Not possible with the KPA?

    Thanks Dimi, appreciate the input and effort.


    A Torpedo or other load-box approach is not without it's own issues though. There will still have the usual....amp inconsistencies, extreme heat generated by the amps (which in a small home DAW can be an issue), tube wear, etc. And as for tone the amp is likely to react differently since a load box cannot (AFAIK) replicate a real speaker's interactions with the amp. This will likely make the biggest difference with cranked amp tones, I suspect. All that said, something like a Torpedo may be claiming to have new technology, and I am not up to speed on any potential recent developments in this area. But my inclination is I'd simply be trading the risks of one 'new technology" path for another, which is why trying to run the issues to ground with the KPA/profiling seems just as much a feasible place to focus time & effort at the moment. Although admittedly, lately I sometimes feel like giving up. :/


    Sonic

    Quote from SonicExporer

    A Torpedo or other load-box approach is not without it's own issues though. There will still have the usual....amp inconsistencies, extreme heat generated by the amps (which in a small home DAW can be an issue), tube wear, etc. And as for tone the amp is likely to react differently since a load box cannot (AFAIK) replicate a real speaker's interactions with the amp.

    That's precisely why you need a reactive load box, such as the one by Suhr which was specifically created to capture the interaction between your amp and cab. Listen to some demos and decide for yourself.

    Quote from ColdFrixion

    That's precisely why you need a reactive load box, such as the one by Suhr which was specifically created to capture the interaction between your amp and cab. Listen to some demos and decide for yourself.

    The Suhr is great, the torpedo live too (reactive as well), and the later includes cab modelling, loading impulses, ect, ect.

    Quote from Dimi84

    The Suhr is great, the torpedo live too (reactive as well), and the later includes cab modelling, loading impulses, ect, ect.

    Both are excellent. If this is the route I was going to take and I were recording direct, I'd probably go with the Suhr and Torpedo W.O.S. III plugin simply because it would be a lot less expensive. The plugin is free if you buy just one of their virtual cabs, and the cabs are super affordable.

    I can vouch for the Suhr Reactive Load, its amazing and its reactive impedance curve is modelled on 4X12 cab with greenbacks which would be right up @SonicExporer street being into early 80's hard rock. I twin it with my Modded JMP and some good greenback impulses and as much as I really like my Kemper and the profiles I've created of my gear with it, the real amp plus the load box just sounds better.

    Quote from LiamThompson

    I can vouch for the Suhr Reactive Load, its amazing and its reactive impedance curve is modelled on 4X12 cab with greenbacks which would be right up @SonicExporer street being into early 80's hard rock. I twin it with my Modded JMP and some good greenback impulses and as much as I really like my Kemper and the profiles I've created of my gear with it, the real amp plus the load box just sounds better.

    I was talking to @SonicExporer about going down this route in PM about a week ago. Glad to hear it is working for you as that is the same setup I was looking at doing.

    Quote from schreckmusic

    I was talking to @SonicExporer about going down this route in PM about a week ago. Glad to hear it is working for you as that is the same setup I was looking at doing.

    To be honest I know the "correct" way to make direct profiles is with an actual cab connected but I've actually had better results making direct profiles using the Suhr as the load than my actual Marshall 1960 and some of my other cabs.


    It was worth every penny alone to just be able to make excellent direct profiles of any of my amps or any amps I borrow at any time of day or any place.....in silence if you wish.


    Playing your real amp at a gig or rehearsal and have you tone nailed......record those exact settings, be at home later maybe the wife or children are asleep? Dial those exact settings in with the Suhr as the load and profile away in silence. Then just add a great impulse. Obviously it also works as a top, top quality DI box if you use the speaker through therefore disabling the Suhr's load.

    Quote from SonicExporer

    What's the flexibility/control factor WRTS mics? Does the Suhr or Torpedo have that feature incorporated to allow for selection of some popular mics and positions?

    The Suhr is just a reactive load and doesn't include cab emulation. The Torpedo's proprietary cabs have freely positional mics and include a Dyn57, Dyn421, Rbn121, Rbn160, and a few others. The freely positional mics is what sold me, however that's only an option with their cabs. Even though you can use third party IRs, they're not freely positional.

    To be honest, I'm not impressed with Torpedo's proprietary cabs. I mean, being able to position the mics anywhere along a 2D plane provides an outstanding level of freedom, but tonally they didn't impress me at all. Ideally, I'd want to use a real amp with the Suhr Reactive Load and the cabs in the Kemper. That would be amazing.

    @ColdFrixion ,


    I had a chance to listen last night to your shot at the Dio tone on proper monitors. Pretty much what I already said earlier, nothing new to add, but it is still closest yet and to me sounds impressive on it's own merit WRT what I've heard out the KPA so far in this tone realm. Can you share some more detail on how you accomplished that? Was the profile you used the older or the new version of the JSX profile? What guitar did you use? Was there anything else tweaked in the KPA beyond some ordinary minor alterations, or did you have to add stomps/EQ, get radical with any settings? And what kind of post tweaking was done, was it primarily just EQ matching, or more?


    Lastly, was that JSX profile chosen because you felt it was uniquely close to start with, or rather you could achieve similar results with many other Marshall-esque profiles?


    Thanks,


    Sonic

    Quote from SonicExporer

    @ColdFrixion ,


    I had a chance to listen last night to your shot at the Dio tone on proper monitors. Pretty much what I already said earlier, nothing new to add, but it is still closest yet and to me sounds impressive on it's own merit WRT what I've heard out the KPA so far in this tone realm. Can you share some more detail on how you accomplished that? Was the profile you used the older or the new version of the JSX profile? What guitar did you use? Was there anything else tweaked in the KPA beyond some ordinary minor alterations, or did you have to add stomps/EQ, get radical with any settings? And what kind of post tweaking was done, was it primarily just EQ matching, or more?

    I used one of the older JSX profiles with a Les Paul. The profile was used as is and nothing was tweaked in the KPA. All tweaking was done in post via plugins. As far as recording, the guitars were double tracked. In post, I started with a bandpass filter, then stacked approx. 3 EQ matches using FabFilter and proceeded to pile on a ton of compression using Waves H-Comp. Some multiband compression was added to the mids and hi-end. Lastly, the Kramer Tape plugin was used to cap off the chain.

    Quote from ColdFrixion

    I used one of the older JSX profiles with a Les Paul. The profile was used as is and nothing was tweaked in the KPA. All tweaking was done in post via plugins. As far as recording, the guitars were double tracked. In post, I started with a bandpass filter, then stacked approx. 3 EQ matches using FabFilter and proceeded to pile on a ton of compression using Waves H-Comp. Some multiband compression was added to the mids and hi-end. Lastly, the Kramer Tape plugin was used to cap off the chain.

    In other words, 80% post, 20% amp tone :D

    Quote from ColdFrixion

    I used one of the older JSX profiles with a Les Paul. The profile was used as is and nothing was tweaked in the KPA. All tweaking was done in post via plugins. As far as recording, the guitars were double tracked. In post, I started with a bandpass filter, then stacked approx. 3 EQ matches using FabFilter and proceeded to pile on a ton of compression using Waves H-Comp. Some multiband compression was added to the mids and hi-end. Lastly, the Kramer Tape plugin was used to cap off the chain.

    I mean, fundamentally, you have to start with an amp tone that has similar enough elements to the reference amp for EQ matching to work, but yeah, a good chunk of that is post production.

    Wow. Scary. What you outlined nearly mimics much of what I had ended up doing - bandpass, and same number of stacked EQ's (with a lot of tone twisting) and a "warmifier" at the end. Plus some tweaks inside the KPA and cab swapping. After which still not getting there I concluded "This is totally messed up if I have to go through this much hoop-jumping just to get the KPA to sound more like a real amp to my ears". :pinch: That's when I started this thread.


    I am still intrigued by this EQ matching technology, not really familiar with it. It's a plug-in that does the analysis and then "configures" itself or rather do you have to take the results and apply it to an EQ manually? And why did you do three EQ's, was that because it wasn't able to nail it on the first pass, so you repeat the process until it sounds right, kind of like refining a profile?
    Any idea where I might get one of these EQ matching VST plugins that would work on both XP and Windows 7 ?


    Sonic

    Quote from ColdFrixion

    I used one of the older JSX profiles with a Les Paul. The profile was used as is and nothing was tweaked in the KPA. All tweaking was done in post via plugins. As far as recording, the guitars were double tracked. In post, I started with a bandpass filter, then stacked approx. 3 EQ matches using FabFilter and proceeded to pile on a ton of compression using Waves H-Comp. Some multiband compression was added to the mids and hi-end. Lastly, the Kramer Tape plugin was used to cap off the chain.

    Wouldn't it be possible to profile the whole processing chain?

    Quote from SonicExporer

    Any idea where I might get one of these EQ matching VST plugins that would work on both XP and Windows 7 ?

    Fabfilter is good. I use bias fx pro vst if EQ matching a guitar tone as said before. Just got near spot-on tones from a bunch of "City of Evil" and "Nightmare" album guitar tracks. Automated for the most part: you just need to have an amp tone similar enough to the source for the matching to work as it should. Bias fx has all you need internally, amps included. As written, you can then profile these tones too.


    But people have been doing eq matching for quite long time too. It's not like Bias Fx or Axe fx came up with it. Nothing new here. It's just convenient for me to use Bias fx. In fact, when the kemper was released, some who have been "eq matching" for ages were questioning the novelty of the kemper as a technology (not saying they were right; partly I think yes).

    Quote from SonicExporer

    Wow. Scary. What you outlined nearly mimics much of what I had ended up doing - bandpass, and same number of stacked EQ's (with a lot of tone twisting) and a "warmifier" at the end. Plus some tweaks inside the KPA and cab swapping. After which still not getting there I concluded "This is totally messed up if I have to go through this much hoop-jumping just to get the KPA to sound more like a real amp to my ears". :pinch: That's when I started this thread.

    It can be a lot of rigamarole if you're chasing a specific sound.


    Quote from SonicExporer

    I am still intrigued by this EQ matching technology, not really familiar with it. It's a plug-in that does the analysis and then "configures" itself or rather do you have to take the results and apply it to an EQ manually? And why did you do three EQ's, was that because it wasn't able to nail it on the first pass, so you repeat the process until it sounds right, kind of like refining a profile?

    Basically, the software analyzes the spectrum of two different signals (source and destination) and comes up with a curve that accounts for discrepancies between the two, then applies that to the destination signal. Sometimes the signals aren't similar enough to begin with to create a close enough match on the first pass, so more than one may be necessary.


    Quote from SonicExporer

    Any idea where I might get one of these EQ matching VST plugins that would work on both XP and Windows 7 ?

    The most popular plugins are FabFilter Q2, Izotope Ozone, and CurveEQ, and any of them will work with either OS.