Which one of these is more pleasing to the human ear?

To talk in purist terms - any situation in which the electric guitar is not acoustically coupled to the amplifier is not true to how the instrument is played live. The feedback between the guitar and amplifier is a big part of the electric guitars sound.

But that doesn't mean that having that feedback makes the guitar do what you need, it's just an abstract fact.

Very interested in this, JK. Post away!

Totally agree, Ward...Gearslutz has - what - 30 sub forums? It's an absolute mess. Although, when you have 200,000 members, I guess you have to spread it out so threads don't roll off 10 minutes after you post them.

Kemper is a sophisticated piece of hardware that uses digital processing, is that virtual gear?  Other examples would be units from Bricasti, Eventide, Lexicon, TC Electronics, UAD, etc.  Are you suggesting we shouldn't be discussing this type of equipment, or computers used for music, or plugins?  You could make the case that this is all virtual gear and has no place in a real gear forum, but I think the forum would become less interesting for many of us.  Similarly, I don't see any advantage of segregating this information into a digital subforum.

As for the point about Kemper having no advantage on a real amp, I believe one advantage it does have is that I can get close to the sound of a real amp that I otherwise would have no way to do.  You're right that if you have the real amp and the Kemper modeling that identical amp, then of course the Kemper has no advantage, assuming you have a great cab, a good room, good microphones, and know how to set them up properly.

Keeping feet on the ground?
I said that because the group selling and apparent confirmation bias was abound imv, the day a kemper is better than a real rig, is the day I sell my stuff and get one, currently it's not even close. Anything in the digital domain is considered "virtual", the more u use in the " virtual" sense, the more synthetic and video game like your final product will sound. As great as they are, a Bricasti plate reverb doesn't touch a real plate reverb to just about anyone whose used a real plate... Of course this is my experience...so ymmv

If you look at my first post on this thread, I said B was a Kemper, there was no mention that a kemper was even used?, and just because I said A was better, doesn't mean it was great.

By all means please talk about anything you want, but I'm
Just being honest to my thoughts and keeping it real my brother

Oh...and I had looked at the percentages....not actually votes...there were only 14 cast....so...ok--that's not exactly the landslide the percentages implied.

Pardon me, but your last two posts are a little dark and contain a sweeping accusation of "ludditism" to those of us who don't really fancy modeling amps.  Modeling amps are still in their infancy and haven't really got it right... the Kemper is very good but at best it sounds like a recording of a real amp.  And when you use it in tracking, often times it sounds like a recording of a recording. 

Do you remember the Alesis D4 drum module?  Widely used in the early-mid 90s and sure, it sounded ok for demo purposes but in an album production as a sample trigger it sounded very 2 dimensional.  Ken Tamplin's 1992 album "TAMPLIN" and Dream Theater's albums "Images and Words" and "Awake" relied heavily on its triggered sounds and certainly sounded like it at the time, and now sound even worse because of it.

This is what many of us hear in the Kemper.  It's close, but there is something missing.  It's an excellent tool but it doesn't quite replace the real amps, at least not yet.

The same can't be said for digital reverb nor digital recording.  These were like that at first but have since overcome so much and have gained in quality to the point where they are widely accepted. 

This will happen in time with amplifier modeling, but it just isn't quite there yet.  Close but not quite there yet.

Best regards!

You do make two good points JK, and I do respect Michael on so many levels and his ways... but sometimes ease of use trumps all other factors too. If you can plug n play and get 90% of the way there in 5 minutes, it can beat the heck out of 4 hours of experimentation with amp settings and microphone placement/choice and preamps and EQs and Comps etc. Sometimes economy is the best utility.

Ward, I apologize if somehow I offended you. I've re-read my posts, and I can't understand how they can be taken as dark. In the second one, I was explaining to Martin what the Kemper is, what is dark about that? I am a college professor, so my writing often has a lecture-ish style, maybe that's what you're misinterpreting. In the first one, I was taking issue with Tony seeming to suggest that we shouldn't be discussing something that isn't "real gear" by his definition. I'm sorry if I offended anybody.

I never said modeling was perfect, but for some of us home-recordists it's a god-send. I'm not crazy about people who are fortunate enough to work in "real" studios dismissing it out of hand. I certainly wouldn't suggest ludditism, maybe a bit of elitism.

I think we're actually in agreement. There's lots of people on Gearslutz who seem to think that modeling is better than the real thing, but I doubt if anybody here thinks that. It's just a convenience that gets some of us closer to good sound than we could otherwise get.

If modeling ever gets better than the real thing, maybe at that point we can model the modelers and make quantum leaps in guitar technology

Yes, we are in agreement!