There's a reason for that. Kemper's term for what it does is descriptive of what happens under the hood. The profiling process consists of feeding known patterns of audio through the amp and microphone being profiled, making a note of what's heard and applying the same set of differences (in the opposite direction) to the guitar signal. I can argue both sides of the debate over whether or not the profile a Kemper produces is technically a model, but I also don't think that's a hair that needs to be split. What have come to be called modeling amps run a mathematical model of an analog amplifier circuit in the DSP. That's why you can twiddle the knobs to your heart's content on a Blues Cube (I'm going to assume Fender used the same technique in the TMs) and Kemper requires that you re-profile the amp at different settings if you want something different. I think one of the fundamental problems in this discussion is that everything digital gets lumped together and digital gets lumped in with discrete solid state. I can't fault non-technical people for doing that, but there are differences and they do matter. That topic is on my list of blog posts to write, and I may get to it someday. Champion vs. Kemper is an apples-to-suspension-bridges comparison. Make a Champion capable of doing what a Kemper does and the price will rise to be comparable.