Posts by ckemper

Quote from gavinashun

In economics this is called "price discrimination."

Basically imagine you have 100 potential customers for this product.

One group of 50 (we'll call them Group A) will only pay $700 for it; and if it is only $700, they are ok with a more limited set of features.

Another group of 25 people (Group B) will buy it for $700 with more limited features, but *would* pay $1000 for it with expanded features.

Another group of 25 people (Group C) will only buy it with expanded features, and they would pay $1000 for that.

If you sell it with limited features for $700, Group A will buy and group B will buy, and you will make $52,500 (75*700)

If you sell it with expanded features for $700, all 100 will buy, and you will make $70,000 (100*700)

If you sell it with expanded features for $1000, only Group B and C will buy, and you will make $50,000 (50*1000)

But what if there was a way to sell it with limited features for $700 and expanded features for $1000?

Now all 100 will buy and you make $85,000 (Group A: 50*700, Group B & C: 50*1000).

DLC allowed for price discrimination which maximizes your revenue in many cases. Companies love price discrimination but in many cases it is either impossible or illegal (i.e. a company could maximize their revenue if they charged a rich person $50 for a box of cereal but a poor person $5, but you can't do that both logistically or legally). But in situations where they can do it, they often will do it.

Display More

Yes, this is pretty much the story.

But there is another circumstance that brought us into this direction.

When you downsize a product, often downsizing the core does not save much cost, e.g. by finding a smaller processor.

If available at all, it would save a few bugs, but the additional efforts to run and maintain an established software and operating system on a smaller processor easily eat up the marginal cost savings, without creating any advantages for us or the user. No one wins.

You can see similar situations in the car industy, where three models with different power ratings use the same engine block and sometimes same displacement.

Electric cars will usually take the same electric motor for different power offerings, because total costs will increase by developing, certifying and manufacturing three different engine sizes, and gaining the opportunity for later over-the-air updates, so users can make a qualified decision about upgrading or not, while they are in the possession of the car already.

When we released the Profiler Head in the beginning, we had planned to have the power amp be a module that can be purchased later and seamlessly be inserted into the back of the Head, as we had anticipated that it is hard to decide on day one if you will ever make use extensive of the power amp.

Laws and certification rules prevented us from doing so, unfortunately.

It is more satisfying and a sustainable business to simply have a happy customer, rather than having to recommend: "Better take the powered version now, you never know what your needs are in the future".

The possibility for said upgrades came in a natural way to us, as described above,

And while it wasn't planned at first place, it might create a win-win situation.

We have the opportunity to offer the same enclosure with different power and different price, and our users have the freedom to decide for more power anytime after the purchase, when they have got familiar with the product.

Quote from ggo_101

Hey all!

I recently got a HX one and also just ordered a new Kemper Player. The HX one can be both in front of an amplifier and in it's effects loop by using the 4 cable method.

The Kemper Player has no effects loop, but is it still possible to use the HX one in 4 cable method in order to place effects behind the amp (and in this case also the cab) and if so, is the way below the correct way to do it?

Guitar connected to the HX One in - L/mono => HX one Out - Right (send) to Kemper Player guitar input => Kemper Player L output to HX One Right (return) Input => HX One L (mono) Output to a DI box / cabinet / Audio interface, ...

Added is a screenshot of the HX one manual concerning 4 cable method.

Display More

Yes!

Quote from gavinashun

Just to confirm, are we interpreting this:

"Thus we consider since quit a while to offer one or two software upgrade (with costs), that will boost the Players features towards the Head, Rack and Stage."

To mean that it is possible/likely that they will offer a paid upgrade for the Player to have more features of the Head/Rack/Stage? Like for example more effects?

That was how I read it but wanted to confirm.

Display More

Affirmative. But no ETA yet.

We have FX loops …

The Profiler Stage features two independent FX loops to connect external effect pedals. The Profiler Player has none. The purpose of these FX loops is bypassing and activating those effects by switching whole Rigs, by acting like a programmable patchbay. However, there is also the drawback of having those external pedals undergoing an additional analog-to-digital conversion just for the switching purpose.

While distortion stomps and wah pedals are usually cabled in front of a guitar amplifier, stereo studio effects should usually be located after the amp and cabinet. It might be new to many users that on digital guitar amps this is a simple and straight-forward task. Simply connect the outputs of your mono stomps to the input of the Player and your stomps will hit the front of the amp and benefit from a real amp sound and response, then connect the TS outputs of the Player to the input of your delay, reverb, or multi-effect pedal by two cables. Connect the output of this effect to the input of the next effect pedal by two more TS cables. The TS output of the last effect in the chain then is the output of your pedal board. To connect to a PA/FOH this might require a DI box. From here, the story is equal to the story described above. No FX loop is needed to add external studio effects to your digital amp. Just daisy-chain it in stereo. No level or impedance problems are to be expected.

And anyway, the Player was also designed to be a self-contained digital guitar amp and effects processor, so I am sure you will enjoy our build-in state-oft-the-art studio effects, and have your daisy-chain shortened significantly

It connects to a PA …

The Profiler Player features a mono XLR output and a stereo TS output. And there are other digital guitar amps out there that only offer unbalanced TS outputs.

It might be new to many users, that It is no problem to use the TS outputs as a stereo feed, anywhere. In the rehearsal room you go straight to your PA with two TS cables. On stage going the long way to the PA/FOH, the backliner will serve you two (or one stereo-) DI boxes that will convert your feed to a balanced XLR signal. It is a smart idea, however, to have such DI boxes owned by you and mounted on your pedal board. So the backliner does not get stressed out, when your keyboarder requires four DI boxes (which keyboarders sometimes do).

It plays full Rigs …

We are aware that the Profiler Player has the potential to serve the needs of very different users. On the one side there is the connaisseurs of pure amp tones, without the need for sprawling effect arrangements. On the other side there is the wish to play complex Rigs taken 1:1 from the big brother Profiler units. The Profiler Player has the theoretical potential to play full-blown Rigs. But I think it is understandable that we have not drawn a Profiler at half the price of a Profiler Stage but 85%-ish of it‘s featues.

Thus we consider since quit a while to offer one or two software upgrade (with costs), that will boost the Players features towards the Head, Rack and Stage.

The ability to create Profiles on the Player is also a story discussed by our team. There is a few issues to be solved, such as how to use the sole input of the Player for the return path and provide an A/B comparison.

There is a display …

Our approach to the Profiler Player was to boil down the Profiler to a very portable size, and give it a no-nerd user interface for those that appreciate a simple and „analog“ approach. These users usually don‘t rise their voices on internet forums such as this.

We have decided very early against a graphic display. All endless encoders show their value on a LED by pushing or turning them, so the bargraph is our display. You will see this when you play with the unit for the first time. For a live performance you will arrange a typical handful of Rigs, that you can access quickly with the three assignable foot switches. As these are your precious Rigs, you will probably memorize them faster than you can switch them by foot (think of the old days when devices displays only had numbers for presets). Therefore we found a display showing the Rig names to be dispensable. Alternatively, our remote apps offer the view and access to all 50 Rigs by the touch on the screen.

A purchase recommendation: A Kindle Fire tablet is available at a very low price, 2 digits in some countries. Plus, many of us already have a tablet and most all of us have a smart phone. You probably already have the “display”.

For a display UI on the device to comfortably access the large number of parameters, we would have had to scrap nearly all controls on the surface, leaving merely the Gain and Master Volume and something. This was not what we wanted, knowing that many users prefer to edit sounds using a comfortable remote app anyway.

Dear Players,

Thanks for your overwhelming interest in the Player!

For those that didn't have the chance yet to put their hands and feets on the product, I am happy to shine a light on our thoughts and the approach to the Profiler Player concept.

CK

Quote from stefanos

Currently there aren't many high gain models available in the tone stack list.

• EVH 5150III 6L6
• EVH5150III 6L6 Stealth
• EVH 5150III EL34

Quote from stefanos

I think there is big difference in the sound of the original Peavey EVH which is already in the current tone stack list with the new EVH - Fender distributed 5153 models.

While the EVHs have sound differences, the Brightcap and Tonestacks are the same.

CK

Where have you taken the levels for the test signals?

It is true that during the Profiling process the output volume to your monitors is attenuated to give you a nice listening experience of the test signals, while the latter are really loud.

Quote from BayouTexan

I would like to try some Liquid profiling with a OD stomp in front of the amp. Specifically, the BE-OD. Will the LP model loose any accuracy when adjusting the model's gain in the Kemper?

The Profile will be fine, but the gain control might control the gain into the OD, instead of the amp.

Quote from OneEng1

LQP as documented says to profile the amp with all the eq flat and the amp gain at max.

To be complete, the manual does not say to profile at eq flat and gain max.

This is merely a recommendation for a more authentic over-all LQP.

You can still make a LQP at your desired sweet spot, and it will sound authentic in that very setting, just like a regular Profile.

Only deviating far away from that sweet spot might induce more inaccuracies due to the reasons mentioned in the manual.

If you set the bass knob at "2" for profiling and mirror it to "2" in the Profiler, deviations of the potentiometers taper or even the printed scale on your amp can cause a small error. While the unaltered Profile is spot on, you might experience a larger deviation, when you turn the bass knob on your amp and the Profiler to "10" for an A/B comparison. The small error might get large when deviating by most of the scale.

Once your target amp is well mic'ed and warmed up, it might be a good advice to make that "most accurate setting" LQP, as well as two or three sweet spot LQP's (including the mandatory mirroring of the sweet spot settings in the Profiler), and keeping all of them.

Then they can be compared against each other the next day, and they might all work perfectly and equally, at any settings.

Quote from alligatorlizard

btw, ckemper can I ask a specific question about Liquid Profiling:

In cases where an amps tonestack is located between pre and power amp stages, how does a liquid tonestack simulate this?

e.g. say the treble control on such an amp is set very low - this doesn't just lower the volume of the high freq's (as a post-amp EQ would), but it also alters the way the high freq's are subsequently driven by the power amp - so less distortion on them, or at least a different character. So, with a liquid tonestack modelled on such an amp, when you e.g. lower treble, does it also alter the distortion character of these high freq's?

The answer is yes!

To answer the theories of the adjaced posts:

There is sometimes a common believe that all tube stages of an amp contribute to the overall distortion. But this is not exactly true.

Some rules of thump:

When nothing distorts, it doesn't matter where you put an EQ/tonestack. Always the same result.

For example it doesn't matter, if you place an EQ before or after a delay or reverb, as long as the latter don't distort.

On a vintage tube amp up to the Marshall Plexi, only the power amp section distorts. No master volume control, only gain.

On later tube amps starting with the JCM800, the pre-amp section was given the ability to distort as well. A master volume knob was added to the power amp, to play distorted sounds at moderate levels.

If a preamp distortion is prominent, the volume peaks of your guitar are compressed by the distortion, hindering the power amp from distorting on top. You have to crank the master volume to extreme values to have that second distortion. That additional power amp distortion tends to mudden the sound, so expecially in metal music one relies on preamp distortion only.

You can of course lower the gain so that the preamp is clean and crank the master volume to have power amp distortion instead. This works well on "vintage master volume amps" such as the JCM800. But on dedicated modern high-gain amps the power amp section is highly linearized to provide less additional coloration (mud) at higher volumes.

The Profiler is made for capturing (profiling) the most prominent distortion stage, that is either the preamp or power amp.

For a Liquid Profile, you should be aware which stage you made distort, and set the EQ Position to Pre, if the power amp does the prominent distortion, or Post, if the preamp does the prominent distortion.

Quote from RVA213

ckemper , will you be adding Bright Cap Intensity, Gain Pot Reference and the restore buttons to Rig Manager? If so, when?

Thanks

Yes!

Brigh Cap Intensity was missed in this version, and will be added soon.

The more special parameters will come later to the editor for certain reasons.

Quote from yeky83

ckemper What prompted the Liquid Profile development? It was a long-requested feature, and I recall years ago that you seemingly decided not to pursue individualized EQ stacks after exploring it at the time. Was there a paradigm shift? Or is it just the "no hope" as described above and giving into what guitarists want?

We have actually never decided against having individualized EQ. At the time I have announced the possibility that we might come up with such a solution, we have not explored the technique yet. It was always on our list, and all about priorities. The developement was done at a slower pace, while we were updating our effects and distortions. We felt that the latter was considered more important for our users.

Quote from lbieber

The most direct solution to all of these requests is to implement a tonestack creator so users can DIY. We are now in 'give a man a fish or teach him how to fish' territory.

ckemper - have you considered this?

I have considered it for a second or two.

But as long as I don't see the community of (digital) guitar amps using parametric equalizers - or even for a better start, graphic equalizers - placed before the amp (!) to sculpture the guitar sound going into the distortion in a very easy way, I have no hope.

Using graphical EQs for that purpose is known since the 80ies, I guess.

Now with digital amps, it is a no-brainer in terms of cabling and noise issues.

But it hasn't made its way in 15 years. Has anyone ever tried it?

I have been waiting for long, that this existing 80ies technology, still present and evolved 'till today, will find a place in the guitar community.

For sure it is possible to further parameterize the tonestack technique from the 1940ies, by using advanced computer technique from the 2000's and todays.

As a player of a digital amp, do you need the technical echoes from the past, but combined with todays technique to improve it, to find your tone? I don't want to sell snake oil to you guys.

Quote from dave5150

What was the rationale for excluding the Sat and C45 switches from the Friedman tone stacks?

I feel they defintely have an impact on gain and tone.

We have chosen to avoid modeling controls and switches, that do not truly (!) interact with other controls and switches.

The same is true for controls that in addition do not contribute to the task of adapting your guitar to the amp.

All these controls are captured in the Profile, as usual.

It is advantageous to mention these settings in the text tags of the Profile.

The idea of Liquid Profile is to leave the majority of the tone sculpting to the Profiling process of an individual amp.

Therefore we want the amp parts that are being modeled to be kept at a necessary minimum, to reduce the margin of error of the modeling process.

The gain control with its optional brightcap is a cruical part for adapting your guitar to the amp, and at the same time the impact of the bright cap is dependent of the gain control position. This is absolutely worth being modeled.

The same can be said for the tonestack, that serves a similar purpose, and has its own interdependencies as well.

CK

Quote from BayouTexan

Do the Definition, Sag, and Bias Parameters work the same with LP profiles or have those been reworked when applying an LP?

All these deep parameters work the same way, independently of LQP.

Quote from dave5150

What was the rationale for excluding the Sat and C45 switches from the Friedman tone stacks?

I feel they defintely have an impact on gain and tone.

I know the Fat and Cln switches on the Friedman, but I could not find those.

Quote from V8guitar

Hi CK, great you have joined the thread!

Perhaps you could comment on gain as people seem unsure as to how this is liquified?

Yes!

I would need more hints, where our Manual or Addendum is not clear enough.