Kemper is so much better than Fractal

Quote from ColdFrixion

I wouldn't be surprised if there are at least some characteristics that aren't well understood. For characteristics that developers like Cliff do understand and feel incapable of modeling with 100% accuracy due to a lack processing power, I think faster processors will ultimately prove useful. In my opinion, and this is just me, I feel fairly confident that at some point modeling will achieve perfect accuracy, not just in terms of sonic reproductive accuracy but the full gamet of parameter control. I can't prove that of course, but I tend to believe it.

I agree. It would be Malthusian not to. I'm not saying that processing isn't important, just that by the time such a system is know well enough (either by brains or brawn) the processing will have Moore's-lawed itself out of the picture as a limiting factor.

Quote from OneEng1

"Modeling" is always going to be more intense than profiling IMO.

Lets just look at the two approaches:

Modeling - produce a model for EACH AND EVERY electrical and mechanical component of the amp, then make all that logic string together in a massive series - parallel system. Each bit of input is put through this massive ringer and sent to the output.

Profiling - Measure the response of the entire SYSTEM that you want to emulate, put it in a can, and then put every bit that goes into the system through that can and send it to the output.

In electrical engineering the latter is called "the system response" frequently refereed to in math as H(X) (Read "H of X").

Modeling attempts to build up H(X) from all the little h(x) for each component. This will be many times as computationally intensive, and any error in any component h(x) will be amplified as error throughout the system.

To be more accurate about what CK has done, the architecture of the KPA consists of 4 pre-processing steps that are in series. This feeds into 3 major system response transfer functions for AMPLIFIER, EQ, and CABINET. The output of this stage is fed into 4 post processing engines.

The really cool thing about the KPA is its ability to capture those 3 system response transfer functions so accurately and easily, and implement them with so little processing.

I am not giving away any huge secrets here. Any decent EE with a signals and systems background would come to the same conclusion about the KPA. It is that last step where things get really hairy. Getting it done accurately, easily, and in a way that takes very little processing power.

It's kinda like Colonel Sanders special recipe for guitar amps

Display More

I'm a Chemical/Materials engineer by training, but I had a little exposure to transfer functions in my Process Control class 25 years ago. Haven't use a differential equation or LaPlace transform since . But I remember enough to be curious about how the propagation of errors affect a multicomponent Lumped Element model compared to an H(x) model. Intuitively, it seems like they could wind up making a mess. Care to comment?

Quote from ColdFrixion

I feel fairly confident that at some point modeling will achieve perfect accuracy, not just in terms of sonic reproductive accuracy but the full gamet of parameter control.

Say you are right. At that time in the future you will still find people complaining about it still doesnt feel and sound right!

In my mastering room each and every MP3-sounds-like-trash-believer failed in blind-A/B-tests with WAV. Not a single one left the experiment and was convinced that MP3 is just fine. The ones who came and liked MP3 before were just happy that even with very expensive speakers in a treated room they cant hear the difference. I respect Tom Petty very much. He says MP3 is "just a joke and nothling left in there of the music". Well...

I listened to many sound examples of amps / profiles here. Sometimes I thought: wow, that Helix (or Axe) sound is finally really good - only to read the comment of another user that its actually the worst he ever heared. Who is right? Who is wrong? Both. Full stop. I decide for myself so do the others.

I am not complaining. In fact I love that we humans are that different and diverse.

More technically:Judge the variation in sound of a particular tube amp - say with temperature or even worse - after repair. I claim that the overall sound deviation of modern digi amps in question are smaller than that (in case they are used and twaeked correctly, easy for the Kemper, delicate for the modellers).

My digi amp problem is finally solved. Today.

If any here haven't, this is the oft-linked interview that pulls back the curtain on this fine device and the thinking behind it's invention:

http://www.guitar-muse.com/kemper-profiling-amp-2949-2949

Guitar gear is just a product, no different than records vs CD's, tube tv sets vs digital tv sets, etc.. Take cell phones, analog vs digital. Which is better for calls? Analog by leaps. Why? Because it was a stronger and with father signal and the 'quality' was there, unlike digital phones which sounds shrill and the range is far less (Doctors, Lawyers, etc HATED digital phones and many refused to give them up, until the companies themselves cut them loose) So here we have guitar amplification. Tube amps have been around a very long time and survived solid state amps / preamps / rack gear and all of that, but to me this is a new era which I do not think it can recover. You can't just look at sound alone, but the whole product (like cell phones, who would want a digital cell phone if it was just for calling only? Most would not, but when you have the ability to send texts, internet, etc, you forgive the bad quality dropping voices and go with the features) I look at my investment of a big heavy 70lb tube head like the Herbert or ENGL or whatever, which can do some amazing things, they have midi, have some adjustments, etc, but then the Kemper and AXE, they are light, robust in features, visual in control beyond a standard amp, have internals like effects and cabs etc, connects effortlessly to recording setups, computers, etc, etc.... Look at kids today, nothing gets noticed unless it has an iphone attachment... Things are proceeding much faster in tech everywhere than it has in the past, and now with these new guitar toys that go right along with it, tube amps will drop fast. If Kemper ever comes out with a version 2, then watch out ebay, it will be a flood of affordable units like the Axe and so on. Would a tech savy kid want a boring old tube amp or a high tech modeler or profiler? I just see the near future going that route, most players today start off with what there heros play, not because they are better per say, but because that is what their heros play. A good musician can make anything sound great. As far as needing original sounds from gear, that is true, for a while, until they get to the point where the profiles are as good or better, than all you need is just the better profiles. For me, I welcome the change, I've been bored with old tech for many years and amazed it has taken till now to start making better. Anyway, it will be interesting to revisit this topic in 5 years and see what has changed. We might all be surprised.

Quote from db9091

If any here haven't, this is the oft-linked interview that pulls back the curtain on this fine device and the thinking behind it's invention:

http://www.guitar-muse.com/kemper-profiling-amp-2949-2949

Good time to re-introduce folks to the interview IMHO, db.

Who could forget the response posted on August 18th 2011?
"400 MHz? Yikes. That’s a POD."

... and the CPU-grunt throwaway line still lives on for some. LOL

This, from Christoph, caught my attention:

We are building up a library for passive tone stacks so every amp can be equipped with the corresponding equalizer, even after the profile has been captured. The tone can be shaped then as on the original. But you can even choose another passive tone stack for your profile, or even a studio equalizer, that goes far beyond the boundaries again.

I don't recall having heard any word on this since.

Also, I loved that even back then, they barely touched the EQ stack due to the power of the amp parameters, much as I do:

Our unique amp controls that change the basic sound and the distortion character of the amp are really exciting. Whenever we demonstrated these features to guitarists, they were so blown away from the impact of these controls, that nobody ever asked for a specific EQ or tone stack. Within two dozen demonstrations we touched the tone controls three or four times only.

Quote from Nemo13

If Kemper ever comes out with a version 2, then watch out ebay, it will be a flood of affordable units like the Axe and so on.

I think on the issue of "equity" from time to time, more out of curiosity. I recently saw on Craigslist locally a $900 ULTRA and thought "Man, I should buy this cause I can get easily $1150 for it" but I have too much going on.

But it shows, many many years after it was made, many more years after it's obsolete, it still commands great equity. And it should, ti's a great unit.

The Kemper would enjoy a similar path.

Quote from SpinnerDeluxe

Say you are right. At that time in the future you will still find people complaining about it still doesnt feel and sound right!

Without a doubt. Purists will always exist.

Quote from SpinnerDeluxe

In my mastering room each and every MP3-sounds-like-trash-believer failed in blind-A/B-tests with WAV. Not a single one left the experiment and was convinced that MP3 is just fine. The ones who came and liked MP3 before were just happy that even with very expensive speakers in a treated room they cant hear the difference. I respect Tom Petty very much. He says MP3 is "just a joke and nothling left in there of the music". Well...

I can't distinguish between a sample encoded in MP3 at 320kbps compared to a WAV file.

Quote from SpinnerDeluxe

I listened to many sound examples of amps / profiles here. Sometimes I thought: wow, that Helix (or Axe) sound is finally really good - only to read the comment of another user that its actually the worst he ever heared. Who is right? Who is wrong? Both. Full stop. I decide for myself so do the others.

No doubt good and bad are subjective. Accuracy is another story. With most modelers (excluding the KPA) it's impossible to determine the accuracy of an amp model because there's no way to A/B it against the reference amp the model is based on.

Quote from ColdFrixion

I can't distinguish between a sample encoded in MP3 at 320bps compared to a WAV file.

I'm sure anyone could if it was encoded in iTunes. There's obvious loss of HF content and smearing going on due to the trade off Apple made in favour of encoding speed.

L.A.M.E. - different story for sure. I love it, and it's close enough for me.

Quote from Monkey_Man

I'm sure anyone could if it was encoded in iTunes. There's obvious loss of HF content and smearing going on due to the trade off Apple made in favour of encoding speed.
L.A.M.E. - different story for sure. I love it, and it's close enough for me.

I don't know about iTunes, but I can't distinguish any difference whatsoever using Samplitude.

Quote from ColdFrixion

Yes, hence the words "I think" and "in my opinion" sprinkled throughout the post.

I respect your opinion, though I disagree in part.

You referenced "the vast majority". Approximately how many people have you asked?
Personally 60-75, but I have also been part of numerous large discussions on the topic, and thus my sample size is several 100.

Note the words "I think".
However, the "I think applied only to the most authentic statement, The second phrase is clearly worded not as opinion, but that you are stating as fact, that the KPA's primary limitation is in reproducing an....

I haven't taken a national survey so I can't speak for all gigging musicians. That aside, there's a reason amps have more than one knob. It's the same reason commercial vendors profile amps at various settings.

Your talking absolutes. I am talking about practicality. NOONE uses the full sweep of an amp in every combination of all it's knobs. How do YOU use your amps? How many different iteration, combinations and permutations of it's settings?

The absolute is that amps have a manifold combination of settings. However, the practical viewpoint is that most players use a tiny fraction of those possible settings.

Creating multiple profiles at various settings no more captures an amp as a whole than taking multiple pictures of specific colors on a color wheel captures the entire spectrum. In my opinion, there are far more non-gigging hobbyists that own tube amps than vice versa. Profiling your own tube amps is great, though that still requires a tube amp.
Again,, as before your talking absolute. Yes, multiple profiles does not 'capture' every single permutation of settings for an amp. But, and this is the point I am making that your ignoring, it doesn't have to. It captures enough to be a useful, practical, representation of the whole. Yes, we all know it doesn't capture that entirety. You can stop throwing that up. That isn't what I am talking about. I am saying if used properly, it captures the practical, useful portion of the amp.

Display More

First

Quote from ColdFrixion

You referenced "the vast majority". Approximately how many people have you asked?

I see. And how many people in the world do you believe own tube amps?

Quote from cybermgk

However, the "I think applied only to the most authentic statement, The second phrase is clearly worded not as opinion, but that you are stating as fact, that the KPA's primary limitation is in reproducing an....

If I were stating it as a fact, I would defend it as such. It was a complete and single thought process prefaced with the words "I think". Considering I wrote the comment, who's in a better position to state what I meant? Me or you?

Quote from ColdFrixion

I haven't taken a national survey so I can't speak for all gigging musicians. That aside, there's a reason amps have more than one knob. It's the same reason commercial vendors profile amps at various settings.

No one? And you know this how? Bingo... That's an absolute. I don't know how many people have twisted every, single knob in every conceivable combination but I'd bet there are some who at least want the option of being able to twist the knobs in non-predetermined ways.

Quote from cybermgk

The absolute is that amps have a manifold combination of settings. However, the practical viewpoint is that most players use a tiny fraction of those possible settings.

Manifold means many. Yes, amps have many settings. That's not an opinion. That's a fact. Claiming that most players use a tiny fraction of an amp's settings is not a fact. It's an opinion. Moreover, assuming that amp owners don't want the option of using more than a fraction of all possible amp settings is also an opinion.

Quote from cybermgk

Yes, multiple profiles does not 'capture' every single permutation of settings for an amp. But, and this is the point I am making that your ignoring, it doesn't have to.

In your opinion.

Quote from Monkey_Man

I'm sure anyone could if it was encoded in iTunes. There's obvious loss of HF content and smearing going on due to the trade off Apple made in favour of encoding speed.

Thats possible and was a huge actual problem in the MP3-world. The *real* MP3-algorithm was invented by Fraunhofer in Germany. And it is actually licensed. At the advent of MP3 Steinberg had a license and its MP3 rendering was excellent while the early Lame-Encoder was home-grown and sounded awful. In the release notes of that time it was clearly stated (implementation not complete and some bugs). But nobody cared, so they said MP3 is awful. BTW: Youtube-sound at that time was also truely awful. But imporved very much meanwhile.

Yup. L.A.M.E.'s great now, and iTunes' conversion sucks 'cause it's set to process uber-quickly. Side-by-side, the iTunes high-frequency loss and smearing / loss of definition are ridiculously-obvious next to a L.A.M.E.-encoded version.

Let's not divert the thread, SpinMan. These guys are having an in-depth debate about modelling and I don't wanna break their trains of thought. Cheers bud.

Quote from ColdFrixion

I see. And how many people in the world do you believe own tube amps?

If I were stating it as a fact, I would defend it as such. It was a complete and single thought process prefaced with the words "I think". Considering I wrote the comment, who's in a better position to state what I meant? Me or you?

No one? And you know this how? Bingo... That's an absolute. I don't know how many people have twisted every, single knob in every conceivable combination but I'd bet there are some who at least want the option of being able to twist the knobs in non-predetermined ways.

Manifold means many. Yes, amps have many settings. That's not an opinion. That's a fact. Claiming that most players use a tiny fraction of an amp's settings is not a fact. It's an opinion. Moreover, assuming that amp owners don't want the option of using more than a fraction of all possible amp settings is also an opinion.

In your opinion.

Display More

And you stating the opposite of any of my assertions above is also an opinion, your opinion, so what? Sorry, but your opinion holds no more validity than any one else's. Or, do you assert that your opinion is the be all end all?\\And oddly, you still haven't answered the one question I have asked of you personally. Once again, how many different 'setting' combinations on your amps, do you use, regularly?

@cybermgk
@ColdFrixion
this quote fest has gone far enough

If you have nothing new to add to the discussion, please sort out your differences using the pm function.

Thanks.

Quote from DonPetersen

@cybermgk
@ColdFrixion
this quote fest has gone far enough

If you have nothing new to add to the discussion, please sort out your differences using the pm function.

Thanks.

done and done

cybermgk, it's all opinion. Nothing less, nothing more.

Quote from barryjohns2126

Would it be a nice feature to be able to model every possible setting on an amp with just one profile. Sure. My thought would be, most people would still navigate to the 2-3 typical settings.

Use morph to use one profile but 2 gain settings. Use performance to have 5 settings (or 3, if you wish) with one profile. In RM call them Clean - Overdrive - Solo. For Solo you could then not only add gain, but use Stomps like Boost or TubeScreamer.

Very flexible and readily available right now.