They All Sound the Same Part Deux

Are all units, including the loaded-down amp, all using the same IR and same IR settings ?

Only asking because 3 and 4 are so different that its almost like they are using different IR's and EQ'd totally differently (?)

Ben
 
I think I have to change my vote. Since 3 and 4 had lower volumes, I ignored them, and I forgot about the rolled-back volume.
I firmly believe that 3 is the actual amp; that is the most dynamic; 4 is close to that, so that would be the ax-fx.
 
I played the 6160 model with my LP and the volume rolled back to 5 with the amp at 3 on gain and the master on 10.
If the FAS model is accurate then the real amp and FAS model have to be either #1 or #2.
Clips 3 & 4 sound like you rolled the volume to 1 on the guitar.
I hear more noise in #2 so, I will say:
#1 FAS
#2 Real amp
#3 no competition
#4 same as #3
 
I can't believe I missed this thread lol. So far my take is #1 and #2 (my fave) sound awesome, #3 sounds not as good and a bit more anemic (like the model is waaay off when dialing the knobs), #4 sounds like an exaggerated #3 (in a bad way), and #5 sounds like a "useable" copy of #1 and #2 but lacks detail and sounds harsh.
 
Cliff is secretly ear training his customers! That’s all about it...otherwise we are way passed this point of comparing modellers 🤣
 
Llisten to that comparison of mine. No dull sheen.
I certainly think comparisons you've done show Kemper "ts mids" tone (personally allergic to this, even if slight and just my taste). But other than that, arguably closer to the amp, in some other ways, perhaps.
 
Last edited:
Amp (i call this the amp cause in the first example the amp had the widest "usable" frequency range.)
Axe Fx (could be the amp, has slighty less bass than the 1st take)
Q (weird)
K (says i could sound good if you turned up your guitar but i am that product which can not react to volume pot changes as i should, could be also H)
H (Not bad but also not as good, super close though)
 
Back
Top Bottom