Kemper? Nae for me....

p90fool

crunchman said:

p90fool said:

crunchman said:

It's nicer to play through the Lazy J, but it's 10:30 at night and my daughters are in bed.  It's the Kemper that's currently switched on.

That's an absolute monster price to pay for a late-night headphone practice amp!

It's not just a late night practice amp.  I use it for recording, and have used it live on occasion.  I want to use it live more.

I know, I was being facetious.

John_A

monquixote said:

I found playing with an Amplifire into the pa quite boring but I got loads more compliments on my tone.

This exactly.  I have the same experience with the Helix, it's not boring, but it doesn't quite feel as good as a big valve amp behind me.  It does sound better though, which for the paying audience is what matters.

guitarfishbay

Everything is just a tool. I'd happily own both digital and valve setups but I can't really justify that right now, so on balance digital works out the better choice for me at this moment.

There is literally nothing more fun than a loud 100 watt halfstack though, except for adding more of them.

hywelg

professorben said:

BintyTwanger77 said:

Again, it's not me knocking digital amp-modelling at all, the technology is mind-blowing, it's just my ears prefer valves and tubes.

There is some observational bias though, I bet if you had a blindfold challenge ala Andertons, you would be hard pressed to pick which was which or even a preference.

I'd like to bet that I could tell the difference if the real amp and profile were a pushed clean like a Super on 5. I once heard Matt Schofield play a Kemper profile of his sig amp and it was flat compared to the real in the room sound. He said it sounded like recordings of his amp, which as we all know are never as good as being in the room. 

If your sound is moderate to heavy crunch or high gain you're much more likely.to be satisfied with a modeler IMO. 

ThePrettyDamned

hywelg said:

professorben said:

BintyTwanger77 said:

Again, it's not me knocking digital amp-modelling at all, the technology is mind-blowing, it's just my ears prefer valves and tubes.

There is some observational bias though, I bet if you had a blindfold challenge ala Andertons, you would be hard pressed to pick which was which or even a preference.

I'd like to bet that I could tell the difference if the real amp and profile were a pushed clean like a Super on 5. I once heard Matt Schofield play a Kemper profile of his sig amp and it was flat compared to the real in the room sound. He said it sounded like recordings of his amp, which as we all know are never as good as being in the room. 

If your sound is moderate to heavy crunch or high gain you're much more likely.to be satisfied with a modeler IMO. 

I can tell you are not a high gain player. Emulating the feel of high gain isn't easy - I've played through good sounding modellers but none feel right for emulating rectos and 6505s.

That said, the modelling revolution gave rise to new genres not as possible with valve amps. 

Modellers are generally thought of as being best at emulating recorded tones. So if you're gigging and that's what people want to hear, it stands to reason a modeller may get you more compliments on the tone. 

BintyTwanger77

A reminder again that I was not saying I didn't like the Kemper, just that I prefer valve amps.

Fiftyshadesofjay

I'd like to bet that I could tell the difference if the real amp and profile were a pushed clean like a Super on 5. I once heard Matt Schofield play a Kemper profile of his sig amp and it was flat compared to the real in the room sound. He said it sounded like recordings of his amp, which as we all know are never as good as being in the room. 

See I'd disagree with this, it's different for sure but I wouldn't go as far to say one's better than the other. 

It's also worth remembering that on gigs with a decent PA the whole audience, sound engineer, rest of band etc are all getting the mic'd tone. It's only actually the player that gets the raw cab tone. I always found it a bit silly in that respect that people are so obsessed with it.

And let's not forget what people are hearing when you release your own records etc, let alone what you're hearing when listening to music.  

hywelg

Fiftyshadesofjay said:

I'd like to bet that I could tell the difference if the real amp and profile were a pushed clean like a Super on 5. I once heard Matt Schofield play a Kemper profile of his sig amp and it was flat compared to the real in the room sound. He said it sounded like recordings of his amp, which as we all know are never as good as being in the room. 

See I'd disagree with this, it's different for sure but I wouldn't go as far to say one's better than the other. 

If you'd been in the room you would never have disagreed. The live sound was huge, the Kemper whilst ostensibly the same was small. At most of the gigs I've seen Matt, it's mostly the 4x10 you're hearing rather than the mic'd sound through the PA. But as he gets better known and plays bigger venues that will obviously change.