Can't get my profiles close enough

    Quote from tgs

    Does it have the possibility to show multiple plots at the same time though? That's the thing I like about Ozone, it makes it very easy to compare plots.


    Audacity doesn't show multiple plots at the same time. See Audacity Manual.
    You could create each individual spectrum and export the data. The export file is a text file consisting of frequency - amplitude value pairs representing the spectrum. The data files could be compared directly or imported into a spreadsheet program to plot the data in a single diagram.

    Alright, been a bit busy the last few days but I did get around to testing a couple of things.


    bshaw92: I tried the profiles you sent, and while they do have a very similar frequency response in the low end, it's not much that can be said about it unless there is a clip of the original amp to compare it to.


    Deny: I tried these settings but the filter setting is way too high up. Also it'd need more resonance to get closer to the suggested curve. However, adding more resonance, even with the volume parameter set to -5, makes the Kemper fart pretty bad so I wouldn't want to use that. ^^

    Quote from tgs

    Alright, been a bit busy the last few days but I did get around to testing a couple of things.


    bshaw92: I tried the profiles you sent, and while they do have a very similar frequency response in the low end, it's not much that can be said about it unless there is a clip of the original amp to compare it to.


    Deny: I tried these settings but the filter setting is way too high up. Also it'd need more resonance to get closer to the suggested curve. However, adding more resonance, even with the volume parameter set to -5, makes the Kemper fart pretty bad so I wouldn't want to use that. ^^

    Bummer, I wish it was a way to compensate for these frequencies using the least possible tweaking. Ayway I've been focusing my efforts on working on the other end of the chain lately, started a thread about optimizing the KPA for my FRFR speaker (Yamaha DXR10). BTW what are you using for monitoring?

    tgs - sent you a file.


    Deny, Try a slight increase in bass and midrange in the tonestack and then go into the cabinet and change the character setting slightly and see if that produces results closer to your original tube amp with no other changes.

    "More Guitar in the Monitors" :thumbup:

    Quote from ckemper

    We will investigate this.


    CK


    finally an acceptable answer by the Kemper! for months I reported everywhere this problem...
    I've done every kind of tests in a professional studio and the problem can not be solved with a simple EQ, I have felt this loss of low end as a kind of shift of the harmonics focal point, so trying to find the lost frequencies will change everything else and I walk away from the original tone


    PS: many thanks tgs!

    Quote from bshaw92

    tgs - sent you a file.


    Got it! I just tested it and compared with the OR 15Cranked program that you sent. Since it's not exactly the same setup/mic position, etc, it's not very accurate to compare them. I zeroed the tone stack since it was too middy in comparison. I captured a curve of your clip and one with me playing roughly the same riff.


    [Blocked Image: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8687414/Kempertest/bshaw-comp.JPG] 
    It has a similar thing going on between 90 and ~200 and added information below 90, but since the rest of the curve is quite different as well I can't draw any conclusions from this. The top end smoothing is probably the Character that was set to -4. Unfortunately I don't have more time to experiment with it at the moment. :S

    Funny, this is the range of guitar freq that I always tend to eq out anyway. Don't you feel it steps on the bass and drums if you have such a low end bump? Accuracy aside, what you're asking for is what ends up making my mixes sound muddy. :huh:

    Quote from FaZz

    tgs (and I) does not ask for nothing more than fidelity in profiling.
    PS: there is a universal rule to make a good mix? and if I have to record some guitars with no bass and drums, can not use the KPA?

    Oh come on. Bit melodramatic, eh? I've been using the Kemper for quite a long time as my only "amp" solution and it sounds great to me and if I want some extra bottom thickness, I have no problem getting it. The EQ effects are excellent. Even when I've recorded real amps in the studio I don't think there ever was a time when I didn't EQ the recording in post. Show me an engineer who doesn't give some EQ love to a guitar channel in a live show and I'll show you someone in league with Satan and liberally using black magic. :P


    I've never profiled an amp... and I probably never will because I already have access to more amazing sounding profiles than I could ever even use. Sure, if they can get even closer, who'd complain? However, if you want "exact" then you'd better stick with your amp because there really is no such thing as perfect. Like my friend Lao Tzu used to say, "expectations suck." ;)

    I think this feedback should be taken as constructive. If the facts are presented correctly then it's an opposrtunity to verify and make a product better. Everyone might do something different within the eq range but if multiple profiles show simular characteristics then adjusting that only makes a good product better in any case.

    "More Guitar in the Monitors" :thumbup:

    Quote from zerocrossing

    Sure, if they can get even closer, who'd complain?


    That's exactly why I ran the tests and kept trying to rule out other possibilities. I found a problem when I made profiles, same problem over and over, and I tried to analyze it the best I could. As it seems, there is a flaw in profiling with some information lacking in one area and some added in another.


    Some people seem to think that I'm doing this to complain or something. I'm doing it in the hopes that Kemper might be able to do something about it in a future update. If the Kemper makes an eq decision for you and you're happy with that: great! No need to update if you think the product is already perfect. Maybe the fact that Kemper keep putting out updates baffles you.

    the kpa sells itself capturing amps accurate, if there are a few frequencies that are a little off, that's fair game to discuss. maybe something changed in the many FW updates ;) (runs for cover)

    so based on the lack of response is it safe to say that no one else has verified, cares or has not noticed any differences in that range? If so are there things/tricks incorporated into the profile before or after profiling to compensate?

    "More Guitar in the Monitors" :thumbup:

    Quote from bshaw92

    so based on the lack of response is it safe to say that no one else has verified, cares or has not noticed any differences in that range? If so are there things/tricks incorporated into the profile before or after profiling to compensate?


    I would put myself in the "not care/not noticed" categories but I completely applaud and support tgs' efforts to identify an issue, scientifically test it and then bring it in a calm manner to kemper in order to make the KPA as accurate as possible for all of us.

    I was recently at a guitar show and a guy there had a Kemper rig set up and he was getting ready to start selling his profiles to the public soon. By trade, he is a sound engineer for a living (not a studio engineer, but a guy who gets paid to analyze the resonant frequencies of various products and those sorts of things).


    We got into a discussion about sampling rates and after testing the Kemper for several months, his conclusion was that the reason the low end lacks on the profiles is because the sampling rate is simply too low to properly translate the low end. For the high end, its perfect (as shown in the EQ graphs). But for the low end the sampling rate of the profiler itself needs to be much higher.


    I dont know how true any of that is, because well, I am not an engineer. Food for thought though.