Axe FX III vs Kemper Profiling Amp

  • I've heard huge stacking differences on multiple background vocals on cheap mics vs one with a much better signal to noise ratio.
    It kinda of stands to reason that poorer conversion will stack poorly. Although, one could argue that the inherent frequency phase cancellations would do more damage in that regard.


    I try not to stack the same tracking, but do so for harmonies (guitar or vocal) and it was amazing how well the TLM103 stacked vs say a C1000S.


    The irony? I then put on tube compressors and eventually a friggin' tape emulator that all add noise so it starts becoming a mute argument at that point, haha

    Ethan knows something about room acoustics.
    And not much else about making records.


    Leaving aside some of the blatant dishonesty in some of his ‘tests’, he has a clear agenda to be the ‘guy who debunks things’


    When I hear some records he has made that sound great then I’ll take his advice on these kinds of things.


    Most of the people I know what make great sounding records for a living think ‘stacking’ is a real thing.


    I don’t buy into the “nothing really matters” school of digital thought. Popular as it may be amongst the hobbyists on gearsluts.



    Back on topic; the Fractal is a modeller. It’s building blocks to make a sound that emulates an amp and effects.
    The Kemper profiles an actual amp.
    That ability to profile MY amps mic’ed the way I like to mic, through the desk pre I like etc. is what makes t way superior to me.
    It’s not someone’s idea of a Hiwatt. Or someone’s attempt to match a Hiwatt. It’s MY Hiwatt sounding the way I would record it.

  • Ethan knows something about room acoustics.And not much else about making records.


    Leaving aside some of the blatant dishonesty in some of his ‘tests’, he has a clear agenda to be the ‘guy who debunks things’


    Ad hominem. If you have any tests that demonstrate the validity of stacking or can show why Ethan's tests are invalid, feel free to post them, otherwise attacking someone as 'having an agenda' isn't a substantive refutation.


    Most of the people I know what make great sounding records for a living think ‘stacking’ is a real thing.


    Like who? By all means feel free to post any and all tests that validate their opinion. Never mind that there was a time when most people believed the Earth was flat, too.


    When I hear some records he has made that sound great then I’ll take his advice on these kinds of things.


    Another fallacy. Following this logic, one would be lead to believe a professional athlete shouldn't listen to anyone who isn't a professional athlete. Cus D'Amato trained Mike Tyson, Floyd Patterson and José Torres, yet never fought professionally.

  • Right. Ethan Winer says that if you record one track with 1 dB distortion and then record another track with 1 dB distortion the resulting parallel summation will be... 1 dB of distortion. Good point.


    But what I'm talking about is more of a real world stacking. You get distortion going through KPA -> DAC then that signal -> Apollo ADC's LINE IN. That's 2 levels of distortion going on from 2 different manufacturers. So that's additive distortion, or SERIAL as opposed to the PARALLEL that Ethan was referring to. If all you did was layer guitars using the same treatment, Ethan is still right. But we don't do that, do we?


    Now, you go in with this DELTA level of distortion (or with converters, I think of it as "degradation" of the original audio signal) and it may not be readily apparent to someones ears (even if apparent to others). But it's there. And the problem with it being degradated is this: frequencies lost that are inaudible affect the audible spectrum.


    When you start processing with further hardware, or as most of us now do, plugins ( often multiple plugins) this distortion becomes manifest as a different sounding audio signal than the original Digital S/PDIF -> S/PDIF Digital would be going through the same distortion. Because a plugin notation can act upon frequencies in the original signal that just don't exist in the degraded one. Which again, even if in the inaudible range, augment to affect the audible range.


    In the REAL world, you don't use the exact same processing either. Your main vocal might be on a different reverb plugin than your guitar or even your background vocals. The whole mix might be on another reverb. The various differences of different compressors, etc, you get the point, are NOT the scientific "same distortion to a signal in parallel" that Ethan had proven scientifically means summation of equally treated signals doesn't end up with augmented differences.


    You have a good point. But its a special case not prevalent in most people's mixes.


    In the REAL world, we apply different conversions, different processing, and the differences augment. If they are not initially audible, they WILL stack up to become evidently audible as the processing stacks up.


    I hear the initial difference on the Apollo Twin. I'll have to fiddle with my newer Apollo 8, to see if I can hear it (since it has a real LINE IN) but I'd STILL choose the straight digital signal.
    Why choose a degraded signal if you don't have to, knowing it will be further processed and that this processing can only reveal an unnatural result?

  • Right. Ethan Winer says that if you record one track with 1 dB distortion and then record another track with 1 dB distortion the resulting parallel summation will be... 1 dB of distortion. Good point.


    But what I'm talking about is more of a real world stacking. You get distortion going through KPA -> DAC then that signal -> Apollo ADC's LINE IN. That's 2 levels of distortion going on from 2 different manufacturers.


    The first two samples in Ethan's test involved first captures from the microphone, and the third was a re-recorded version degraded by an extra pass through the Delta's D/A and the SoundBlaster's A/D sections, thus 2 levels of distortion from 2 different manufacturers.


    If they are not initially audible, they WILL stack up to become evidently audible as the processing stacks up.


    Feel free to post samples that validate your claim.


    Why choose a degraded signal if you don't have to, knowing it will be further processed and that this processing can only reveal an unnatural result?


    Despite my initial assumptions, based on real-world blind A/B testing I've performed here I'm not inclined to believe it makes any real or notable difference. Feel free to post samples, though.

  • These are my thoughts about Ethan's point:


    I'm a scientist, so I can extract from a test result it's exacting point. There is an accurate point here, so it has merit and application.
    But it's not as sweeping as indicated because of the many variable in real recording.


    Its pure reality should also not cause decisions that are clearly stupid: choosing to go through 2 converters instead of staying in the digital realm.
    Which, btw, is also scientifically proven to be a degraded signal. And Ethan is NOT advocating that. So he shouldn't be used for that aim.


    By taking an isolated case to make an academic point (parallel input distortion isn't additive in a pure test case) instead of conversationally pointing out that this merely means that the causation initially ascribed is correct, but just for the wrong reason, well, you're resorting to argument for it's own sake, and not trying offer a solution or give some clarity by advocating a smart decision. You're arguing an exception as the de facto reason for a universal solution that is not professionally accepted and not even academically preferred and basing the nail in the coffin on your own senses (hearing) which is about as accurate as an optical illusion.


    There's a clear role for science, but most of us judge by that terrible un-scientific standard of being an ear-witness. I'm guilty of this, but it helps to know when and why you do this.
    If someone says they can't hear something, I take them at their word: Their hearing sucks, haha. But I don't broaden that to mean anything beyond their own hearing.
    I can hear a difference. Is my hearing superior? Probably not. In fact, at my age, definitely not. And I don't fool myself into thinking there isn't some believe involved in my own aural decisions.
    But I am quite aware that there is no way to be "scientific" about a human decision based on senses. The brain is too prone to failure of the senses to have anything universally empirical about them.

  • The first two samples in Ethan's test involved first captures from the microphone, and the third was a re-recorded version degraded by an extra pass through the Delta's D/A and the SoundBlaster's A/D sections, thus 2 levels of distortion from 2 different manufacturers.


    Feel free to post samples that validate your claim.


    Despite my initial assumptions, based on real-world blind A/B testing I've performed here I'm not inclined to believe it makes any real or notable difference. Feel free to post samples, though.

    Your argument is entirely orthogonal.


    While Ethan talks about the parallel effect of a Delta distortion, you are ignoring the Serial size and Serial processing of that Delta distortion. You are applying his findings inaptly, too.
    You're using his study to advocate, wrongly, a position that a degraded signal is equal to the original un-degraded signal, which is, frankly, extremely illogical. Read my statement above about using ears as scientific evidence. Its only evidence for your own decision. They don't relate universally.


    As to "proving" things, you resort to this measure on threads I've read, and I've seen you dismiss the proof out-of-hand without evidence. I won't play such games with you.


    If you don't already know that processing distortion creates a divergence compared to an undistorted signal, I doubt you can understand the proof. Read up on it?


    Feel free to post 5 more times on an illogical, unproven, and poor piece of advice. I'm sure those interested in good mixes will find good sources of information to avoid your choice. But you'll be arguing to yourself hereon out. I'm not getting involved in a fool's argument.

  • Your argument is entirely orthogonal.
    While Ethan talks about the parallel effect of a Delta distortion, you are ignoring the Serial size and Serial processing of that Delta distortion. You are applying his findings inaptly, too.
    You're using his study to advocate, wrongly, a position that a degraded signal is equal to the original un-degraded signal, which is, frankly, extremely illogical. Read my statement above about using ears as scientific evidence. Its only evidence for your own decision. They don't relate universally.


    Firstly, it was a test rather than a study, but that's neither here nor there. Secondly, the original context of our discussion pertained to audible differences with respect to 'poorer conversion stacking poorly', hence your original comment from post #73:


    "... if you DO have a good interface (or perhaps an inability to hear the difference between Line vs Digital) multiple recordings should stack up to become audible (for those who layer.)"


    My follow-up post (#74) also referenced audible differences.


    And then your reply(post #80):


    "I guess stacking is audible with microphones for the noise, but a poor adc is either heard outright (ie fast track ultra vs clarett) or heard from multiple conversions (i.e. bussing through hardware or reamping)"


    Now you're attempting to move the goal posts and suggest that I was advocating for a degraded signal being equal to the original signal, which I never stated nor implied. The signal may, in fact, be 'different', but if it's not an empirically demonstrable audible difference, so what? I mean, dithering theoretically ameliorates distortion, however the distortion is so far down that alleviating it via dither serves no practical purpose. At least no one can hear the difference in blind A/B tests anyway.


    As to "proving" things, you resort to this measure on threads I've read, and I've seen you dismiss the proof out-of-hand without evidence.


    Evidence serves as proof, thus if you can cite a single thread where I've dismissed solid evidence (ie. proof not simply claims), then by all means post it. However, if you're going to make a claim, be prepared to back it up. Why should anyone take your word for it? Because your heart's in the right place? Either you have evidence to support your position or you don't, but if simply making a claim served as proof, scientists wouldn't bother comparing test results from controlled experiments. That said, please stick to the original context of our discussion and stop shifting the argument to support a narrative I never argued for or against.

  • That's why blind testing is used; to rule out confirmation bias.

    Check into "universally empirical."


    Also, understand that while there are scientifically mechanical instruments capable of measuring some sonic outcomes that provide data for our MINDS to evaluate rationally, human ears and brains, which evolved to not be eaten instead of evolving as quality sound testing equipment are extremely irrational at measuring sound in a universally empirical way. They are untrustworthy, not just due to imparting mental bias, but because people do not all "hear" the same way mechanically or perceptually and so they cannot be relied upon to produce "universally empirical" proof.


    You've read, no doubt, to only mix for an hour at a time because you hear differently based on what you were hearing prior? That high volume produces ear fatigue? That it's better to come to a mix with "fresh ears"? That's because your own ears judge sound in a relativistic way moment to moment based on what they just heard? Ear/Brains are incapable of being unbiased in a universally empirical way. If they were capable, as you suggest, then we'd all arrive at the same decision, right? The results would be Universal. They are not. That should be a clue to you that there is a crack in the above statement you provided that doesn't hold up under scrutiny.


    Ever see a co-worker outside of work and forget their name because it's a different setting? Your ears work the same way. Setting affects how you hear things. Mood. Previous aural events. Past experience. Attention span. Hearing loss. Bone formation. Ear formation. Drug and Alcohol blood levels. etc, etc, etc.


    It's sad we base court cases largely on eye-witness when scientifically we've proven it's one of the worst forms of evidence you can introduce into a court hearing. Ear-witness is the same. Unreliable, untrustworthy, capable of being fooled (aural illusions perhaps?)


    We shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking our ears are anything but AS fallible as eye-witness. Ear-witness is a terrible measure of universally empirical (and scientifically accepted) results of sound.


    You can add 2+2 apples and it's 4 apples all over the world. But if you look at the results of your "blind testing" and don't see 93%+ agreement? The test is a dud. Get 30% KPA, 30% Fractal and 40% IDK? Dud.

  • In my own blind tests, I couldn't tell a difference between Line-In and SPDIF, though if you're going to be performing multiple operations in a DAW

    To clarify so you aren't confused, my first post was in response to your statement here above.


    You seem to have "changed the goal post" from that and you did not "provide proof" of Line-in vs SPDIF (It's S/PDIF btw)


    Provide some scientifically accepted proof of that and we'll talk. Please tell us how they are equal!!! (I'm be making some popcorn now...)


    ..


  • You could've simply summed all of that up by stating that human perception is flawed. Period. That's one reason why science relies on controlled studies. That said, this particular point of discussion has become disconnected from the intersecting dialogue that started it.

  • To clarify so you aren't confused, my first post was in response to your statement here above.


    You seem to have "changed the goal post" from that and you did not "provide proof" of Line-in vs SPDIF (It's S/PDIF btw)


    Provide some scientifically accepted proof of that and we'll talk. Please tell us how they are equal!!! (I'm be making some popcorn now...)..


    I'd be glad to post (blind) samples tomorrow, however that particular assertion was based on personal experience and wasn't necessarily meant as an objective claim of fact, whereas the latter claim regarding stacking tracks using low vs. hi-end converters was, and I offered evidenced to support it. You, on the other hand, have offered none, but I digress since we're belaboring a discussion that's tenuously connected to the topic of the thread.

  • You could've simply summed all of that up by stating that human perception is flawed. Period. That's one reason why science relies on controlled studies. That said, this particular point of discussion has become disconnected from the intersecting dialogue that started it.

    Perhaps the explanation should have been longer!


    I can't imaging a discussion of your failure to hear a difference being MORE connected to the "intersecting dialogue" than you saying "in my own blind tests" which means "your own hearing".


    If it wasn't your ears then please provide the measuring instrument used, and the results, either data or graph, that it produced.


    or admit you have faulty hearing, that your argument is scientifically utterly wrong (they are not equal or unable to be heard), that all people won't agree to your conclusions in such a test so there are no such things as valid blind tests for hearing coming to a universally empirical conclusion. AND while you're at it, please defend the probable reality of unicorns. Haha

  • I'd be glad to post (blind) samples tomorrow, however that particular assertion was based on personal experience and wasn't necessarily meant as an objective claim of fact, whereas the latter claim regarding stacking tracks using low vs. hi-end converters was, and I offered evidenced to support it. You, on the other hand, have offered none, but I digress since we're belaboring a discussion that's tenuously connected to the topic of the thread.

    You want proof that 2 differing audio signals will sound different through multiple stacked processing plugins? Like, that isn't self-evident to you? Wow.
    You want proof that a degraded signal is less preferable to the original unadulterated signal, especially if you're going to put that signal through multiple plugins? And that isn't self-evident to you? Double wow. You are in the wrong business, my man. Try your hand at painting.

  • Perhaps the explanation should have been longer!
    I can't imaging a discussion of your failure to hear a difference being MORE connected to the "intersecting dialogue" than you saying "in my own blind tests" which means "your own hearing".


    I referenced blind tests, which is an experiment used to eliminate bias as opposed to bringing all of one's bias to bear on a set of samples.


    If it wasn't your ears then please provide the measuring instrument used, and the results, either data or graph, that it produced.


    Do you know what ABX testing is?


    or admit you have faulty hearing, that your argument is scientifically utterly wrong (they are not equal or unable to be heard), that all people won't agree to your conclusions in such a test so there are no such things as valid blind tests for hearing coming to a universally empirical conclusion.

    One person's hearing can be perfectly accurate with regard to a single blind test, regardless whether anyone else is capable of reproducing the result. And no, some people will tell you that 2+2 doesn't always equal 4.

  • You want proof that 2 differing audio signals will sound different through multiple stacked processing plugins?


    Did I ever say anything about plugins? No. Nada. Zilch. You're making this far more complex than it needs to be. Simply stack several re-amped samples through both, a hi and lo-end converter, per my original claim. That's it. That's all.


    Like, that isn't self-evident to you? Wow.You want proof that a degraded signal is less preferable to the original unadulterated signal, especially if you're going to put that signal through multiple plugins? And that isn't self-evident to you? Double wow.

    Did I ever claim anything regarding the preference for a degraded vs. original signal? No.


    You are in the wrong business, my man. Try your hand at painting.


    Spare me the ad hominems. They might make you feel better but they don't bolster your argument.

  • I was wondering about this since you're a forum member here, and I already wanted to ask you, but, now having seen your sig:
    So, you're indeed William The Rock Pygmy Wittman?
    Man, I bow my head, you have produced some of my favourite records of all time.
    I'm so pleased to have you here! :)