What are the features of 4.0 ?

    Look through the list. There are lots of fixes and morphing is introduced, which is truly great.
    Also the scaling of the dirt stomps have been reworked (check out the green scream again, i remember you found it too gainy).
    Delays will come a little later in FW 5.0

    Quote from jzucker

    Thanks. I think I was on 3.0 prior to leaving. What are the new features I should expect? Thanks again!


    The morph feature is REALLY nice, and so simple to utilize. Possibilities are endless 8)


    You can use as many delays you want simultaneously, before and/or after the amp slot.


    Distortion stomps now have a "mix" parameter, so you can let an unaffected portion of the signal bleed through.


    Strobe tuner display.


    ...I'm guessing those are the main additions.

    Quote from ipran

    You may boxing your Strymon timeline or eventide time factor , cause now you have 7th delay in the row!!! Fractal should worry with this leap of kemper feature now


    I doubt fractal will have to worry. The real issue with the kemper and why it's taken so long to introduce spring reverb and multiple delays is the CPU power. The axefx CPU power is massively faster than the Kemper.


    The Axe II has dual 600 Mhz TigerSHARC processors while the Kemper uses a single 400 Mhz Freescale processor.


    Axefx uses one dedicated processor for amp modeling and the other processor for effects. This gives axefx *HUGE* advantages for effects since the kemper has only a single CPU doing both the modeling and the effects processing. So IMO the reason that spring reverb is so long in coming isn't so much due to the ultimate algorithm or user priority but more likely to be trying to balance realistic spring reverb algorithms with the available CPU resources without effecting the actual amp modeling.


    OTOH, the amp modeling on the kemper is more realistic IMO...



    im convert from axefx2 to kemper here, im realize axefx2 is very beyond from tech side, but from the guitarist side like me, kemper is more usable in the studio or on stage
    when im using axefx2 i always using 2 delay for my sound and always using modiefier from lush shimmering to tight gain sound, and now its doable with kemper
    for me there is more enough for other to convert like me, my 2cents

    Generally speaking (not that this matters to me), what code runs on a given processor is much more critical than how powerful the processor is. The Profiler might not need a bigger chip.
    AFAWK, running a "profile player" might need much less power than running a modelled amp.


    These comparisons don't really make sense to me


    :)


    Yeah, agreed with what @viabcroce said. Kemper is not amp modeller, it is profile "player", there for it just plays back, what was captured on profiling session.

    Quote from skoczy

    Yeah, agreed with what @viabcroce said. Kemper is not amp modeller, it is profile "player", there for it just plays back, what was captured on profiling session.


    No, it's not a profile player. It's not as simple as just playing a wav file. It's doing lots of real time audio transforms, not just selectively playing back a pre-recorded signal. My point is that it *IS* doing modeling and algorithmic effects and it just plain doesn't have the horsepower that the axefx has so it will never be as good at effects as the axefx but IMO, it's approach to modeling yields more realistic amp results.

    Quote from viabcroce

    Generally speaking (not that this matters to me), what code runs on a given processor is much more critical than how powerful the processor is. The Profiler might not need a bigger chip.
    AFAWK, running a "profile player" might need much less power than running a modelled amp.


    These comparisons don't really make sense to me


    :)


    Yes it's a fact that the sound quality comes from writing great algorithms, code and good efficient programming is needed to reduce cpu usage.
    A very fast cpu (expensive Tigersharc) is good for running a lot of things at once, but a cpu/dsp means nothing to the quality of sound.
    The dsp/cpu power wars are over since many years. A Tigersharc dsp is simply not needed for high quality algorithms and code. Some brands still like to market their product by saying how important an expensive cpu is for sound (when it isn't). For me if I want the highest quality effects I prefer other gear and plugins, not the Axe fx or kemper effects (but they offer a very good compromise in one box). A digital amp device can have the newest most powerful and expensive cpu and still sound very bad compared to a much cheaper cpu box.


    Imo kemper have a very different technology platform than the axe fx and also seems to have much more cpu efficient algorithms and program code so they are not easy to compare that way. Kemper won't do dual amps but I don't see any reason at all why the kemper can't get an excellent spring reverb. More reverbs, delays and other features will come. Imo the kemper has only been out 4 years compared to Axe fx 10 years so they have 6 years of extra development. C.Kemper has said there is room for a lot of new features and that it's not cpu limited yet. They opted for that cpu for a reason, enough power available and low cost. Kemper seem to aim for a much longer product lifespan than the axe fx 2 (see product history).


    Delays don't require a lot of cpu power. From what I've read from NAMM it looks like kemper will offer more delay features than many other competitors. A great sounding spring reverb is in the algorithms, and to me the Axe fx spring is not very good compared to other units (the Helix spring reverb and pitch is worse and it's also using expensive dsp, same as Ax8).


    Both Axe and kemper have high quality pro effects and there are several effects I prefer in the kemper over some in the Axe fx. Some I prefer in the Axe fx and it has more quantity effects, but not more quality. Saying that all effects in one unit is better makes no sense since they are all different.


    I prefer the kemper space reverb, Wah wah, chorus, rotary, compressor, noise gates, tuner, pitch & harmony sound and features.
    Kemper has a big advantage with the pitch effects with great tracking, transpose and some unique features like formant shift and pure tuning. With so expensive processors in the Axe fx (and in helix) it's a mystery why fractal after so many years are behind both kemper, Digitech and Electroharmonix when it comes to pitch effects. It's another proof that quality is about algorithms and not expensive dsp (good for quantity).

    Quote from viabcroce

    My point is that we don't know how demanding is the code. I did not mean it plays a profile as an audio player!


    I did not mean this either! No like playing mp3. It is not though a modeler and it doesn't count/model amp on the fly like it's competition.

    Quote from HappyKemper

    (the Helix spring reverb and pitch is worse and it's also using an expensive Tigershark dsp like the Axe.


    With so expensive Tigershark processors in the Axe fx (same in helix)...


    That is incorrect!


    The Helix doesn't use TigerSharc chips like the Axe FX does. It uses two non-Tiger Sharcs running at 450MHz, ADSP-21469's. The same applies to the AX8 (Again, NOT the Axe FX).

    Thanks for the correct info.
    The Ax8 and Helix have the same dsp.
    They say the Ax fx 2 sound the same as the Ax8 (that use the same two dsp as the Helix).
    Ax8 and Axe fx 2 share the same algorithms and code so why would they sound different, sound quality is not in the dsp.


    From Line6
    http://line6.com/support/topic/14264-helix-faq/
    "Helix is running two of the fastest non-TigerSHARC SHARCs you can buy—the 450 MHz ADSP-21469s—with dual MCUs (one for audio duties and another dedicated to nothing but UI). If I've read between the lines correctly, they're the exact same DSPs that'll be in Fractal's AX8, but I'm just making an educated guess here."


    Ax8
    http://wiki.fractalaudio.com/a…g_and_multi-fx_pedalboard
    "Two dual-core 450 MHz ADSP-21469s and two microcontrollers. One is dedicated to amp modeling, the other to effects and housekeeping"


    Cliff's comments about parts (much talk about power and numbers...)
    http://wiki.fractalaudio.com/a…ardware_model_differences
    "One of the Axe-Fx's DSPs is more powerful than both DSPs combined in the Helix. Our tests show that the TigerSHARC DSP used in the Axe-Fx is over twice as fast as the DSP used in the Helix clock-for-clock . Now add that our DSP is clocked 50% higher the net power is about three times greater. So a single TigerSHARC is about 50% faster than both DSPs combined on the Helix. Yes, if we decided to use both DSPs for effects then you would be able to run more effects. 99% of our customers buy the unit for amp modeling so it doesn't make sense to invest the time and resources to making this possible. Our algorithms are studio-quality and use more processing power than competing products. We've always been about quality over quantity. For example, our variable delay algorithm (chorus, flanger, etc.) uses poly-phase interpolation. EVERY competing product I have tested uses simple linear interpolation (or occasionally polynomial interpolation) which is far less computationally intensive but doesn't sound as good. This is demonstrable and measurable."

    Quote from HappyKemper

    A digital amp device can have the newest most powerful and expensive cpu and still sound very bad compared to a much cheaper cpu box.


    On a side note, while following the Helix thread on TGP I've had the opportunity to read a programmer's post where the author said that the fact that the TigerShark is quite expensive (around 300 $) has nothing to do with its power, but rather with its building technology being old and expensive. IOW, the TS costs a lot per Mips if compared with the 35$ processor in the Helix.
    Thought this was an interesting POV.



    Quote from Booyah

    How much processing power do you think is needed to run a 7kb file?


    Well, this (rhetorical, I know) question is a bit misleading. The .kipr file does not - strictly speaking - contain the sound information, but only the values by which the computational engine "modulates" its reference, "ghost" model(s?). Think of it - roughly - as an array of parameters.

    Considering this "DSP dissing" of the Kemper goes all the way back to 2010, well before the unit was even released (read 2nd post)...


    GuitarAmpModeling.com • View topic - Kemper Modeling Amp


    ... and that we the end-users are after 5 years still not much more the wiser as to the CPU demands of the modelling engine, I'll hopefully be forgiven for saying that I think I've heard Fractal's throbbing CPU grunt's being used as a weapon against Kemper one... no, dozens too many times. I'm so over that one; it's been tired for so long it's already died and turned to dust.


    I deleted my rant earlier, which was prompted by the comparison of CPU power, but suffice it to say that the Kemper is an exquisite example of elegant, efficient programming and imaginative design of both software and hardware. It doesn't run hot, need a fan or draw much current.


    Dare I say it, but for me it's like comparing a Mercedes with a souped-up Chevy. Sure, the Chevy will get you there... for the cost of extra juice, a less-refined ride and possibly with less of an arrival-at-destination guarantee, but the Merc will deliver you fresh as a daisy and ready to rock, in theory, every time (within reason; I'm dealing with a real-world analogy here, after all).



    Thank you for posting this, HappyKemper.


    That was basically the other half of the rant I deleted earlier. Saved me a bunch of typing, bro'. :P