IV anywhere on the horizon?

I don't see profiling as something missing that needs to be added - rather I see it as a less accurate, less flexible, less complete, more expensive alternative to fully functioning amp models. Personally, I have no interest in it, and, even if Fractal added it to function within existing hardware, I'd be disappointed at losing the unknown full amp modelling related improvements that were sacrificed to provide it.
IIRC Cliff has said a bunch of times he has no interest in profiling so I doubt it will come but.... hear me out....
As far as I can tell profilers have a few amp models/drives etc under the hood and when they "capture" the impulse response through the rig it does its best to select a model/drive etc etc and then EQ/Gains it to match the source tone. If that's the case then name me a better platform to profile amps and match them to existing modeled amps?

I know the fractal community loves the authenticity of every amp model and circuit being mapped out super accurately but the reality is there's a LARGE chunk of people out there who also love profiling their rigs and sharing profiles.

I see so many amp wishlist comments like "can we get a framus cobra added" and the responses in the thread are a bit dismissive like "A framus is just <insert amp> with <insert mod> done to it". Ok thats great, but as a guitar player I just want to use that rig for whatever reason. It's why someone would end up adding a profiler to their rig. We all know the profile isn't going to be 100% accurate but it will be more accurate than someone dialing in a tone from scratch (unless youre a complete wizard).

Anyway, I think there's a huge amount of merit to a fractal unit being able to profile and I'd love to see it in their units one day. It would be a great addition to the best modelling around, and would finally be the end game unit for covering both worlds.
 
IIRC Cliff has said a bunch of times he has no interest in profiling so I doubt it will come but.... hear me out....
As far as I can tell profilers have a few amp models/drives etc under the hood and when they "capture" the impulse response through the rig it does its best to select a model/drive etc etc and then EQ/Gains it to match the source tone. If that's the case then name me a better platform to profile amps and match them to existing modeled amps?

I know the fractal community loves the authenticity of every amp model and circuit being mapped out super accurately but the reality is there's a LARGE chunk of people out there who also love profiling their rigs and sharing profiles.

I see so many amp wishlist comments like "can we get a framus cobra added" and the responses in the thread are a bit dismissive like "A framus is just <insert amp> with <insert mod> done to it". Ok thats great, but as a guitar player I just want to use that rig for whatever reason. It's why someone would end up adding a profiler to their rig. We all know the profile isn't going to be 100% accurate but it will be more accurate than someone dialing in a tone from scratch (unless youre a complete wizard).

Anyway, I think there's a huge amount of merit to a fractal unit being able to profile and I'd love to see it in their units one day. It would be a great addition to the best modelling around, and would finally be the end game unit for covering both worlds.
I guess it's all about voting - lots of evidence to show that Fractal listens to what we say here and acts on it in terms of new features, so, in a way, we are voting with our comments related to wishes for new features. I'm not a proponent of profiling because:
  • I don't have a lot of real gear to profile nor do I really want to profile what I have - just two tube amps and a handful of drive pedals that I keep 4cm'd for when I want to hear/feel real amps/pedals. Edit > As far as buying / trading profiles, seems unlikely to me someone else's profile settings would match my tastes - same experience I have with other's Axfx presets - a rarity they hit the mark of what I'd want, but at least in the case of 3rd pty Axfx presets I can still use it as a starting point and change it - not sure what I'd do with a 3rd pty profile that can't be stretched to suit my taste and the fundamental settings are locked into it and not accessible.
  • I am pretty happy with the models available in Axefx, and prefer a full realistic amp presented for me to tweak - edit > just like I have the real amp in front of me and I'm futzing with the gain / mv / bmt - if I want a snapshot in time I have a snapshot feature for that also.
  • I have modifiers hooked up to change parameters in real time - i.e. most of my presets have an expression pedal configured to take gain from edge to full saturation along with related tone adjustment - not sure profiling can accommodate this as realistically
  • I don't like taking the time to do profiles - we've had tone matching for years and I rarely use it because I'm lazy - I don't want to be going through a profiling process every time I want a new sound. With a full amp models, I'm able to dial in a tone in seconds (I tend to like the defaults)
  • there's a long long list of wishes, many of which I'd likely prefer to have implemented in lieu of profiling so it's not like "oh well if they'll give us profiling, great I'll take it even if I don't need it" - something else on the list will be sacrificed and it's highly likely that something would be a feature I'd like to have more than profiling.
As you say profiling is great for those who are into it, and I understand the attraction (maybe I will want it some day), just not something I'm inclined to vote for currently.

Edit: Fractal has tended to outperform the comp on everything they put on the box, my guess is that some kind of Fractal take on profiling is on the target list regardless of votes counted here.
 
Last edited:
I guess it's all about voting - lots of evidence to show that Fractal listens to what we say here and acts on it in terms of new features, so, in a way, we are voting with our comments related to wishes for new features. I'm not a proponent of profiling because:
  • I don't have a lot of real gear to profile nor do I really want to profile what I have - just two tube amps and a handful of drive pedals that I keep 4cm'd for when I want to hear/feel real amps/pedals,
  • I am pretty happy with the models available in Axefx, and prefer a full realistic amp presented for me to tweak.
  • I have modifiers hooked up to change parameters in real time - i.e. most of my presets have an expression pedal configured to take gain from edge to full saturation along with related tone adjustment - not sure profiling can accommodate this as realistically
  • I don't like taking the time to do profiles - we've had tone matching for years and I rarely use it because I'm lazy - I don't want to be going through a profiling process every time I want a new sound. With a full amp models, I'm able to dial in a tone in seconds (I tend to like the defaults)
  • there's a long long list of wishes, many of which I'd likely prefer to have implemented in lieu of profiling so it's not like "oh well if they'll give us profiling, great I'll take it even if I don't need it" - something else on the list will be sacrificed and it's highly likely that something would be a feature I'd like to have more than profiling.
As you say profiling is great for those who are into it, and I understand the attraction (maybe I will want it some day), just not something I'm inclined to vote for currently.

Edit: Fractal has tended to outperform the comp on everything they put on the box, my guess is that profiling is on the target list regardless of votes counted here.

Fair points, I'd just love to try some boutique gear that realistically is never going to be modelled by Fractal. It would be great for someone to have the ability to profile it, have the fractal models do the best they can to simulate the profile and then be available to share around.
 
My first real foray into modeling was a profiling amp and it kept me away from modeling for the better part of a decade. The idea of having access to peoples rare gear is nice, but it also is a rabbit hole bugs bunny would get lost in. I spent so much time (and money), even with common amps trying to find the best version. With Fractal, and I’m using the cheapest new modeler they make, I usually find almost instant gratification. Tweaks are minor and playtime is up. I understand why some people want the function, but I mostly feel it’s a rule of diminishing returns scenario
 
My unsophisticated thoughts on profiling: the goal is realism, so you’re always better off with modeling; then you’re at least able realistically to dial it in for your guitar, not just alter in a weird way what someone else thought was best for their guitar.
 
My unsophisticated thoughts on profiling: the goal is realism, so you’re always better off with modeling; then you’re at least able realistically to dial it in for your guitar, not just alter in a weird way what someone else thought was best for their guitar.

But I thought you don't need a guitar to make the profile?
 
But I thought you don't need a guitar to make the profile?
The guitar doesn't influence the profiling process, but he's trying to say that profiles are less flexible than amp models and that any tone-shaping flexibility they have tends to sound unnatural. I'd agree that amp models are more flexible, but deviating from the sound of a profile using the onboard tone controls sounds no more unnatural than using pre/post EQ, in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Ex Kemper owner.
  • I prefer almost 300 (...300, not 30, 300) perfectly modeled amps that I can really tweak to death rather than
  • infinite profiles unusable, or that sounds the same, or poorly taken or taken by me in a non-pro environment.
I'm an ex-KPA owner, as well. I think a lot of people forget that the amp/cab in a studio profile can be decoupled and recombined with other amps/cabs; that opened up entirely new tonal palettes for me and had the potential to make previously unusable profiles sound great. However, in my case, after 5 years of use, the main reason I sold my KPA was that I found myself using the Axe-Fx III 95% of the time.
 
It seems like people are missing the point if Fractal added profiling to it's feature set, it's not a "modelling vs profiling" debate on which approach yields faster results. The way I envision it is a new "rig profile" block which would basically replace an amp/cab. You would still have access to all Fractal has to offer, but this is an extra feature.

I think it's extremely short sighted to not see the potential in how awesome this would be on a Fractal unit being able to share profiled rigs/pedals/cabs etc. It puts a lot more power into the users hands to profile boutique/custom/signature rigs and share them around.
You want an extremely detailed 5153? Pull up the fractal model. You want a profiled rig of a 5153 with some boutique overdrive pedals boosting it? Pull up a user profile.
 
My unsophisticated thoughts on profiling: the goal is realism, so you’re always better off with modeling; then you’re at least able realistically to dial it in for your guitar, not just alter in a weird way what someone else thought was best for their guitar.
The primary goal of profiling is to accurately capture the sound of a miked rig at a specific setting. It's fairly easy to tweak a profile to suit a given guitar using the onboard tone controls. Now, while the KPA's tone controls don't react authentically, they're extremely powerful and very musical. Having said that, Tone Match offers some of the same benefits and is far more flexible.
 
Last edited:
Profiling is patented and I've been threatened more than once by Kemper's attorneys.

Using neural networks is possible but training a NN takes hours and requires hardware that a consumer modeler would not have (i.e. inference accelerators).

That said, my tests have shown that white-box modeling outperforms profiling and NN in terms of accuracy and aliasing. Whether that sounds "better" is subjective.
 
Profiling is patented and I've been threatened more than once by Kemper's attorneys.

Using neural networks is possible but training a NN takes hours and requires hardware that a consumer modeler would not have (i.e. inference accelerators).

That said, my tests have shown that white-box modeling outperforms profiling and NN in terms of accuracy and aliasing. Whether that sounds "better" is subjective.

Can you expand on what you said previously that you had something better in the works? (paraphrasing). Those patents have to run out at some point too i'm guessing.
 
That said, my tests have shown that white-box modeling outperforms profiling and NN in terms of accuracy and aliasing. Whether that sounds "better" is subjective.
Had a Kemper, have a QC (and of course an Axe III and FM3).
Profiling is a blast when you want instant gratification of copying 'your' amp.
But when you a/b back and forth, man that aliasing difference is real.
Play the Fractal for 10 minutes, nice and smooth on the top end.....flip to the QC and man it's got this (only word I can think of is) harshness on the top end. It doesn't bother me if I just play the QC, but if I use the Fractal first, and my ears get adjusted to it....the flip to the QC just hits me the wrong way. That does NOT happen when I go from QC to Fractal.

Would I like to have Fractal profiling? Of course! But patents are patents....and we need to embrace the killer features we already have in the Fractal.
 
You heard 'em, Fractal. Better pack up operations.

Just joshin' ya.

Really the next wave of products will need:
-New UI (this is by far the #1 reason I read online where people chose a competitor's product)
- Much smaller form factor for floor units. Definitely gotta keep up with the likes of HX Stomp and QC here. I personally just can't lug the FM9.
-A suite of fullres IRs - maybe not a MUST but a great selling point
-Either profiling capability to profile pedals like the QC, or an update for pedal offerings. While I love what Fractal has, a decent numver of users at least on TGP say they prefer what Helix offers.

I agree that this generation is truly "there", but I think they can keep advancing and offering more.

-Agree 100% on UI/workflow. Next iteration needs a Touchscreen. Everything in our world is touchscreen at this point, anything less will feel dated... The competitors have closed the gap enough in terms of tone (FAS is still best) that many will use UI/workflow as a 'tiebreaker' when choosing a product (I know at least 5 other real-life friend guitarists who've told me this).

-Form Factor is fine as-is. HX Stomp/QC buttons are too close together.

-There are enough IR options as-is. Easy to add more.

-AXE has tonematching? AXE is in the modeling business, not profiling.

Seems like you are basing your opinion on what you read (on TGP). That's not really the benchmark.

Who cares where his opinions come from? It's normal for consumers to pick and choose features from various products and (mentally) create the ideal... Personally, I'd be thrilled if FAS modeling came in a Helix Floor and a touchscreen (inspired by QC).

edit - I just realized these posts are old - but whatever
 
Last edited:
The guitar doesn't influence the profiling process
No no. This is what I tried to say to @Bodde
As it seems it don’t really know how profiling works in the kemper : The « refine » session at the end of the profiling process with the guitar is part of the profile and it’s « important ».

But yes in the end I prefer the sound of the 3 so … I don’t miss the kemper at all.
I had fun micing the amps but that’s all. The result is not good enough as it is always synthetic whatever profiles you try or do.
 
No no. This is what I tried to say to @Bodde
As it seems it don’t really know how profiling works in the kemper : The « refine » session at the end of the profiling process with the guitar is part of the profile and it’s « important ».
In a typical profiling session, the guitar has little (if any) influence on the outcome of the refining process, at least in my experience. I mean, I have influenced the outcome of the refining process, but I had to add an EQ and introduce huge differences in frequency response to do it.
 
Back
Top Bottom