The perfect use for profiling?

T

Tommy Tequila

Experienced
With all the angst that accompanies FW upgrades, it seems to me that the profiling Cliff has mentioned may be the perfect solution. Is your Fenderator absolutely sublime in v4? Profile it and keep it so it won't be affected by future updates. Got your dream Max-o-grinder in 5.01? Take a profile and you are golden.

This is pure conjecture at this point, but it seems to offer the best way to snapshot and use particular models from multiple levels of firmware. It would also let you rather easily compare the profiled version with the latest/greatest to see if what you remembered about it was all really that great (might be, then again might not.)

My ultimate wish would be a way to create a profile purely within the AFXII, no external mic/routing needed. Just point the profiler at a patch and let it feed/capture the output and save it.

Just thinkin',
TT
 
This is an interesting thought. Sounds like this would be a great use for AxeII profiling. It should be interesting to see just what folks do with it once released. :)
 
Last edited:
Not assuming, but wishing...
My ultimate wish would be a way to create a profile purely within the AFXII, no external mic/routing needed. Just point the profiler at a patch and let it feed/capture the output and save it.
Click to expand...
It is probably the only option to do it form the inside and a great idea!
 
+1. Could be a perfect solution for the guys loving certain amps in various FW updates. Depends on how it all is implemented and sounds. I think I sold my "72" 1987 too soon. At least I know where it is and could borrow it for profiling... gettin' kind of exciting now...
 
Tommy Tequila said:
With all the angst that accompanies FW upgrades, it seems to me that the profiling Cliff has mentioned may be the perfect solution. Is your Fenderator absolutely sublime in v4? Profile it and keep it so it won't be affected by future updates. Got your dream Max-o-grinder in 5.01? Take a profile and you are golden.

This is pure conjecture at this point, but it seems to offer the best way to snapshot and use particular models from multiple levels of firmware. It would also let you rather easily compare the profiled version with the latest/greatest to see if what you remembered about it was all really that great (might be, then again might not.)

My ultimate wish would be a way to create a profile purely within the AFXII, no external mic/routing needed. Just point the profiler at a patch and let it feed/capture the output and save it.

Just thinkin',
TT
Click to expand...

Cool idea, but how would you profile a tone from a firmware in which profiling did not exist. Answer, a time machine. You heard it here first Cliff is building a time machine into FW 6.0


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
^ Good Question... 2 AXE II's or one fine, pristine guitar track for that purposed intent. Don't know how that would fare but I'd sure as heck would give it a go.
 
Last edited:
WISH LIST?
#1, I really like the concept
but wow, a horse of another color here. Hell, an entire different genetic make up for that matter. This is not a small request like adding sugar to your coffee.

So, when you are playing through a completed "profile", does it not get processed at all by the current FW? Unaffected? <- (I have no clue honestly).

Do you profess that the speakers, the action of electro/magnet movement of a speaker cone which moves air, is not a large component of what we are finding desirable about a perceived sound?
Is the MIC'D profile not initially an "audio", and not a "digital" based processed (a MIC is receiving "analog" input) similar to an IR in that it includes the cabinet IR as a part of the received data that the profile is utilizing?

Is this in reality like asking a Detroit car manufacturer, just after the complete their R&D for a year, "Oh, by the way, can you make it operate on pure methane gas?
 
Last edited:
All conjecture, but my *imagined* implementation would be a single 'profile' block that would basically replace the amp/cab block pair. All the other usual routings, etc., would remain as they are. Basically, you choose modeled amp/cab pair -or- a single profiled all-in-one as the primary tone. So changes to amp or cab modeling wouldn't affect my imaginary 'profile' block. Improvements to other blocks would, but I think the basic source of FW upgrade turmoil is always in the amp/cab pair.

Unless, of course, the FW updated how profiles were handled and changed the tone (eeeeek! make it stop!:) )

As for older firmware, yeah, you'd need to record the audio and process it that way (just like an actual amp.) But for future updates it would be a great way to preserve a specific tonality.

Then again, maybe I'm from Barcelona... (name that reference!)

TT
 
Last edited:
I watched a video of that Kemper profiler, but I wasn't really impressed. It didn't seem very flexible. You have to profile the same amp multiple times to get all the different channels, and it was not clear how it handled things like the tone stack. Do I have to profile the same amp on the same channel with all the different tone settings I want? Even then, there was still a noticeable difference between the amp and the profiled tone.

But the thing that bothered me the most was that the speaker was part of the profiling process. Then you have to make sure you own or have access to the cab you want to pair the amp with, and on playback you have to use FRFR because there's no way to "turn off" cab simulations. You're also stuck with whatever microphones you have access to and you'd have to profile repeatedly for different mic placements.

The whole process isn't modular enough. I think it might have a little more promise if you profiled the amp without the cab and the profiler provided some kind of load to the amp while it read the output. Obviously this could be annoying with certain combo amps, but there's no flexibility the other way.

Some kind of halfway point would be cool. If you could profile amps (without the cab) with the Axe 2 and use that to create amp "IRs" that you could load the way you can load cab IRs. Even then I'm not sure how you'd get a truly abstracted model of the amp, more like a snapshot of the amp at whatever settings you profiled it.
 
Legion said:
I watched a video of that Kemper profiler, but I wasn't really impressed. It didn't seem very flexible. You have to profile the same amp multiple times to get all the different channels, and it was not clear how it handled things like the tone stack. Do I have to profile the same amp on the same channel with all the different tone settings I want? Even then, there was still a noticeable difference between the amp and the profiled tone.

But the thing that bothered me the most was that the speaker was part of the profiling process. Then you have to make sure you own or have access to the cab you want to pair the amp with, and on playback you have to use FRFR because there's no way to "turn off" cab simulations. You're also stuck with whatever microphones you have access to and you'd have to profile repeatedly for different mic placements.

The whole process isn't modular enough. I think it might have a little more promise if you profiled the amp without the cab and the profiler provided some kind of load to the amp while it read the output. Obviously this could be annoying with certain combo amps, but there's no flexibility the other way.

Some kind of halfway point would be cool. If you could profile amps (without the cab) with the Axe 2 and use that to create amp "IRs" that you could load the way you can load cab IRs. Even then I'm not sure how you'd get a truly abstracted model of the amp, more like a snapshot of the amp at whatever settings you profiled it.
Click to expand...

I have only one question??? You are kidding, right?
 
Kidding about what? That the Axe 2 is more versatile? That it doesn't require you to own or have access to expensive high end amps to get their tones? That it doesn't look like it was designed by Fisher Price (unlike the Kemper)? No, I'm not kidding. If I had to choose between the two, I'd take the Axe FX every time.

Anyway, you seem incredulous at my opinion, why? Was their something factually wrong with what I said, or do you just disagree with my stance on profiling?
 
I'm not pro one or the other, but I'm going to buy an axe. With that said you can just profile the preamp stage...
 
Legion said:
Kidding about what? That the Axe 2 is more versatile? That it doesn't require you to own or have access to expensive high end amps to get their tones? That it doesn't look like it was designed by Fisher Price (unlike the Kemper)? No, I'm not kidding. If I had to choose between the two, I'd take the Axe FX every time.

Anyway, you seem incredulous at my opinion, why? Was their something factually wrong with what I said, or do you just disagree with my stance on profiling?
Click to expand...

I have not tried a Kemper, but a few people that I respect enough, and who also own Axe-II's , have received their Kemper in the last few days and they are really digging the tones they get from them right out of the box.

I will reserve my judgement until I try one for myself. I suggest you do the same.

I don't care if it's modeling, profiling or cloning, I will try it with an open mind. If I dig it enough , it stays.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom