Why would anyone buy a Kemper over the Axe-FX II?

Patriotism? I notice Captain Lee and Chappers at Andrrtons in UK have reviewed Kemper but don't seem to give Axefx much, if any, airtime.
 
Rockguitarzan said:
I bought a Kemper . I love the sounds it makes and ease of use.
Click to expand...

I really want to tiptoe around this without starting the you-know-what debate...

With all the improvements to FX we're looking at over here, I am seriously thinking about rebuilding my rack to include a KPA in the AFXII's loop so that I quit redlining on CPU usage.
Axe's amps obviously sound stellar, but on the used market I'm likely to save some bones going the KPA route, and since I don't need a 2nd AFXII for more effects, this just kinda' makes more sense.

BUT... my understanding is that all FX in the AFXII are on one core and amp models on another. Would I really be saving any, for lack of a better term, horsepower in doing this?
 
Coldsummer said:
I'm glad that BOTH exist. I'd like to try a Kemper at some point just for the hell of it but I couldn't be happier with my AFX II.
Click to expand...

THIS. Competition is what drives improvement (though I'll never jump ship from FAS). I respect Kemper and it's a cool product (Line6 stuff too), but FAS is my weapon of choice.
 
Sixstring said:
That's because they don't sell it... They are not going to spend time reviewing something that they don't sell and that makes sense.
Click to expand...

Of course that had occurred to me, but the two of them are so enthusiastically dedicated to guitar gear overall, and they have such a large youtube presence (Rob Chapman has a large following separate from Andertons), that one would think they'd at least have to acknowledge the existence of the Axefx to retain maximum credibility as balanced reviewers of guitar stuff.
 
Last edited:
I don’t own a Kemper, but have had access to one for long period of times, sometimes more than one month, and have tested it extensively. I tried thousands of profiles from rig exchange, thousands from commercial profile sellers ; I profiled my own presets, captured Kemper’s cabs, tonematched Kemper profiles, and here’s some observations.

The biggest advantage of the profiler is ease of use. With the right profiles it is a really good sounding plug and play machine. However, I had trouble finding profiles I like as much as my own Axe II presets. I find some for crunch sounds (Marshall and all) or some boutique amps. I didn’t find any for cleans or high gain and had to make my own. So, in my view, unless you have something to profile yourself, you’re dependent on what is available, free or commercial. It’s a big problem for me , specially that tweakability is quite limited – I’m not a fan of the generic tonestack, the EQ is missing LPF/HPF options, there’s not enough options for the delays etc, and swapping the cabs, besides being an approximation (up to now, soon to be corrected apparently - despite claims from the start that it was an « exact » separation), seems a paradox to me in a machine who’s philosophy is to model the whole chain, from amp to cab. However, it’s just my personal feeling and many Kemper users who don’t make their own profiles are pleased with that they found in the rig exchange, or from commercial profiles sellers.

My own Kemper backup of the best rigs available (again, commercial and free), from all genres/amp models, is about approximately 170 profiles (besides my own 150+ Axe II profiles). I tonematched 27 of these profiles, those I like more (Fender, Marshall, Vox, Morgan, Mesa MKII, Diezel, Dumble, Fuchs, 5150, Bogner…), to use them in my Axe (and sonically these tonematches are at least as close as my Axe profiles are to the original Axe presets). I kept only nine of theses tonematches (I will need to redo some of them for firmware 17), just for variety ; I don't really need them. Now, the interesting thing : the tonematch procedure requires the user to match the Axe amp model by ear first. When I did it, the thing I noticed is that all the 27 profiles has a common sonic signature, a sort of compression/sustain in the mids which, although very pleasing, is quite strange, considering that a Mesa, a Dumble, a Marshall, a Diezel or a Vox are very different amps…

One good thing with the latest firmwares is that the bass response got better ; it used to be my greatest gripe
 
Last edited:
sprint said:
Of course that had occurred to me, but the two of them a so enthusiastically dedicated to guitar gear overall, and they have such a large youtube presence (Rob Chapman has a large following separate from Andertons), that one would think they'd at least have to acknowledge the existence of the Axefx to retain maximum credibility as balanced reviewers to guitar stuff.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but I think if it were the two of them were to do a review together on their own seeing how they both work for Andertons it might be a conflict of interest. If Rob were to go out on his own and review it, it might be a different story not sure. I know he has his own Youtube channel and he is endorsed by other manufacturers including Andertons so there could be some contractual legal issues that keep him from doing it, my guess anyway.
 
fremen said:
...It’s a big problem for me , specially that tweakability is quite limited – I’m not a fan of the generic tonestack, the EQ is missing LPF/HPF options, there’s not enough options for the delays etc, and swapping the cabs, besides being an approximation (up to now, soon to be corrected apparently - despite claims from the start that it was an « exact » separation), seems a paradox to me in a machine who’s philosophy is to model the whole chain, from amp to cab.
Click to expand...

MMMmhmmmm... fw 3.0 "perfect separation between Amplifier and Cabinet Profiles"
 
GuitarDojo said:
MMMmhmmmm... fw 3.0 "perfect separation between Amplifier and Cabinet Profiles"
Click to expand...

I just read that today and brought it up to a few friends. I remember Cliff and some others taking a lot of $%#$ when they pointed out that their "exact" clone included an IR approximation so to speak of. I wonder if all those who chastised will now come forward with their apologies? I'm thinking I shouldn't hold my breath.
 
Last edited:
There was a thread on TGP last year where Jay Mitchell said that exact cab/amp separation was impossible and Christoph Kemper replied "no it's not, we already do it". Just pointing this because some KPA fanboys recycle the "realer/realerer" Axe mème over and other ; profiling was said to be perfect so not perfectible from the start and look what happened, bass response was recently improved, and now it's the amp/cab separation - I'm just trolling at fanboys here, I don't deny that the KPA sounds good and that many are pleased with it ;)
 
fremen said:
There was a thread on TGP last year where Jay Mitchell said that exact cab/amp separation was impossible and Christoph Kemper replied "no it's not, we already do it". Just pointing this because some KPA fanboys recycle the "realer/realerer" Axe mème over and other ; profiling was said to be perfect so not perfectible from the start and look what happened, bass response was recently improved, and now it's the amp/cab separation - I'm just trolling at fanboys here, I don't deny that the KPA sounds good and that many are pleased with it ;)
Click to expand...

I'm with you on this 100% and find it quite humorous to be honest. Those fanboys were certainly very vocal and scathing when all this was discussed back then. And like I said in the previous post, I don't think we will be seeing any "we were wrong" or "we fibbed just a little" apologies anytime soon. :)

It's all good.
 
ccroyalsenders said:
Simple answer? No.

Longer answer?
There's nothing the Kemper does that the Axe doesn't and there's a hell of a lot the Axe does that the Kemper doesn't.
Click to expand...

Although I have and enjoy using both, I find the profiling that Kemper does goes way beyond what Axe does with tone matching. Just saying....

And in the interest of NOT starting a pissing match, they each have their strengths and weaknesses. Which, again, is why I choose to use both.
 
My friend is big tube amp guy, tried my Axe FX2 and loved the tones but wanted something with that quality of sound but more knobs on it and less of a deep set of parameters to tweak. This is a guy who gave me his 12-string acoustic because he broke a sting and did not want to spend time changing strings and tweaking the intonation. He is a very low maintenance kind of guy.

He bought the Kemper and I spend a few hours with it.

The Kemper is a great sounding unit too. Side by side in a mix, I would be hard pressed identifying the identical amp sim being from one unit versus the other unit.

The Kemper knobs interface is great too.

But, the Kemper signal flow flexibility is limited as well as the ability to run two amps and cabs simultaneously like some do in the Fractal to get hybrid tones. Also the depth of the tweaking is just at a more insanely exact level on the Fractal with the amps, cabs, and effects.

So there are merits to both the Kemper or Fractal, it just depends upon what you want from a unit.

I liken the Fractal or Kemper debate to using an SSL console versus a Neve console. You can get a great recording with either unit, it all depends upon the features and familiarity with a particular type of interface/routing/components you want.
 
Rotti said:
BUT... my understanding is that all FX in the AFXII are on one core and amp models on another. Would I really be saving any, for lack of a better term, horsepower in doing this?
Click to expand...

That's correct. AMP blocks are on a seperate core. They use approximately 3% CPU power for each AMP-block
 
guitarnerd said:
I've noticed alot of people on the other forums I hang on have recently bought Kempers. I actually haven't asked them because there is a flame war in the air when doing that, but I guess I'll be fine here ;)

So, what would the reason for buying a Kemper over the Axe-FX II be? I can't see one besides price. Everything the Kemper can do, the Axe-FX II can do just as good or in most cases, better. Better effects, better interface, better sound, better feel, equal or better tone matching/profiling. It just seems like a no brainer to me.

Any clues?
Click to expand...

I've heard the Kemper and it sounds good but the Axe is way better in pretty much every aspect once you get accustomed to. Not sure why anyone would choose the kemper over the axe though. I think there is more led lights maybe that's why. Lol
 
Like I said earlier, the profiling Kemper does of equipment captures the essence (to me) much more effectively then Axes tone sampling. And this is also true for the profiles I buy from venders as well.

But then again, the equipment tones in the newest Axe FW sound great and yes there is more ability to tweak and route and foot pedal stuff with it.

I will use both. Just like I use my Fender strat for some tunes and my Jackson soloist for others ;)

The choice here aint black and white folks. There are nuances of gray.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom