Liquid Profiles - Tone Stack matching / table?

    Just updated to the latest release OS 10 and have been getting to grips with some of the new Liquid profiles and loving the flexibility it brings. Another wonderful update for my 10 year-old rack unit. Thank you Kemper!


    I would like to apply some of the newly available Tone Stacks to my old favourite profiles from MBritt etc. My problem is, I'd like to get as much accuracy as possible and I don't know which one to apply? I've searched around the forum wondering if there is some sort of reference table(?) available to show which Tone Stack might be the closest (so far) for a certain type of amp that isn't a direct match? I can't find one.


    Of course this isn't a problem if the Tone Stack matches the Amp name precisely, but I've got a bunch of regularly used profiles: Dumble ODS, Colonial, Morgan, 3P CSR, Jim Kelley etc and although I could guess I'd prefer to get it right (or as right as we can get at this present time). e.g. there's so many Fender Tone Stacks I wouldn't know where to start for the Jim Kelley... How is everyone dealing with this? Just using your ears? Guessing? Waiting until your favourites are re-issued in LP form?


    Exciting times.

    Quote from Amcolan

    does Mbritt provide the exat settings used when profiling? that seems to be needed in order to convert to a liquid profile.

    Some of the PDFs with the profile packs go into some detail and some don't say anything. Where it says 'Plexi voicing' I'm OK but if it's anything Fender I've no idea which one of the many Tone Stacks to choose. I think some of the boutique amps like the Dumbles are actually hybrid Fender/Marshall type circuits so none that are currently available might apply.


    Hoping that Kemper eventually might get around to modelling these for us.

    If the amp settings aren't known, then applying the tonestack won't be any more 'real' than the generic stack. Just different - and not accurate.


    Pretty much the same goes for stacks not currently available.


    I'm of the opinion that if the Profile sounds good and the data doesn't exist to convert it, I'm not chasing that particular ghost. For all I know, I'll end up with the exact same sound....but the amp controls will behave 'correctly'.......if I ever move them.

    “Without music, life would be a mistake.” - Friedrich Nietzsche

    Like 4
    Quote from Ruefus

    If the amp settings aren't known, then applying the tonestack won't be any more 'real' than the generic stack. Just different - and not accurate.


    Pretty much the same goes for stacks not currently available.


    I'm of the opinion that if the Profile sounds good and the data doesn't exist to convert it, I'm not chasing that particular ghost. For all I know, I'll end up with the exact same sound....but the amp controls will behave 'correctly'.......if I ever move them.

    You know, I think that's probably the sane thing to do. Else we're all just going to be chasing our own tails and there's so much else I could be wasting my limited time on


    I think over time we'll see more Tone Stacks get added into Profiler OS releases and more of our old favourites will re-emerge as re-profiled Liquid Profiles.

    I will use new LPs, but the generic controls give more range. I won't be converting any legacy profiles; too much work when it's not going to make anything sound better.

    The key to everything is patience.
    You get the chicken by hatching the egg, not by smashing it.
    -- Arnold H. Glasow


    If it doesn't produce results, don't do it.

    -- Me

    Like 1

    I bet some third party will do this and share it on this site or on a facebook forum or something. Companies that sell products often have to avoid mentioning specific companies and products they are seeking to emulate. Hence why clever nicknames that hint at the original are common in the guitar product industry.


    There might be a misunderstanding about what liquid profiling does. Going back to square one. The reason people used tube amps and continued to use them today wasn't because "wow, the EQ controls on these amps are so powerful and amazing." the controls on some tube amps that otherwise sound amazing at a sweet spot kind of suck and do very little. But people keep using them because of their inherent warmth that the tubes produced. Some even use graphic Eqs in the effect loop or rely on the sound engineer to use his powerful tools to further tweak.

    Prior to Kemper and some current competitors, the only reason people kept their tubes and stayed away from digital devices was digital lack of warmth and harshness. No one had a bone to pick with the robust EQ options on these devices. The original generic tone controls on the KPA are powerful and useful. Once you got a real amp sounding just so, then micing it to perfection, you'd profile it. The generic controls then gave you powerful ways to alter this idealized sound that couldn't be replicated on the original amp's limited tone controls.

    Often, the only reason to go back to an original amp's controls once profiled is if you have a particular need for the amp with different settings than when it was profiled. But if you are using third party profiles of an amp you never owned or even touched, we have no idea whether the sound of that amp, with it's original tone controls set in a different way is a sound we'd even like. Nor is there reason to expect that if we did know what the best matching tone stack is, along with the original settings, that produce sounds we'd like better than adjusting the generic EQ or just having fun experimenting with random tone stacks.

    I've not had a lot of time to dedicate to playing with LP yet. I suspect as I do, I'll discover particular tone stacks that I like using in general, regardless of the amp in question.