AxeFX III and « profiler » block....?

I can't believe there's this many people falling for the "profiling" gimmick. We already have a tone match block, but you all want a "profiling" block because the kemper calls it by a different name? Yes, I know the kemper process for "profiling" is different than using a tone match block. But they achieve the same the same result, except profiling is the only thing the kemper can do.
 
Last edited:
I can't believe there's this many people falling for the "profiling" gimmick. We already have a tone match block, but you all want a "profiling" block because the kemper calls it by a different name? Yes, I know the kemper process for "profiling" is different than using a tone match block. But they achieve the same the same result, except profiling is the only thing the kemper can do.
As you said profiling is different than tonematch because it also measures and replicates the non-linearities of the system by crossfading between 2 IRs. But despite it sounding quite good, I agree that it's a "gimmick" because:

A) it's just a snapshot of an amp with knobs set at a certain position.
It could be done much better with multiple IRs and controls mapping (basically what Acustica-Audio Nebula plugin does).

B) quote from the patent:
"the nonlinearity always delivers the same out put value for the same input value, regardless of the previous course of the signal."
This means that it doesn't account for time-dependent non-linearities.
If you record a single note with a looper and play that note twice 1 second apart thru the kemper, the output of those two notes will be exactly identical. Something that doesn't happen in real amps or in the axe fx where the various stages of the amplifier have different recovery times. Basically the first note has an influence on the sound of the second note.

C) for the 2 reasons above, the assumption that a profile sounds identical to the original amp is just (a quite powerful) marketing BS.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom