God bless HW for doin all the research for subjects (and controversies) that we are all into and giving us a great video on it

It's a well known fact that the Patent Office is ill equipped to issue patents on complicated technology, which leads to overly broad patents being granted. Patent 3 is so broad it might as well be the ocean. 🤣

Is there a patent on not being a dick? If not, I would recommend him using this very technique. 🙏

Hi HW, firstly thanks for another excellent video. I've been in the software industry for 25 years and this situation is both familiar and funny to me, because I've seen the same kinds of discussions time and again in relation to IP and copyright, patents and ownership. In general my experience has been that war breaks out for one of two reasons. First (and this is more common in my experience), people often start waving patents around when they feel their primary market is under threat from a product that is infringing upon, or "moving into" their core functional domain. It's obvious right? Fractal "model" amps: a signal is processed by a software approximation of the signal path through various pretend components inside the digital modelling system. Kemper "profile" amps: a complex array of audio signals is sent through a real amp and the output recorded and analysed, producing a sort of frequency profile that can be applied to any subsequent signal in order to simulate what the real amp would do to the signal. Clear difference; and you can argue until the cows come home about the pros and cons of the 2 approaches, and everyone can satisfy themselves that buyers are probably generally making a decision about which to use/buy on the basis of their differences (I personally am lucky enough to own both, and love them both). What happens though when Kemper rocks up at NAMM and says "hey guess what, we are going to model components in 40 amps so that you can apply a more 'realistic' tone stack to the profiles you capture"?? People at Fractal get twitchy because now suddenly they're wondering whether the difference in the minds of their potential users/market demographic is really quite so clear... if I can take an accurate frequency profile, AND apply an accurate signal processing model to that profile, what makes Fractal stand out from the crowd now? Superior realism when tweaking virtual amp settings on the main tone controls? Maybe not. Superior granularity in the level of component control in the models? Very possibly. BUT perhaps to them it's looking like a bit of a gray area now. The second main reason (again only anecdotal, no big cross section here) in my experience why people start shouting copyright infringement is to draw a line in the sand: this is our side, and that's yours. That, I believe is primarily what is happening here, and your very useful and interesting video has further convinced me that is the case, since the wording of those patents is ambigious with regard to the specific details of the amp modelling process, and I'm fairly certain that Fractal know that unless they are willing to force Kemper through the courts, only to discover that the modelling of discrete components in Liquid Profiling is materially different from what Fractal are doing AND at the same time risk being obliged to reveal the guts of the inner workings of their own modelling algorithms, they won't be able to enforce their somewhat limited patent. Final thought, apologies for the TLDR: it's pretty (correction, extremely) difficult to write software this good. I don't think either of these companies are under serious threat from one another or anyone else right now. There are a LOT of guitarists in this world we live in and try to share. Like I say, I own both devices, and the new Kemper features are not going to make me ditch my Fractal, nor are Fractal's fantastic amp models going to stop me preferring some of my profiles for certain things. If it comes to that, I'm not going to ditch my Kemper just because some of the Tonex models are supposedly more accurate. I may be slightly unusual in that regard, but actually I don't think so. If you have something that makes your guitar sound as amazing as the Kemper or the Axe Fx, you don't throw that away lightly. In fact, you hold onto it pretty tightly, especially when you've invested a lot of your own time into customising it for your own particular needs :D

My patent…since when did emulating the EQ curves of a unit become patented? Plugin companies have been doing this forever

I worked as a paralegal for 35 years. I worked on a number of patent cases. There are some things you should keep in mind about them. Having a patent doesn't protect you or prevent other companies from infringing on your patent. What it does give you is the right to defend that patent. Let's say company A has a patent on a product. Along comes company B and tries to get a patent for an almost identical product. The patent office rejects company B because a similar patent already exists. That does not preclude company B from producing that product anyway. Company A then has the right to sue company B to defend their patent. It is an important thing to keep in mind when discussing these issues.

A friend of mine works for Mesa Boogie and told me years ago (2012ish) that Randall was seriously thinking about suing Fractal, and that a lot of amp manufactures where talking about suing as well. IRONY....

If Fractal wins a lawsuit over this then every amp mfg needs to sue Fractal.

The Irony of 2 companies who literally make money from stealing Amp Manufacturers sonic IP, claiming the other stole it's IP, is just hilarious

It’s perfectly possible to take a 65 Deluxe Reverb model and turn it into a later model with all the tweaking available to the user in the Fractal units. Not possible with profiling or capturing. Just a correction to what HW said at some point in the video. I’m also confident that the patent infringement is far more technical than what was covered in this video

You have an interesting reasoning for your preference for capturinmg amps instead of modeling them. However, I don't find it too compelling. Nowadays we have access to schematics, photos and tremendous amount of data on the same line of amplifiers from different years. The Axe-Fx got (and still gets) branded throughout the years for being way too complex and offering way too much deep tweaking possibilities for an end user who just wants a great tone. The reason is exactly what you're describing. The Axe-Fx lets you to adjust component values and interactions to the level where you can get from the model of a 1965 Super Reverb to a similarly accurate model of a 1968 Super Reverb with slightly different components. However, if you only care about getting an extremely accurate 60s Super Reverb tone (which is probably 90% of guitarists) you won't have to touch any knobs or values not found on the real amp, or heck, you might not even have to create a preset because chances are there's a fantastic sounding factory preset already built for the amp. Besides, you're missing the point by not really looking into Cliff's approach to modeling. He explained it several times in the FAS forums that he has a corrective mindset. Meaning that for example the Mesa Mark Graphic EQ model purposedly has different tapers from the tapers on the amps for two reasons. Reason #1: the component tolerances that amp manufacturers also "suffer" from. Reason #2: in some cases he considers manufacturers' decisions on pot tapers or values a mistake that doesn't serve the given amp in any way. However, for most of these changes it is explained why and how it is different from the original amp and you can absolutely get in the ballpark with a little different settings. The real takeaway is, however, that we worry and care way too much about accuracy. I firmly believe in "if it sounds good it is good" and I think this is very similar to how audio mixing and mastering engineers work. If you need to boost or cut 12 dbs of highs on a track to make it sit well in the mix, nobody will care about your EQ settings after the song is put together and sounds amazing.

Fractal just upset that the Kemper keeps adding improvements while fractal always requires you to buy the latest unit for new features.

At first glance, I'd argue a Fractal lawsuit against Kemper intends to uncover more of Kemper's tech -- that winning the lawsuit would be a secondary goal at best.

You had me at input filter ❤😂

Do we know \ have an estimate when we will get to experience the Liquid Profiling? I'm sooo excited to try them all

I think quite a lot of this is above all of our heads but one thing from all of this is certainly clear: I would much rather have a beer with Mr Kemper than angry Fractal man.

After watching this video my brain was like “my cats breath smells like cat food” 😂

3:30 If you're dealing with modeling, you're definitely dealing with IR. The difference is how that IR is generated, you can get an IR of a physical counterpart, or you can construct an IR through modeling (hint: convolution is pretty much how digital EQs work too.)

abandoned patent: no protection for the inventor, free to use that technology for everyone and can't be patented again And two patents which are very similar can be granted, but in case of a legal battle the one which was applied first and is in valid state counts.

How bout this? F*** Fractal Audio for trying to patent this 🤷🏻‍♂️

I think the patent combined with the fact that Fractal's been allowing users to swap tonestacks around in their modeled amps may be what Cliff would have been thinking about. Anyway, it'll be interesting to see what comes of it.

Its common knowledge that a tone stack varies due to potentiometer differences, capacitance differences, and circuit designs that affect the slope of each pot. Matching the curve of 40 combinations is smart eq. Making it easier to dial in, on the fly. Nice. I don't see adjustable tone stack curves as an infringement. It's not for sale. A nice existing user feature update.

In DSP. The only way to process a signal with an IR is using convolution.

The post was from Cliff and the patent he is referencing is the last patent you posted US11164551B2.

I've been out of the digital guitar world over the last few years, and have only came back in the last six months or so. I have fond memories of the state of where things were.. 5-10 years ago for example.. where I thought there was a pretty clear heirachy in terms of price or quality of the tones you can get from xxxxx product. Things have changed a lot recently. There's been a lot of people saying "modelling is dead" lately and you are one of them. The news in this video is a pretty big sign that you may be right. There's a hint of insecurity or desperation in the tone of that message from Fractal/Cliff.. it doesn't mean that "modelling is dead" but times are certainly changing. In terms of the patent itself.. like everyone I'm no expert but I find this to be absurd. And no I've never owned a Kemper or Axe-FX.. just a neutral observer who cares about good guitar tones. Fractal either has to sue to enforce this patent, or they won't and it's just empty words.. but either way it doesn't look good for them. Will Kemper be intimidated? I hope not, because this custom tone stack thing is a key piece in advancing capture technology into the future.

Fractal just insured I’ll never own a Fractal product.

The sad flailing of someone watching their market share slip away.

Just FYI, when you read a patent you can skip everything and go right to the claims. At the end of the document it will say, "what is claimed is" and there's a list of claims. Those claims are "the invention", those are the things that the patent holder has an exclusive right to until the expiration of the patent. Everything else is just commentary.

Super amp sim geeky content right here. I’m loving it

I dunno man. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like "Liquid Modeling" is nothing more than making a stompbox model that replicates the tone stack from amp XYZ. Then put that stompbox after the profile to let the user tweak the EQ using controls that behave like amp XYZ and not some generic EQ.

Nice post HW! Very well explained to us guitar players. Im a Kemper guy and use my rig for live gigs. Im more Like what you mentioned regarding modeling vs. profiling. I really hope this doesn’t turn into a thing between KPR and Fractal…

They hypocrisy of Fractal making digital copies of every amp they can find a schematic for, then crying foul over a ‘modeling’ process… this is why I will never buy a fractal product and also why their community is so toxic…

Um, if you want a capture of a 68 Fender, and have one of a 65 Fender, you have to capture the 68 as well. You have a snapshot of that particular amp, at that particular setup. Heck, if you want that particular amp at ny setting you have to capture it 00s of times. At least with modelling, they have a full representation of that particular amp, at any setting. What he was talking about is that 2 individual 65 Reverb's will not sound the same, due to all those things, componant shift etc. So modelling a particular reference 65 Reverb won't sound exactly like every 65 reverb. But then, every 65 reverb will sound different from others as well.,

Christoph could file a lawsuit against any company which is making tone captures of real amps right now (Fractal, Neural DSP, IK...), but he understands that it's a ridiculous move. Fractal does look bad with such thrust.

In patents you can largely ignore the disclosures ... what matters is the claims. Read the claims, that is what counts.

Wow, thanks for this great content!

On Fractal units you can change the tonestack of an amplifier model to any other tonestack from any amplifier inside the unit, wich in my understanding is kind of what liquid profiling is. I suppose this is the problem here.

CANT STOP LAUGHING THANKS ALOT FOR POSTING.

Everyone can have their own opinions on the legality, but what is described here has been in Axe FX since the AXE FX II Mk 1. However, the new ability to change the dial range on captures of amps is solely Kemper. Edit: I'm speaking on the tone stacking that can be applied to captures.

If this actually has grounds to go to court, it'll be crazy to watch it unfold.

I think the problem isn't going from point A to point B but rather the *process* and *methodology* (i.e. the technology) for getting there. As far as I know, you can't really stop someone from creating a simulation of something (in this case I assume the tonestack simulation), but you *can* stop someone from ripping off your patented technology to do so. If Cliff has a case and Kemper is indeed using the same process to create their Liquid Profiling that he already has patented then he has every right to defend his intellectual property. As for people saying "if you model something you should get sued" I don't think that's a winnable suit unless you can prove that the *methods* of doing so are the same. Would love for a patent lawyer to chime in here.

In the Interview with TJ Christioph Kemper is mentioning that there is a " a little patent" on that. (7:30). I guess he is not talking about a Fractal patent....

Does liquid profiling handle special knobs? For instance, my ENGL Savage 120 has a "Tone Balance" knob. Would this be part of the Savage liquid profile model? Or how about switches? Again, my Savage has a Contour switch. Is this modeled?

What you probably don't understand is, Cliff has been on the forum in the past and a member asked if Fractal would ever add profiling to the Axe Fx. He answered and stated something to the effect of: The companies doing profiling do not do it right (or best). He knows how to do it right (or best) and has a patent for it. If I remember right, I think he also said that modeling is still superior to profiling. I don't know exactly when he said that but I have been a Fractal user and Fractal forum member for a little over 2 years. So, my guess is that it has been since then or maybe I am wrong, and it was an older thread I had read. Also, keep in mind that Cliff's patent is most likely in the USA only. How does that effect Kemper?? If it is an infringement, then maybe Kemper can use the tech but not in the USA??

Then are Amplitube and Bias Amp infringements on AxeFX too. I think they have a looooong way to go to prove what seems from the outside as a baseless lawsuit.

Amp modelling company steals the sound and response of a real world amp without the permission of the original manufacturer and that's considered fair and fine. Another Amp modelling company copies their method of stealing and that's copyright infringement. Ridiculous.

Looks like two completely different things... Fractal is protecting EQ curve matching for input and output to refine the static model, so there is nothing liquid ... but in Kemper they are talking about another model that describes how to dynamically react and modify your static model (profile) as you changing the knobs positions.

Great video . Someone I follow on YT that does in depth reviews on gear he purchases and he thought the owner of Fractal was a Butthead.

Amp Identity theft is not a joke Kemper! Tens of ten’s of manufacturers suffer from it every year! -Dwight 😂

Also, you have to compare the claims to the potentially infringing product, not the drawings or description. Great video though.

Liquid profiling solved a problem that didn't exist. Having the knob positions line up to the original doesn't matter in the slightest. Having the parameter sweep line up isn't an issue.

When do these updates come out?

Me thinks and hopes no one is suing anyone. Both are small companies which need their resources outside the courts. IIRC Cliff has stated on the forums that he thinks patent infringement cases are mostly a waste of time and i suspect Cristoph thinks the same. Best outcome for us is they sort it out via some kind of patent sharing agreement but part of me thinks Cliff could be too arrogant to do that.

So the key take away here is that Fractal also has something they’re working on to combine profiling and modeling since at least 2021👀. Chances are that all the big players have something up their sleeves.

Kind of a bummer that they would patent amp simulation with such generic terms / processes. I hope this doesn't hinder the future of amp modeling

It is sad for Cliff that Kemper was on market years before

I think you're getting problematically hung up on a guitarist's understanding the term "model" as distinct from a profile. From a mathematical perspective, they're both models. And I'm also not a patent attorney, but my understanding is that one needn't infringe on every single claim in a patent to infringe. My quick software developer take is that it's very possible Fractal could succeed in an infringement claim, at least prior to appeal.

Tonex pedal will upgrade to the liquid profilling too? I hope

So is Fractal going to ho the way of Gibson? Very disturbing. If Fractal and Cliff pursues this lamé lawsuit, a huge host of tone and model referenced amp companies may come calling.

The logical extension for liquid profiling is to profile the amp at multiple settings and then use AI to blend between them. e.g. Do a profile with everything at 2, another profile with everything at 5, another with everthing at 8, and another at your ideal settings. Then combine the 4 models together.

Cliff and the fractal guys are trolls, maybe?

I seen Cliff's post a couple days ago, and now it appears to be removed.

To me the second and third patent so sounds like they use modelling to create a model that is 'close enough' and than use profiling to make the model more correct. So basically using Kemper technology to improve the (more versatile) modeling approach? Anyway, it would kind of be the opposite of what Kemper describes Liquid Profiling, which is improving the tone stack controls of their profiles by applying different profiled tonestacks rather than a generic one. 🤔

I don't really care so long as the amp makers do not sue the profiler and modeling makers. Because I can't afford to buy multiple real amps that cost 3k each.

Hmmm funny… never knew Fractal as anything but a modeling unit… I guess the next Fractal unit was gonna be called FM9-LP? 😅

Wait, does Gibson own Fractal?

you need to look at the patent claims, not the abstract.

H.W., I'm kinda wondering if Cliff is referring to his Tone Matching feature where you start with a Fractal amp model that is close to the device under test, generate that corrective EQ/Tone Match block, and then can still edit the tone stack, preamp gain, etc of the model afterward. It's similar to liquid profiling...kinda. But I don't think it's a blatant infringement. And Cliff came up with Tone Match LONG after Kemper profiling made its debut. Maybe there's a reason why he pulled his post?

Idk, it seems like it could be an issue of actually being able to patent a thing or not and Mister Fractal not knowing for sure.

Now that OS 9 is , but without liquid profiling feature, this video makes me think twice...

Is it really revolutionary? Or is it at best a marginal improvement, subjectively speaking, to the existing profiles? Modelling has been good enough for some time.

I feel Kemper is only making Fractal nervous because they will be dethroned by Kemper and they know it. The "outdated" Kemper will once again be ahead of the rest (at no extra cost to their current users, how fantastic is that?). Jealousy is not a good look. Instead Fractal should consider a new cheaper model that some folks could actually afford and work on constantly updating their ecosystem with quality of life updates.

i dont give ( fract ) kempers a great keep up your good work HW

To me, Kemper adding a modelling aspect to their profiling gear to make the tone stacks behave more like the real amp’s tone stack, indicates an admission that the capture process is not as good as modelling. I’ve been critical of the “snapshot” method of simulating amps since day one. But I suppose, there are a lot of people out there who only have one setting and sound they ever use from any amp, so they would be would be satisfied by static profiling. I think the modelled tone stacks are a move in the right direction for Kemper, but they need to do the same thing now for gain/preamp/volume controls. The combination of using multiple captures, one clean, one low gain, one high gain or cranked, and then pairing that with gain controls that are *modelled* after the behaviour of the real amps gain controls behaviour like the new liquid tone stacks are, might finally get digital amp technology where it needs to be.

It is probably the tone matching patent. Kemper probably did it first and I imagine they didn't file a patent because they wanted to keep the tech secret. Fractal figured out what's going on and filed a patent...

If Fractal truly believes they have a valid patent which has been breached, then go for it. I'm sure Kemper has a decent lawyer or two to deal with the challenge. I am sure that the Kemper team has been R&D'ing this Liquid Profiling feature for some time. I'd say that there may have been times, in research, when it was asked if they were stepping on someone else's toes legally & sought legal advice. If a Court Case happens, it won't change my view on either Fractal or Kemper no matter what the result.

Also I think Fractal won't pursue this, but it does look bad for them. On the other hand, the whole liquid profiling thing doesn't appeal much to me either, what it sounds like is they added a modeling component on top of profiling - essentially trying to "guess" the parameters inside a black box, they may get in the ballpark but I seriously doubt it will be accurate.

fractal gettin irritable. QC, Kemper, ToneX eating into their business

if fractal is profiling anything they are infringing on Kemper's patent and if they aren't then Kemper isn't infringing on anyone's patent. I'll wait for the lawsuit against fractal form line6 first.

Look at all those beautiful vintage amps in the background sitting there doing nothing! What a shame.

So. When are these updates going to drop? You say you put your hands on it, so let’s see it. My sales rep told me they have been promising this for years now.

Maybe I’m analyzing this in an odd way, but it kinda feels like the fractal guys is using trashing other company’s as an effort to make his company look better. These are different enough process and there is room for so many different platforms. I always find this type of debate from a manufacturer off putting. All modelers are literally based around doing your best to copy existing equipment, yet we’re gonna complain about someone doing something slightly similar to my version of a copying device. Just seems like a slippery slope of lawsuits and companies paying lawyer fees instead of investing in developing the next generation of modeling. Just my unprofessional opinion 🤷🏻‍♂️

The irony of complaining someone is copying your process of copying something.

Say filter one more time! I double dare you!

I sware the abstract patent is saying the same thing 5 or 6 times just slight different :)

None of this will matter when open source amp modelers become more “mainstream”

Also, I know your not a lawyer, and realize people actually extremely abuse the patent office and try to patent everything they can think of to make money in the future from lawsuits. Just like idiots did buying up dot comms to sell later at a stupid price. Realize "Patents" can later be nullified when challenged in a proper court because most are given out with lack of understanding and knowledge of pre-existing tech. Some people pride themselves on their "Patents" for simple "Bragging" rights so they feel more important. Another important legal fact, using someone else's tech in your patent I.E. the amplifier itself) can be challenged and nullified. Fractal attorney's better explain to this guy he can lose A LOT for making a false tech claim. In real life they're a dime a dozen.

Hi Cliff. I know you’re reading this. 😂

And this is why I’ll NEVER own a Fractal product. This is not the first time, nor will it be the last, Cliff has behaved like a child complaining about the Kemper stealing from him. He can’t stand that Kemper is always a few steps ahead of him, and it’s probably a more successful product. Otherwise I don’t think he would be complaining about it. Cliff is a child trapped in a grownups body which, given the current social trend, he should identify as lol. And btw, him complaining about Kemper stealing from him is not the only reason I boycotted Fractal Audio products. It’s also his inflated ego, as well as a private interaction I had with him long ago where he demonstrated more of his immature/insecure qualities 👎.

TL:DR Company that makes money by copying the sound of other companies gets upset that somebody else does the same thing in a different way.

And then neural network NAM came and blowing all those marketing crap 😂

Wasn't it great times, when we just cared about music ..... ?

HW gonna be sitting on the Grand Jury Stand Esplaining !

Fritos are still delicious.

If you consider just the tone stacks in the Kemper may have been derived using that corrective process if a real tone stack was used to create the virtual tone stack.

It must be true we never got liquid profiling in the upgrade. As a matter of fact the upgrade was a disappointment. Usb audio without proprietary driver. All this hype for nothing.

@7:32 Christoph Kemper says there is a patent on liquid Profile 👉🏻 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/p7ORq6leu-CngX0.html Question, is it Kemper patent or did Kemper purchase the rights from Fractal (which. I doubt)?

He kiddin? And what is his patent gonna profile, no brand gear?

looks like Fractal is protecting a "tuning process", while Kemper seems an application of "different behaving" tone filters , but all pre-existing, and without any auto-adjustment process...

I dont have a clue what's going on inside the Fractal, but i know for a fact that Cliff does. No way i would ever bet against that guy. You would be wise not to bet against Cliff, and that is the only thing blatantly obvious to me.