Kemper Amps Forum

Quoted from "ChrisBeaver"

Bottom line is ,,, if it sounds good it is good and anything else is just waffle.

Well said.

Quoted from "Guitartone"

Quoted from "ChrisBeaver"

Bottom line is ,,, if it sounds good it is good and anything else is just waffle.

Well said.

Amen

L6 Vetta was below 80 tabs - and worked as well - I created some additional speaker and microphone filters for the Vetta - and they sounded fine.
All this was 2004:
http://www.soundside.de/shop/VettaUserCo…%20DI%20Upgrade


256 points - if the value is really the number of tabs in the KPA speaker sim - is not very much - but we don't want to capture the room - only the speaker.

In this case could the Cab block alter frequencies down to 172Hz - all below will pass thru but unaltered by the cab block. - it's not true that low frequencies are cut of or whatever.

When I captured some IR's (from acoustic guitar body's) I found that some part of the IR was stored into the cabinet block and another into the Amp block - both together sounded fine.

btw. the AxeFx started with 512 tabs - but use 48Khz sample frequency.

2007 was all this discussed here:
http://www.setbb.com/axefx/viewtopic.php?mforum=axefx&t=1706

If you read that thread then you can find that Cliff stated that 512points are fine - "1024 do not sound any different".
The AxeFx II has 2048 points - that was discussed very controversial between Cliff and Jay later - and ended in Jay being banned from the Factal forum ....

btw. I don't care about the number of IR points - as long as it sounds right

And 1024 is the right count.
If you go back to the firmware 5.26 with your standard or Ultra, you will be able to hear the first part and the second part of a 1024 tap IR, because it is cut in 2 users IRs. The last 512 part has an influence but it is small.
After that you will have the room reverb.

Cliff stated that the 2048 IRs were added in order to use 2x1024 IRs in the same cab block (stereo) which make sense.
So i would say, 1024 taps with 48khz is the right count.

Yes, you are right - but the Kemper people mentioned in another thread that the KPA does NOT use any IR's at all - not in the amp block and not in the cab block.

So there is no need to increase anything.

(Check the 'KPA = Old tech?' thread for more about this)

Quoted from "Armin"

Yes, you are right - but the Kemper people mentioned in another thread that the KPA does NOT use any IR's at all - not in the amp block and not in the cab block.

So there is no need to increase anything.

Isn't it also possible that it uses IR's but called something else..? Like they use "Profiling" instead of Modeling ?
Of course no one can blame Kemper for not giving away it's secrets..

Quoted from "DigitalTube"

Quoted from "Armin"

Yes, you are right - but the Kemper people mentioned in another thread that the KPA does NOT use any IR's at all - not in the amp block and not in the cab block.

So there is no need to increase anything.

Isn't it also possible that it uses IR's but called something else..? Like they use "Profiling" instead of Modeling ?
Of course no one can blame Kemper for not giving away it's secrets..

Im no expert but I understand Kemper using the word profiling instead of modelling as it uses a very different approach to all other modellers, and profiling describes the process better.
Christoph has gone to great pains on a few occasions to state categorically they are not IRs without trying to give the game away too much as to how they work.
The only person who has actually tried to say they were (and even went on to say they were inferior ones) was the ceo and designer of another top end modeller . That person has also tried to tell his 'fans' that the KPA sounds flat when in a side to side comparison with his offering. (B*llocks! I ran both together for almost 2 weeks. Sent the other one back)
'Nuff said....

Truth is it makes no difference at all to me how the sound is created, IR's no IR's, modeling, profiling etc, it's all the same to me.. Only interested in the final result, the sound coming out of the speakers, my plans for the KPA are mostly for studio, I'm not replacing anything, so I'll get my chance to hear how it sounds thru studio speakers as well as going thru a very decent quality PA, obviously since I own an Axe II I'll do my own comparisons, but I'm looking for something to add, not a replacement, assuming I enjoy playing it will be another option to have for sounds, and after the KPA a Carol Ann amp is on the list after playing one this weekend..

Quoted from "XpennoKPA"

Ok, so I didn't know the current specs of the IRs in the KPA but I'm guessing that they are pretty low resolution compared to the AxeFX II (512 point or less). The reason I say this is down to the energy, especially in the low-end, of the tones in the KPA.

Don't get me wrong, it does sound great as is but I think that there could be a real potential to improve the energy of the profiles by increasing the IR resolution.

Just a thought but it could be a serious improvement to what is already an awesome product.

Cheers

Spence

Has one of you had the chance to make a real judgement about different IR sizes?
The real comparison of IR sizes can only be done by listening to two IR's that are supposed to create the same frequency responce, but have different sizes.

Experience anyone?