June 15, 2022. The day the Kemper Profiler patent expires.

[Greg Ferguson]

Also, @Greg Ferguson came out with an excellent analogy of profiling vs modeling. I can't seem to find it at the moment, but it related to photography. Maybe he can chime in with a brief recap of that?

This bit of doggerel?

I think of a profiler, like the Kemper, as buying a photograph and wanting to turn it into a piece of art. It’s only going to be as good as the photograph you started with; as we say in programming, “garbage in, garbage out.”

A modeler is akin to buying a camera and wanting to create a piece of art:

• A cheap camera, like a disposable, will limit the quality of the photograph but will be easy to use.
• A medium-quality point and shoot camera can do more and can automate more and can be adjusted more but it still has limitations.
• Fractal’s modelers are like pro-quality Nikon or Canon top-end cameras, with a great lens and controls that let you adjust almost everything. You can use great factory presets or dive in and adjust and do it all manually and the capability will never restrict you, only your imagination and your knowledge and expertise will limit you. They are daunting with a learning curve but not insurmountable.

 

[hippietim]

Profiling is built on modeling. The Kemper and the QC have to have one or more amp simulations built with all sorts of internal parameters. A profile is a matter of adjusting the parameters of an amp simulation to match a given input waveform. They both have a bit of compression that makes them "feel" decent. From there, the controls available to you do not work like the real amp.

This approach to producing amp sounds is good for people out there that don't want to dial in their gear themselves. They want an instant tone and don't care much about adjusting the amp controls. This is why almost every Kemper out there has the Michael Britt profiles or some other professionally done set of profiles. If Fractal wants to attract this crowd, then adding profiling makes sense.

Personally, I prefer the approach that Fractal has taken to simulating amps. There's no artificial compression, amp controls work like they're supposed to, and I don't have to spend time and money seeking good profiles.

I get why there's profiles of every amp out there but I don't get the obsession with modeling every single amp in existence. Sooo many of these amps sound sooo similar. And with all of the tone shaping tools available with the Fractal platform it shouldn't be too hard to make it sound like what you want. I would agree that there's some room for growth with solid state amp simulations.

 

[sprint]

I don't get the obsession with modeling every single amp in existence

Not sure there's too many who want every amp modelled, but, many amps have avid followers who want that specific amp modelled along with the special nuances those avid followers love.

 

[hippietim]

Not sure there's too many who want every amp modelled, but, many amps have avid followers who want that amp modelled.

And the net effect of these followers is that there are requests to model every amp.

 

[sprint]

And the net effect of these followers is that there are requests to model every amp

yup! - Axefx models amps - and accuracy is one
of its claims to fame, so stands to reason that, as the user base grows with more Axe users who often have specific real amp preferences, models of many many amps is gonna be requested. What else would one expext?

 

[BBN]

And the net effect of these followers is that there are requests to model every amp.

Should I topic swerve this thread into a - "I want a Randall amp in the Axe III" thread???

Kidding...kidding....