More thoughts on my experience with Kemper and Axefx II

Axe Fx, Kemper, Two notes, all have colors to add to the tone. I like to blend many signals and stagger volume levels while distributing the various signals in quadraphonic configuration, Mackies HR824s, 2x10 and 2x12 cabs or more. I find the Axe Fx works best leading the tone stack in front of multiple tube amps, effect processors and cabs. The quest for me has been to control all this at reasonable volume levels and yet retain the dynamics and energy of a 100 watt amp hitting the sweet spot. With a midi foot controller one button can change the preset on the Axe Fx, the effects with the tube amps, the Torpedo Studio, any other gear resulting in Sonic Bliss. The problem is the excessive cost!
 
Last edited:
TieDyedDevil said:
I own an Axe-FX, a KPA and an 11R. The Kemper is my least favorite of the three for reasons already noted: sub-par effects, limited amp authenticity (the whole bit about needing a different profile to accurately capture different control settings) and lots of "sketchy" profiles.

To that list, I'll add:

1) A really horrible UI. Personally, the lack of an editor doesn't bother me in the least. I don't miss an editor for the KPA and don't use the editor for the AFX. I do, however, expect the front-panel UI to be easy to navigate with a minimum of practice.

2) How many years with *still* no reverb in front of the amp...?

3) The system boot delay is ridiculously long. The last time I checked it was up to something like 80 seconds. No, I don't have thousands of profiles: just the stock profiles and a very small number of commercial profiles.

4) The entire unit is insufficiently documented. Yes, there are big, thick, nicely-formatted manuals. They don't say much. For example: try to find a definitive answer, either in the manuals or on the forum, regarding the effect of various settings on the profiling process. Or try to get a straight answer about how the tone-shaping controls relate to each other or to anything else. Good luck...
Click to expand...


I agree there were any things I liked about the kemper but when I compared it to my axe fx 2 I preferred the axe fx, and at first believe me I did not want to. I was convinced I would stick with the Kemper and sell the axe fx , but it turned out I much preferred the axe 2 sounds ,the foot controller and axe edit make programming so easy. I still have few tube amps but mostly play through my axe fx.
 
I recently purchased a Kemper and use it in the loop of the Axe. They work awesome together. I've found some excellent profiles for the Kemper that work so well complementing the effects in the Axe. I don't plan on selling my Axe at all. And It's so nice to have access to some of the fantastic profiles for the Kemper. The Axe is awesome, no doubt about it, and both units can definitely be friends. They truly sound outstanding together.
 
Kemper user here (who is interested in switching to axe fx). I wanted to comment on this thread to mention what I see as the biggest differences between the kemper and the axe fx. I am discovering more and more how much control I like to have over different parameters in a tone. I am a huge fan of bands like Plini and Periphery, and bands like these have remarkable crisp and detailed tones. As I am putting in the work to make tones in a similar vain, I am discovering the downside of the kemper.

There are too many things out of the users control. Every single rig that exists is a simulation of a real rig someone else made. They can sound great and natural from the get go! But in comparison to the AXE fx, hands are tied in many ways. I find, in order to get closest to the tone I am going for, I actually cant even edit the Amplifier, EQ or Cabinet, because it diminishes the quality of the starting point. This is because it uniformly applies the same processing to every tone. Its not adjusting the tone like the original amp would adjust the tone (which the axe fx tries to emulate), its taking the starting profile and the kemper is adjusting frequencies in a single uniform way. SO, when listening with a fine ear you can hear a loss in quality from any adjustments that are made. If something sounds better from the adjustments, it means the starting point was not ideal enough. Once realizing this, it means the quest for ideal tone means finding the BEST possible starting point. But that requires sifting through all the free online tones, or paying for them. And I am not exactly excited about paying for tones on a product as expensive as this in the first place. And once a tone is found that is deemed a cut above the rest, it leaves a heavy burden on the 8 available effects blocks to attempt to get the tone to compete with something like the axe fx (in terms of getting a detailed tone seen by bands like those mentioned above). I use 4 studio EQs (or 5), a graphic EQ, a compressor, a noise gate and then if there is room some reverb at the end. And the sad bit of this detail.... the effects of the kemper are widely acknowledged as worse than the axe fx. The EQs, compressors and noise gates have done good by me, but I am just mentioning the general opinion held by everyone. And since the effects blocks are the last stretch to catch the tones up to the axe fx, this is not a good detail.

Here is the pro of the kemper. It certainly sounds more natural, in a rigs default state anyways. If you are not a knob tweaker, you will get pleasing and authentic sounding results easier out of the kemper. If you are a tweaker (which as it turns out I am), the axe fx is more ideal.

A personal frustration I have with the Kemper, is that each rig is a crap shoot in every way. Both in the quality of the profile, and the settings the uploader decided to apply. Not to mention, the kemper will never be able to compare with how the axe fx translates across different mediums, because every profile has some degree of a room impression. which makes the sound of it register as less upfront. and there is no way to do anything about this, it is intrinsic to the fundamental function of the kemper. This is just another thing inhibiting control.

One of the main proponents people have mentioned to me regarding the kemper is that "its a copy of a real amp, the axe fx is a companies impression of an amp". What they dont mention is that the controllable perameters literally pale in comparison. The axe fxs realms for control leave it in the kings seat for recording purposes.

Final thoughts. Sure, the kemper sounds nicer from a starting point and more natural. but if you want control over what you do, with the best translation over different speaker systems, go for an axe fx. If you really don't like putting work into your tone, then maybe go for a kemper. These have all been the thoughts from a kemper owner, not a salty axe fx owner.
 
hey @jzucker , nice to hear from ya, and as an owner and user of multiple FAS units as well as Kemper, agree with your assessment. Andy's presets can be stellar (i enjoy his Lazy J collection), but for me the only thing that keep me returning (occasionally) to the lunchbox are some of MBritt's stuff, particularly the Guytron amp, with, no tweaking, can reach all kinds of Dumblesque and other ear-pleasing tones. ), but for the sheer magic of total control in the AXeFx and the very real feeling that owning this box is kinda like watching evolution in high -speed progress, FAS is pretty hip.
 
layne murdoch said:
I am discovering the downside of the kemper.

There are too many things out of the users control. Every single rig that exists is a simulation of a real rig someone else made. They can sound great and natural from the get go! But in comparison to the AXE fx, hands are tied in many ways. I find, in order to get closest to the tone I am going for, I actually cant even edit the Amplifier, EQ or Cabinet, because it diminishes the quality of the starting point. This is because it uniformly applies the same processing to every tone. Its not adjusting the tone like the original amp would adjust the tone (which the axe fx tries to emulate), its taking the starting profile and the kemper is adjusting frequencies in a single uniform way. SO, when listening with a fine ear you can hear a loss in quality from any adjustments that are made. If something sounds better from the adjustments, it means the starting point was not ideal enough. Once realizing this, it means the quest for ideal tone means finding the BEST possible starting point.
Click to expand...

Nailed it ... !

I can't remember where I saw it, but Michael Britt was interviewed and he said when he 'profiles' a rig, he makes multiple profiles at different settings in order to maintain the realism across the tonal spectrum of a particular amp ....

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm always trying to cut down on the overall number of presets that I use .... Not increase them exponentially based on the number of Amps I want to use !
 
layne murdoch said:
There are too many things out of the users control. Every single rig that exists is a simulation of a real rig someone else made. They can sound great and natural from the get go! But in comparison to the AXE fx, hands are tied in many ways. I find, in order to get closest to the tone I am going for, I actually cant even edit the Amplifier, EQ or Cabinet, because it diminishes the quality of the starting point. This is because it uniformly applies the same processing to every tone. Its not adjusting the tone like the original amp would adjust the tone (which the axe fx tries to emulate), its taking the starting profile and the kemper is adjusting frequencies in a single uniform way. SO, when listening with a fine ear you can hear a loss in quality from any adjustments that are made. If something sounds better from the adjustments, it means the starting point was not ideal enough. Once realizing this, it means the quest for ideal tone means finding the BEST possible starting point.
Click to expand...

When using a PEQ or Filter block, the tone doesn't respond just like it would when manipulating the tone controls on the amp, either. Deviating from the standard amp tone controls may just as often improve the sound as diminish it. It all depends on who's twisting the knobs. The Axe does offer 4 PEQ, 4 GEQ and 4 Filter blocks, after all, and a lot of Axe owners use one or more PEQ blocks because they can't get the results they want using the standard tone controls. Then there's the Tone Match feature, which definitely can contort the sound in ways that deviate completely from the standard amp controls.

layne murdoch said:
And the sad bit of this detail.... the effects of the kemper are widely acknowledged as worse than the axe fx. The EQs, compressors and noise gates have done good by me, but I am just mentioning the general opinion held by everyone. And since the effects blocks are the last stretch to catch the tones up to the axe fx, this is not a good detail.
Click to expand...

Regardless what some people say, the KPA's effects are quite good, in my opinion. The problem is that the unit doesn't offer enough parameter control overall. That said, the delays sound excellent, and while the reverbs aren't on par with the Axe, they still sound quite good, in my opinion. There's just a lack of tweakability.

layne murdoch said:
the kemper will never be able to compare with how the axe fx translates across different mediums, because every profile has some degree of a room impression. which makes the sound of it register as less upfront. and there is no way to do anything about this, it is intrinsic to the fundamental function of the kemper.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, that slightly distant (less upfront) quality is actually what allows the KPA to sit so darn well in a mix, and it's an attribute I often try to emulate in the Axe. To my ears, it's that quality that provides the sense that I'm actually hearing an amp that was recorded in a room rather than recorded direct.
 
R.D. said:
I can't remember where I saw it, but Michael Britt was interviewed and he said when he 'profiles' a rig, he makes multiple profiles at different settings in order to maintain the realism across the tonal spectrum of a particular amp ....
Click to expand...

The PDF that's included with Michael Britt's profile packs notes that he profiles amps at various gain settings but likes to keep the EQ section as flat as possible in order to give users plenty of room to adjust the tone as necessary. Many profiles are variations in gain and amp channels.
 
I'll actually keep this short for a change because you guys all nailed it...

My experience with Kemper is...it's decent, I can see why people use it and have it...it has a place, but I'm glad I chose Fractal instead. My biggest issues with Kemper....

1. I hate the look of that toaster amp

2. Lack of editing compared to Axe

3. It reminds me of editing a sample. When you try to edit samples in a sampler and get too far away from how they were recorded/achieved, you lose everything. Like, there is no happy medium to make something work for you that was created for or by someone else. Case in point...we can go to our free preset library here on our site and grab a preset. It may not work right for us out of the box...but with a little work and know-how, you can usually dial something in that works...or you can modify it in some way to make it work for you. With Kemper..in my experience, it either works for you or it doesn't in that situation.

That said, I have had some luck with it creating a few useful tones. I'm really not meaning to sound biased or bash on it. It's good, I just prefer what I have due to all the other great things that happen for me when I do use my Fractal gear. So far I've had about 6 Kemper's here in the studio. 2 of which were left here for quite a while for me to mess with. Would I buy one? Probably not. Between my Fractal gear, my outboard gear and various VST plugins...I'm set with guitar tones for life. :)
 
I bought a Kemper rack because my brother has a Kemper rig.

It's a good platform. I haven't take the time to delve into it like the Fractal.

One thing I like is the way the I/O works. You can get W/D tracks in one pass without special rig programming. Wish we had that on the Fractal.
 
Danny Danzi said:
With Kemper..in my experience, it either works for you or it doesn't in that situation.
Click to expand...

I've had a lot of occasions where a profile is either too dark or there's not enough gain, for instance, and both are fairly easy to rectify. If a profile is somewhat close to my intended tone, I can generally get what I want out of it with a bit of tweaking. One of the things I do like about the KPA is that the tone controls are fairly musical, but that said there are times when it's just faster to find another profile.
 
layne murdoch said:
Kemper user here (who is interested in switching to axe fx). I wanted to comment on this thread to mention what I see as the biggest differences between the kemper and the axe fx. I am discovering more and more how much control I like to have over different parameters in a tone. I am a huge fan of bands like Plini and Periphery, and bands like these have remarkable crisp and detailed tones. As I am putting in the work to make tones in a similar vain, I am discovering the downside of the kemper.

There are too many things out of the users control. Every single rig that exists is a simulation of a real rig someone else made. They can sound great and natural from the get go! But in comparison to the AXE fx, hands are tied in many ways. I find, in order to get closest to the tone I am going for, I actually cant even edit the Amplifier, EQ or Cabinet, because it diminishes the quality of the starting point. This is because it uniformly applies the same processing to every tone. Its not adjusting the tone like the original amp would adjust the tone (which the axe fx tries to emulate), its taking the starting profile and the kemper is adjusting frequencies in a single uniform way. SO, when listening with a fine ear you can hear a loss in quality from any adjustments that are made. If something sounds better from the adjustments, it means the starting point was not ideal enough. Once realizing this, it means the quest for ideal tone means finding the BEST possible starting point. But that requires sifting through all the free online tones, or paying for them. And I am not exactly excited about paying for tones on a product as expensive as this in the first place. And once a tone is found that is deemed a cut above the rest, it leaves a heavy burden on the 8 available effects blocks to attempt to get the tone to compete with something like the axe fx (in terms of getting a detailed tone seen by bands like those mentioned above). I use 4 studio EQs (or 5), a graphic EQ, a compressor, a noise gate and then if there is room some reverb at the end. And the sad bit of this detail.... the effects of the kemper are widely acknowledged as worse than the axe fx. The EQs, compressors and noise gates have done good by me, but I am just mentioning the general opinion held by everyone. And since the effects blocks are the last stretch to catch the tones up to the axe fx, this is not a good detail.

Here is the pro of the kemper. It certainly sounds more natural, in a rigs default state anyways. If you are not a knob tweaker, you will get pleasing and authentic sounding results easier out of the kemper. If you are a tweaker (which as it turns out I am), the axe fx is more ideal.

A personal frustration I have with the Kemper, is that each rig is a crap shoot in every way. Both in the quality of the profile, and the settings the uploader decided to apply. Not to mention, the kemper will never be able to compare with how the axe fx translates across different mediums, because every profile has some degree of a room impression. which makes the sound of it register as less upfront. and there is no way to do anything about this, it is intrinsic to the fundamental function of the kemper. This is just another thing inhibiting control.

One of the main proponents people have mentioned to me regarding the kemper is that "its a copy of a real amp, the axe fx is a companies impression of an amp". What they dont mention is that the controllable perameters literally pale in comparison. The axe fxs realms for control leave it in the kings seat for recording purposes.

Final thoughts. Sure, the kemper sounds nicer from a starting point and more natural. but if you want control over what you do, with the best translation over different speaker systems, go for an axe fx. If you really don't like putting work into your tone, then maybe go for a kemper. These have all been the thoughts from a kemper owner, not a salty axe fx owner.
Click to expand...

Everything you said here are reasons why I went with Fractal as opposed to Kemper. I think the Kemper amps sound great, really I do. I did so much research on each unit (and a bunch of other ones, but the two winners of the first round were Fractal and Kemper), and what I found was that as much as both sound great, I'd be limited with the Kemper by the lack of effect parameters, and the amps being a bit more static (though in my opinion they sounded better out of the box than Fractals default presets). One of my goals was also to scale down the size and weight of my rig, and I felt that I'd need to add more outboard effects/gear to the Kemper to get it working the way I'd like. I'm happy with my choice, but I could still see myself getting a Kemper in the future for getting really specific sounds (there are some really nice profiles out there). I think some extremely cool sounds could be had by running the two in parallel.
 
DestructionSphere said:
Everything you said here are reasons why I went with Fractal as opposed to Kemper. I think the Kemper amps sound great, really I do. I did so much research on each unit (and a bunch of other ones, but the two winners of the first round were Fractal and Kemper), and what I found was that as much as both sound great, I'd be limited with the Kemper by the lack of effect parameters, and the amps being a bit more static (though in my opinion they sounded better out of the box than Fractals default presets). One of my goals was also to scale down the size and weight of my rig, and I felt that I'd need to add more outboard effects/gear to the Kemper to get it working the way I'd like. I'm happy with my choice, but I could still see myself getting a Kemper in the future for getting really specific sounds (there are some really nice profiles out there). I think some extremely cool sounds could be had by running the two in parallel.
Click to expand...

I run the Kemper in the loop of the Axe-FX and it's a match made in heaven. I do use the Axe's amps from time to time, but I mostly use the XL for its effects in conjunction with the Kemper's profiles. The two are a pretty unstoppable combination. I used to like tweaking, but I've really come to appreciate auditioning entire rigs and tweaking as little as possible. With the Axe and Kemper together, you can do stuff like use the cabs in the Axe in conjunction with the Kemper's amps and vice versa. You can also run effects in front and behind the Kemper when it's in the loop. If you can afford both, I can't recommend it highly enough.
 
Jason Scott said:
I run the Kemper in the loop of the Axe-FX and it's a match made in heaven. I do use the Axe's amps from time to time, but I mostly use the XL for its effects in conjunction with the Kemper's profiles. The two are a pretty unstoppable combination. I used to like tweaking, but I've really come to appreciate auditioning entire rigs and tweaking as little as possible. With the Axe and Kemper together, you can do stuff like use the cabs in the Axe in conjunction with the Kemper's amps and vice versa. You can also run effects in front and behind the Kemper when it's in the loop. If you can afford both, I can't recommend it highly enough.
Click to expand...

Have you used an amp from the axe FX using a cab in the kemper? If so do you find they work well together if decently matched?
 
bke said:
Have you used an amp from the axe FX using a cab in the kemper? If so do you find they work well together if decently matched?
Click to expand...

Yes and yes. If I'm only using the amps from the Axe FX and disable the cab sim in the Kemper but leave everything else at the default for a given profile, there are some excellent tones to be had.
 
Thank you for sharing-

I used the AXEFX2, which I sold for the AX8 (better for gigs but I really miss the lack of processing power).
What I really like is the pitch shifter quality of the Kemper. If I would have it, I would just load a dumblesque patch for crunch and lead, a NEVE preamp for clean, and an "industrial" metal/NineInchNails sound. Those are my main 4 sounds, the rest is all about eq, compression, delays, envelope filters and reverbs...
For this reason I believe the AxeFx is still the best machine for me, but its pitch shifting algorithms are SO bad... once you tried the Kemper formant pitch shifters, it's difficult to go back. Even my Eventide Eclipse doesn't sound so good.

I hope Cliff will rewrite the algorithm soon.
I'm waiting for the Axe3 in the meantime ;)
 
My first post her and just wanted to say - what an awesome read for anyone (like myself) trying to decide. When on the FAS forum you are not afraid to give the Kemper credit it has to be fairly unbiased info.

I am pretty picky - as in a metal guy who doesn't like Mesa - and I've tried a lot of sims, though not Axe Fx or Kemper yet. From Guitar Rig 5 I have ONE useful lead tone and from the free "Le__" amps I can get a rhythm tone at least bearable. Stuff like Mercurial and BIAS; absolutely nothing!

I was almost convinced about Axe Fx until a buddy got a Kemper and I started to assess from the "other side". By now I am convinced the Kemper would be natural enough sounding unlike the products mentioned above, but I also think I would feel too limited for the exact reasons you all mention above.

At this point I am leaning towards AX8 because even if I would be too picky for the sims it would still be worth everything and more as a high end effects processor and midi controller. Maybe that's even the real stroke of genius from Cliff about the AX8.

One question: I am currently using Two Notes C.A.B (no load box) speaker sims. How do the FAS speaker sims compare?
 
jzucker said:
The weakness of the kemper though is that the amps are profiled through a given speaker cab. What I have found is that the vast majority of profiles on the kemper were created with distorted amps or with amps turned up to the point of clipping and/or with tone controls set way higher than what a jazz guitarist would want. This causes boomyness and/or gritty sounds that are undesireable to a jazz guitarist. You are also limited by what speaker the amp happened to have. Many twin reverbs or fender amps in general have weak speakers that break up easily when you use a hollowbody with heavy strings through them. With the axefx, the speaker is totally decoupled from the amp so you can pick whatever cabinet you want to use with your amp, plus you can purchase other cabinets with other speakers. For example, I'm going to purchase some JBL speaker impulses to add to my axefx. ...
Click to expand...

This isn't true, you can profile the Amp without capturing the cab and later use different cabs...this wasn't always the case and was a more recent edition.



jzucker said:
Additionally, the tone controls on the kemper are fixed whereas the axefx tone controls are actually the correct frequencies, taper, etc, and feel more like the real thing
Click to expand...

Has anyone ever made a video ABing a couple of amps with the Axe-Fx/AX8 tone controls? I'd love to see it for curiosity!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom