Andertons Helix Vid

  • So Ingolf... could you be armtwisted into borrowing a Helix and doing a Helix vs Kemper shootout similar to the M3 vs CLR? That one was great and I thoroughly enjoyed it. :thumbup:

    I'm just trying to be as truthful to my experience and personal opinion that I'm clearly presenting only as a personal opinion no more no less in an honest and truthful discussion about equipment.

  • So Ingolf... could you be armtwisted into borrowing a Helix and doing a Helix vs Kemper shootout similar to the M3 vs CLR? That one was great and I thoroughly enjoyed it. :thumbup:

    Thank your for the compliments. To be frank my interest in the Helix is about zero at the moment.
    Even my 'natural curiosity' is quite low.
    Could be I'm just very very very content with the profiler. ;)

  • I just tried to reject what in my view must be rejected.When you say that modeling (after 20 years of its existance) is not "inferior" to profiling and that the "future is wide open" also to modeling I have to reject this.Modeling IS far inferior to profiling.Actually I believe that the "era of modeling" is over.Profiling IS the future.And this is the reason why Fractal introduced "tone matching" and Line 6 talks about "profiling each single stage" of the signal path.What bollocks.All of these companies have a clear strategy how to use which technology.All of these are first of all modelers.But only the KPA is concipated from the scratch as such;A profiler.I just wanted to make this clear.And I believe that I have do to this because these are the facts.


    Well, this gets back into the muddy waters of semantics again, but I would hesitate to call most of these "facts". Moreover, you're putting a ton of words in my mouth, beginning with the fact that you've got the past confused with the future. Again, I would suggest you read my first post for what it actually says, wherein I concede that the Kemper outperforms modelers of the past, and state a few reasons why that is so.


    Quote from paults

    Let us know how you feel when you play it


    I'm sure I'll have plenty to say (possibly positive, possibly negative, probably both) but I don't think there will be much use trying to say it on this particular forum.

  • I'm not so sure about your assessment. More than 10 years ago when Line 6 released the Vetta and Vetta 2 they were aiming on the highend market. The rest is history: a very long time period of re-using the very same
    technology in several versions of different devices followed without any further improvements.

    I think Brattcave is hoping that L6's (re-)entry into the high-end space will spur competitors to up their game.

    Yep - more a vague hope than an assessment :)
    Was really referring solely to the digital-amp in a box type of product (No amp/speaker - just 'sound source') as opposed to the Vetta series - I always saw them as a 'Pod with a speaker' (Probably unfairly). Didn't they use essentially the same algorithms?


    This seems to be the first 'modeller type product' from a 'big company' to enter this part of the market in recent years. I can't remember another similar sized company doing this. The Eleven rack was mid priced, the DV Mark Multiamp is now mid price and a much smaller company. I'm probably forgetting one? Anything over the £1000 (UK-centric, apologies!) mark? Must be missing one out but I can't think of it... ?(


    I wonder where the money's been spent on the Helix...The line 6 promo clips on their site have mentioned the guitar input (They state, "the highest quality guitar input you can buy") , the extensive routing, and the colour screen, + a ton of other features...but are the algorithms significantly improved? Despite it looking like an interesting product, my own personal GAS for the Helix is a little low at this point. I'm just interested in the direction being taken and what it might eventually led to.

    Suhr Classic Pro, Fender deluxe Strat & Baja Tele, Gibson ES335, Ibanez S Prestige 2170FW, Eastman AR371CE, Variax JTV > KPA > Patch bay inc. Strymons (Mobius, Timeline, Blue Sky), H9 Max, TC Triple Delay, & POD HD500 > Adam A7Xs

  • I'm sure I'll have plenty to say (possibly positive, possibly negative, probably both) but I don't think there will be much use trying to say it on this particular forum.

    Say it anyway - I enjoy reading your posts :)


    The science and the semantics of the science are a challenge to tease apart. You could even view profiling as a type of 'adaptive modelling'. The Kemper itself uses modelling for its effects.


    Lots of variations of modelling out there - I think it was TAF's Andy who mentioned the Hotone Xstomp that's about to come out with its 'Comprehensive Dynamic Circuit Modeling' (CDCM) system. http://www.hotoneaudio.com/news/90.html
    Apparently it uses 'larger and more complex modeling algorithms'. Still, unlike the KPA this looks like a 'closed system', although there's already 300 stomps in their library. What would be interesting, and it's been mentioned, is if Kemper bought out a floor unit that used profiling solely for multiple stomp boxes - that you could place pre or post. I guess you could already do this if you had two profilers!


    With modelling you are limited to what is being modelled in the first instance. Someone else chooses the sound source. You could say that Profiling places the modelling sound source in the hands of the end user - that's part of it's genius. I don't see why modelling can't reach the same sound quality reproduction as a single profiled amp - but as a philosophy it lacks the flexibility inherent in profiling.


    Something that does irk me somewhat - and it's mentioned by Lee Anderton in the first Helix vid - are throwaway comments that the KPA is fine for single static profiles but you can't stray very far from that if you want to edit. There's definitely some quality 'tweakability' there if you want it!

    Suhr Classic Pro, Fender deluxe Strat & Baja Tele, Gibson ES335, Ibanez S Prestige 2170FW, Eastman AR371CE, Variax JTV > KPA > Patch bay inc. Strymons (Mobius, Timeline, Blue Sky), H9 Max, TC Triple Delay, & POD HD500 > Adam A7Xs

  • Say it anyway - I enjoy reading your posts


    I appreciate that. Having sold my KPA I feel like a fish out of water on this forum, despite the fact that I agree the Kemper sounds amazing.


    The science and the semantics of the science are a challenge to tease apart. You could even view profiling as a type of 'adaptive modelling'.


    NOW we're getting somewhere.


    You could say that Profiling places the modelling sound source in the hands of the end user - that's part of it's genius.


    I believe I said exactly this, which is why I was a little put off at being "schooled" by Nikos. :)


    I don't see why modelling can't reach the same sound quality reproduction as a single profiled amp - but as a philosophy it lacks the flexibility inherent in profiling.


    Exactly. Again, in theory. Again, with regard to future products.


    Something that does irk me somewhat - and it's mentioned by Lee Anderton in the first Helix vid - are throwaway comments that the KPA is fine for single static profiles but you can't stray very far from that if you want to edit. There's definitely some quality 'tweakability' there if you want it!


    Yeah, I think the "static" thing is overstated by a lot of people. What stands to reason is that the results are not reliably equivalent to the signal path that was profiled once you deviate via further editing. That doesn't imply that editing is impossible, or that the results are necessarily "bad".

  • @mbenigni


    Sorry but I cant follow you any more..


    Where did I "lay words into you mouth" and where did I "school" you or anyone;


    This is what you said:

    Quote

    "Modeling" isn't inherently inferior. In fact a lot of purely theoretical arguments (specifically those pertaining to component interaction) would have it the other way. It just happens that modeling efforts to date haven't been as successful as Kemper's results with profiling, at least in the opinion of most here, including myself. But the future is wide open. There's no reason to pretend a modeler can't sound good just because it doesn't "profile" per se.


    I have my own opinion and this is not "semantics" or "schooling" but just an opinion. ;)


    A "fact" on the other side is what ever me or you think out there in the real world.Like:After 20 years of futile attempts of any modeler to date the "first pure profiler" aka KPA achieved the very clear and simple goal:Sounding "exactly" like any given amp it profiles.Not a "fact";So what then;Again "semantics";Would you care to explain;


    If we can agree to this "fact" this leads us to a total logical and absolutely "semantics-free" question for you my dear friend;Where is the point to try further to achieve some thing with an technology which FAILED the goal in two decades when you have a new technology who achieves the goal in its very first "days of living";Where is the "raison d'être" for modeling in this case;Is this not the logical and main question for any person who cares about "science" and also "semantics";


    greetings


  • A "fact" on the other side is what ever me or you think out there in the real world... Would you care to explain;


    Not especially. I think this is getting tiresome for all of us. I'm not sure we're on the same page regarding the definition of fact... but if I go any further down this rabbit hole I'll be quoting Bill Clinton. :)


    If we can agree to this "fact" this leads us to a total logical and absolutely "semantics-free" question for you my dear friend;Where is the point to try further to achieve some thing with an technology which FAILED the goal in two decades when you have a new technology who achieves the goal in its very first "days of living";Where is the "raison d'être" for modeling in this case;Is this not the logical and main question for any person who cares about "science" and also "semantics";


    OK, I do have responses to these questions, which I hope you'll take with an open mind. First, on an entirely personal note, the Helix happens to offer a form factor and set of features that are more practical for me than any of the current Kemper models. As I already said, if I could have a Helix (or something similar) with the Kemper's amp/cab profiling block, that would be my first choice. But again, wishing won't make it so.


    On more general terms, let's consider the possibility that you're applying the term "modeling" too specifically. Set aside the Kemper for a moment as it is indeed unique and, yes, we do have the "P" word to distinguish that paradigm. We can say that ANY product - past, present, or future - that converts an audio signal to digital, modifies it in the digital domain, and converts it back to analog in an effort to make it sound like it has passed through an amplifier, is a modeler. (In this sense, I still hold that Kemper's profiling is one variation on a set of potential modeling solutions - and an excellent one at that.) There is no requirement that those algorithms be equivalent to those of products that have gone before, good, bad, or ugly. Can we at least agree that it is theoretically possible for a modeling device to not suck?


    If we can accept that much, there are other potential benefits to granular, component-level modeling, e.g. the ability to deep edit component parameters to craft amp models and behaviors by hand, exceed real-world boundaries, and so on. I personally find this technology interesting - I enjoy puttering around with the likes of Bias Amps and similar applications to see what emerges, for instance. I am not saying that it is superior to profiling. But I think it's arbitrary to assume that anything other than a profiler will be crap, or to say that amp and/or component algorithms arrived at by professional ears in a studio/ lab have no value.


    Lastly, for all I know, the Helix will sound like an army of farting baboons. And that is entirely beside the point.

  • You say that as if it's a bad thing. ;)

    Really wouldn't want to be in on any profiling session for that one. Clearly, in this instance modelling would be the way to go... =O

    Suhr Classic Pro, Fender deluxe Strat & Baja Tele, Gibson ES335, Ibanez S Prestige 2170FW, Eastman AR371CE, Variax JTV > KPA > Patch bay inc. Strymons (Mobius, Timeline, Blue Sky), H9 Max, TC Triple Delay, & POD HD500 > Adam A7Xs

  • Before I bang on for a bit here, mbenigni, I'd just like you to know that I respect you and enjoy reading your posts. My initial reaction to your response to my post was one of, "well, we seem to agree"... except perhaps on one or two minor "misinterpretations" on your part of what I was saying.


    Oh, and I've been extremely ill, too much so to post on any forums, for roughly a week, so please forgive both my apparent demeanour and belated response! I'm not shitty; I don't get angry (never have), but I am stretched time and energy-wise ATM. Thanks man.



    Did you just diss "science"?? That's a pretty hazardous place to begin if you're setting out to challenge anyone else's judgement. :P


    No, I didn't. The quotation marks simply helped, I thought, to clarify that I was making reference to "general" science, namely fields other than audio. See? I wasn't dissing the word "general" there either. Obviously it's applicable across the board - waves, frequencies, amplitudes, phase, polarity, elecromagnetivity...


    First off, it's numbers in either case. Until you hit a DAC at any rate, at which point it's electricity (OK, it's electricity all along...) It's not sound "for us" or for anyone else until you hit a speaker. It's not magic either.


    Obviously... and I didn't claim or imply that it was magic.


    "Profiling" vs. "modeling" is almost entirely a matter of semantics. In either case, a signal is being subjected to mathematical algorithms in an effort to make it sound different. The main distinction in profiling, as the advent of the KPA defines the term, is that those algorithms are made sufficiently consistent and streamlined that their optimization can be automated. CK's achievement is in having arrived at a system of equations that can universally describe the characteristics of an entire signal path, having observed that path at two points accessible to the end user: input and output. As a result, profiling is fast, and can be repeated by the end user until the results are satisfactory.


    Correct. I hope you didn't think I implied otherwise.


    If anything, I alluded to the fact that the margin for error is obviously compounded with each additional component model's inclusion. The KPA, for all intents and purposes, avoids this conundrum, and this is one of the fundamental reasons why I was attracted to it.


    I agree with viabcroce: a product as feature-rich as the Helix, but with a block that could read KIPR profiles instead of (or in addition to) IR's would be ideal. But wishing won't make it so, so you weigh your priorities and pick a lane.


    Christophe would have to share his base-model code or at the very least a chip/s containing it, which would in effect give the game away, you'd think. This is unlikely in the extreme, IMHO.


    I am amused and duly reminded that trying to talk about actual technology on a fan forum is basically like tilting at windmills. :D


    Just want you to know I deleted a lengthy analysis of this statement, mate. Just as I trusted others wouldn't jump to the wrong conclusions about my use of quotation marks, I'll, once again, trust that you didn't mean this the way it came across. Besides, I wouldn't describe this as a fan forum. Sure, we're all fans, but there's many an electrical / audio engineer and whatnot here, as well as deep-thinking and scientifically-minded individuals who do care and often sweat the details.


    Say it anyway - I enjoy reading your posts :)


    As do I, mbenigni. Lay it on, brother.


    Something that does irk me somewhat - and it's mentioned by Lee Anderton in the first Helix vid - are throwaway comments that the KPA is fine for single static profiles but you can't stray very far from that if you want to edit. There's definitely some quality 'tweakability' there if you want it!


    Yes, I too was somewhat miffed at that proclamation. He went to so much trouble to point out that it was a particular amp with particular settings in a particular location on a particular day with a particular mic in a particular position through a particular preamp, that one was left feeling as if the KPA was nothing more than a restriction in a 19" rack format.


    I'd have expected much fairer treatment from the crew, and if I were Christophe (and I happened to care), I'd insist the error admission, as well as full disclosure of the KPA's tweakability, be included in the very next Helix video they offer, if indeed they make another.


    No fair! No fair!


    Don't mean to sound like a fuddy-duddy, but this post was more effort that I'm rightfully able to go to in one hit right now. Too much detail, editing... to much everything! So, I respectfully bow out of the KPA vs Helix wars... at least until I've got bees in my bonnet and beans to spill!


    Take care, guys.
    Nicky


  • Yes, I too was somewhat miffed at that proclamation. He went to so much trouble to point out that it was a particular amp with particular settings in a particular location on a particular day with a particular mic in a particular position through a particular preamp, that one was left feeling as if the KPA was nothing more than a restriction in a 19" rack format.


    I completely agree,


    In fact, the extensive "tweakability" of the Kemper profiles has been, for me, a revelation. So much so, that I actually prefer the KPA's profile of my (former) main tube amp, than the amp itself. That revelation came when I dove into the AMP menu, and started playing around with some of the parameters...particularly "Definition", "Pick", "Power Sagging", "Tube Shape" and "Compressor". Heck, the "Compressor" alone is almost worth the price of admission, IMHO. The "Direct Mix" is another impressive tool to shape one's tone.


    Cheers,
    John

  • Exactly, Johnno.


    No mention of swapping cabs either... and the attendant parameters relating to that "block"...


    Ridiculous. If you're gonna make a comparison in a review, at least be fair about it for goodness' sake!


    Aarrgghh! Glad I'm not miffed all on my lonesome, mate.

  • To be fair, the Anderton's vid isn't actually a review, more a features showcase, but it's still a pretty low blow to not mention how tweakable the Profiler is. I guess what they were trying (very clumsily) to get across is that the Helix allegedly responds exactly like the modelled amp when tweaking gain, EQ etc., whereas the KPA is the exact copy of the amp and controls set at the time of profiling, yet won't necessarily yield the same exact results as the real amp when tweaking gain, EQ etc. after the fact.

  • No, I didn't. The quotation marks simply helped, I thought, to clarify that I was making reference to "general" science, namely fields other than audio. See? I wasn't dissing the word "general" there either. Obviously it's applicable across the board - waves, frequencies, amplitudes, phase, polarity, elecromagnetivity...


    I understood that your comment wasn't meant as a literal attack on science. (Hence my smiley.) It just seemed like a good point of entry on the entire topic of "profiling" being something so fundamentally different that the word itself must now be treated with some kind of deference. This is the sort of "magical thinking" that I'll reject completely irrespective of whether the Kemper sounds better than any given modeler or not. (Again, that's not a reflection of anything you, specifically, have written. Just a response to a line of thinking I've seen across many posts, here and elsewhere.)


    If anything, I alluded to the fact that the margin for error is obviously compounded with each additional component model's inclusion. The KPA, for all intents and purposes, avoids this conundrum, and this is one of the fundamental reasons why I was attracted to it.


    I agree with you there, and the results speak for themselves. On the other hand, circumventing all of that component modeling in between forfeits some other potential functionality, e.g. the ability for the tone stack, gain controls etc. to behave more similarly to those of the original amp. So from where I'm standing, there are tradeoffs. For the moment, where tone is concerned, the Kemper stands ahead of the pack even in light of those tradeoffs - though for me personally a few functional limitations make it less desirable. I still think it's a stretch to say (as earlier in this thread) that modeling has failed in the course of its 20 years of evolution - I've heard enough performances by Axe FX users to say otherwise, without hesitation. The ability to look back 3, 5, 10 years, and find a crappy sounding modeler is irrelevant. I can probably turn up a few crappy sounding tube amps for good measure. :)


    Christophe would have to share his base-model code or at the very least a chip/s containing it, which would in effect give the game away, you'd think. This is unlikely in the extreme, IMHO.


    Agreed. The only way this would happen is if there were a very generous licensing agreement in place, i.e. with lots of money per unit changing hands. It's the same issue Kemper has to consider when alternate Kemper products are requested, e.g. a cheaper floorboard version, a stompbox profiler, etc. - namely that any alternate means of obtaining the Kemper profiling sound might undercut sales of existing KPA's. (That said, there may be a case to be made, long term, for Kemper doing exactly this - letting manufacturers who are already tooled up build products that suit the needs of other market segments, while Kemper licenses the patented technology that produces their amp/cab tones.)


    Just want you to know I deleted a lengthy analysis of this statement, mate. Just as I trusted others wouldn't jump to the wrong conclusions about my use of quotation marks, I'll, once again, trust that you didn't mean this the way it came across. Besides, I wouldn't describe this as a fan forum. Sure, we're all fans, but there's many an electrical / audio engineer and whatnot here, as well as deep-thinking and scientifically-minded individuals who do care and often sweat the details.


    Well, perhaps I did mean it the way it came across, and you rightly called me out on it. I did intentionally slip the word "fan" in there in a moment of frustration. That was in response to posts I've read over a long period of time, not specifically yours above.


    As do I, mbenigni. Lay it on, brother.


    Thanks, man.


    Yes, I too was somewhat miffed at that proclamation. He went to so much trouble to point out that it was a particular amp with particular settings in a particular location on a particular day with a particular mic in a particular position through a particular preamp, that one was left feeling as if the KPA was nothing more than a restriction in a 19" rack format.


    Interestingly, I think this point was meant to be taken (at least partly) as praise of the KPA, i.e. for the fact that it really does profile a specific amp of your choosing. Just shows the hazard of brevity, of telling the truth but not the whole truth (and how often do we have time for the whole truth...)

  • Have you guys seen this? Sounds pretty nice.


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.


    I really like the dual amp option. This is something that would be awesome on the Kemper.