE FX2 and AX8, but as I'd use it only in my home studio, an AX8 is inappropriate. The only option in the Fractal front in the AXE FX2.
Anyway, I got your suggestion and in the next weeks I'll check the AXE FX2 of my friend. I have the opportunity to play it through a Yamaha DXR10 active PA, a couple of JBL monitor speakers and another monitor speakers set I don't remember. I hope I have good impressions.
 
In fact, no digital modeler/profiler "fully capture a dirty tube sound." The point is that any digital representation of a tube amp, it wouldn't be 100% accurate. It's always a compromise, irrespective of the name you see in the front panel of your machine. With his pros and cons, with his unique approach, but it's always copy. Only a tube amp sounds EXACTLY like a tube amp, this is why I'm not selling my heads and combos...
Since you haven't tried one, especially in a blind test compared to a mic'd tube amp, I don't see how your opinion can even be considered.

And really it's not your opinion since you stated it's a "fact".

Get one and try it.

I also disagree with this "hi fi" comment as well.

By the way, I'm mostly playing low to mid gain tones and it excels at those.
 
There are tons of pros and amateurs alike using the Axe-Fx for non-metal. You have a biased world view that you're painting with when you say stuff like this.



I mean, Brit Floyd, Dweezil Zappa, Herschel Yatovitz from Chris Isaak Band, Brad Paisley -- all Axe-Fx, all not metal, all sounding stellar.
Wait! Brad Paisley is using an Axe FX??? Where is this documented?
 
Back
Top Bottom