This is some useful information in facts:
https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
The videos might be an easier watch:
profiling sample rate?
-
-
You can still output at 96kHz IIRC, Kanga.
Ok this is an upsample from 48k to 96k via spdif? It must be a newer OS. I did buy a Kemper after being abused on another account and complaining I couldn't people guys on the forum selling a Kemper, but I sold it. As I recall you were nice, friendly and encouraging however. Maybe the effects are better now too ? I was disappointed in those and another reason I went back to amps and outboard effects.
Display MoreYou are asking us to sell you snake oil, but we don't want to go into that business.
Some details:
It's true that many studio guys believe in 96k. But it's a believe only, and they are wrong.
The assumption that digital audio has a coarse resolution in time or spatial location, stair steps, or are only a train of snapshots like a movie, is simply and completely wrong.
Digital audio provides a full signal response up to 20 kHz. The resolution in time is infinitely fine, independend even of the sampling rate. The assumption of Mr. Massenburg that there is a timing granularity of 20 microseconds (and thus a problem that needs to be solved by higher sampling rates) is wrong.
I know we could make a Profiler that runs on 192 kHz for a reasonable higher price, tell everyone that Massenburg was right, and make some good additional money by selling it to you and many others. But I sleep better by not doing so.
CK
Hi Christoph, thank you for taking the time to make a detailed response. I am open to the possibility that I might be wrong and that there may be no sound benefit in going 96k internally. I am looking for improvements and incentives to buy back into the Kemper platform. How about considering making a Kemper II with triple the ram and processing power and leave all else alone? Then you would have the memory and power to get reverbs to lexicon quality and chorusing closer TC Analog 1210 rack for example. This is one area where one of your competitors is very strong. The Kemper definitely has the closest to tube amp tones but none of the effects I would ever want to record to drive. I went back to tubes for OD but your competitor has very high quality reverbs and chorus close to the best studio racks. You could do that too and be the indisputable in the box king!
Monkey Man above says I can output at 96k as is now. In the new model you could give a switch to digitally out at 96k for those studio guys committed to that and you can just tick that supported box off. Make it obvious that 96k is supported. I hear you saying you believe there is no sound advantage but it wouldn't be snake oil give a switch to support that output spec?
CheersKB
-
It already supports up to 96 kHz, as MM rightly states. It’s there, for anyone who investigates under the surface. The reverbs were recently updated to (IMHO) better the Lexicon reverbs. Lexicon have that fake yet appealing and mix agreeable quality. The new Kemper reverbs do that, but also have more realistic and natural options in the Natural and Spring reverb algos. You’d be surprised. I don’t really touch chorus often, so can’t comment on that particular effect in comparison to your benchmark. However, the times I’ve needed a chorus sound for any session, the engineers and producers I’ve worked with haven't complained. On the contrary.
ps extra memory and more processing power doesn’t automatically equal better effects and sound. That’s a lie that other manufacturers use. More important is efficient coding in a low level language, as is used in the Kemper. -
It's amazing that guitarists not so long ago were happy with a few Boss pedals now expect studio grade processing on a guitar.
If you are recording to a reasonable standard I expect the flexibility to process after the recording is preferable. For live, you would never hear the difference in reverbs through a PA.
The effects in most guitar modellers and the profiler are amazing and I can't see Kemper releasing a new version to upgrade the effect quality. It has been explained before that better written code trumps extra horsepower.
-
Ok this is an upsample from 48k to 96k via spdif?
I'm not certain how Kemper goes about this, mate.
The internal processing employs way up to MHz rates for the distortion algorithm/s / engine. Rates are obviously returned to "normal" before they hit the S/PDIF outs, but whether or not that involves a conversion to so-called 1x rates (44.1 & 48kHz) and then back up to 88.2 & 96kHz (2x rates), I've no idea. Logically you'd hope that the redundant step would be omitted in the case of 2x rates, but honestly, either way, none of us is going to hear any difference.
It must be a newer OS.
Indeed, we've seen some major tweaks in the interim.
I did buy a Kemper after being abused on another account and complaining I couldn't people guys on the forum selling a Kemper, but I sold it. As I recall you were nice, friendly and encouraging however.
Nice? Friendly? Encouraging? You must have me confused with someone else, mate.
Maybe the effects are better now too ?
Well, they are, but I can't say the same for moi.
I was disappointed in those and another reason I went back to amps and outboard effects.
The delay algorithm/s have been expanded and improved hugely, and if you're not blown away by them, you're a hard man to please.
Same goes for the 'verbs, as sambrox touched on earlier.
The drive stomps are undergoing a makeover; all we know is it's in-the-works as there's no ETA yet.
-
It's amazing that guitarists not so long ago were happy with a few Boss pedals now expect studio grade processing on a guitar.
If you are recording to a reasonable standard I expect the flexibility to process after the recording is preferable. For live, you would never hear the difference in reverbs through a PA.
The effects in most guitar modellers and the profiler are amazing and I can't see Kemper releasing a new version to upgrade the effect quality. It has been explained before that better written code trumps extra horsepower.
Since the late 80’s, my chorus of choice in my touring and studio rack was a TC 2290 and a TC 1210. Believe me, the chorus in the Kemper is static and bland compared to those units. I was using those units 32 years ago.
If you want the sound of a Boss CE2, maybe you will be satisfied. If you want something more 3D, lush and less grainy and obvious, you won’t be happy.
There is nothing wrong with chorus and other effects setting getting a major update. You can always carry on using the ones that are there now and it won’t even effect you.
Love my Kemper units but there is definitely room for improvement in certain areas.
-
Since the late 80’s, my chorus of choice in my touring and studio rack was a TC 2290 and a TC 1210. Believe me, the chorus in the Kemper is static and bland compared to those units. I was using those units 32 years ago.
If you want the sound of a Boss CE2, maybe you will be satisfied. If you want something more 3D, lush and less grainy and obvious, you won’t be happy.
There is nothing wrong with chorus and other effects setting getting a major update. You can always carry on using the ones that are there now and it won’t even effect you.
Love my Kemper units but there is definitely room for improvement in certain areas.
I think the new Kemper reverbs are really good, much better than before, but when I use Lexicon PCM plugins, Exponential Audio or even the Convolution iPad App AltSpace, I prefer them over the Kemper. I like to keep gear minimal for gigs so I continue to use KPA effects. I agree with this poster Love my Kemper units but there is definitely room for improvement in certain areas.
-
Since the late 80’s, my chorus of choice in my touring and studio rack was a TC 2290 and a TC 1210. Believe me, the chorus in the Kemper is static and bland compared to those units. I was using those units 32 years ago.
If you want the sound of a Boss CE2, maybe you will be satisfied. If you want something more 3D, lush and less grainy and obvious, you won’t be happy.
There is nothing wrong with chorus and other effects setting getting a major update. You can always carry on using the ones that are there now and it won’t even effect you.
Love my Kemper units but there is definitely room for improvement in certain areas.
I would agree with you, but I guess chorus is not such a priority as was in the 80s. I tend to use the micro pitch, as it reminds me more of the Dimension D type effect.
-
Since the late 80’s, my chorus of choice in my touring and studio rack was a TC 2290 and a TC 1210. Believe me, the chorus in the Kemper is static and bland compared to those units. I was using those units 32 years ago.
If you want the sound of a Boss CE2, maybe you will be satisfied. If you want something more 3D, lush and less grainy and obvious, you won’t be happy.
There is nothing wrong with chorus and other effects setting getting a major update. You can always carry on using the ones that are there now and it won’t even effect you.
Love my Kemper units but there is definitely room for improvement in certain areas.
Yep TC 1210 I used that but when a competitor produced a model for stereo analog chorus that was 95% there and couldn't be picked in a mix against a real 1210 I couldn't justify have $2000 in my rack just for chorus.
The only way Kemper can improve in effects is vastly increasing ram and CPU/DSP power.... 8 years on the upgrade for 8 times the processing could be absorbed in the the similar 2020 pricing as 2012 pricing.
I would agree with you, but I guess chorus is not such a priority as was in the 80s. I tend to use the micro pitch, as it reminds me more of the Dimension D type effect.
Maybe not for you or the records you buy now however for millions of players it is a common and standard effect.... imgine Eric J or Larry C without chorus. This is just an example.
You are asking us to sell you snake oil, but we don't want to go into that business.
I know we could make a Profiler that runs on 192 kHz for a reasonable higher price, tell everyone that Massenburg was right, and make some good additional money by selling it to you and many others. But I sleep better by not doing so.
CK
Christoph you talking about sleeping better well the R&D cost for the Kemper were fully paid for many years ago. The cost of manufacturing in 2020 of 2012 ram and CPU power is very low and sales price is similar to 2012 so how about you give us 2020 CPU/DSP power and memory in a Kemper 2 at a similar price...... no need to R&D anything else if you are confident that your internal processing can't be improved upon in the audible range? Then you can write an OS with far more detailed effects that are studio quality and your supremacy is a slum dunk in all areas? More sales occur more people move to you and sell other products that have superior effects? You can then compete on that level for minimal cost?
-
Yep TC 1210 I used that but when a competitor produced a model for stereo analog chorus that was 95% there and couldn't be picked in a mix against a real 1210 I couldn't justify have $2000 in my rack just for chorus.
The only way Kemper can improve in effects is vastly increasing ram and CPU/DSP power.... 8 years on the upgrade for 8 times the processing could be absorbed in the the similar 2020 pricing as 2012 pricing.
Maybe not for you or the records you buy now however for millions of players it is a common and standard effect.... imgine Eric J or Larry C without chorus. This is just an example.
Christoph you talking about sleeping better well the R&D cost for the Kemper were fully paid for many years ago. The cost of manufacturing in 2020 of 2012 ram and CPU power is very low and sales price is similar to 2012 so how about you give us 2020 CPU/DSP power and memory in a Kemper 2 at a similar price...... no need to R&D anything else if you are confident that your internal processing can't be improved upon in the audible range? Then you can write an OS with far more detailed effects that are studio quality and your supremacy is a slum dunk in all areas? More sales occur more people move to you and sell other products that have superior effects? You can then compete on that level for minimal cost?
Again, you are assuming that more RAM and DSP power equals better effects. Yet Mr Kemper has consistently stated that they haven't yet maxed out the potential of the current hardware with regards to updates and feature improvements. The architecture of the Profiler and the way it is programmed isn't comparable to other units; the DSP in the Kemper is specifically designed for audio processing, whereas all of the current competitors use jack-of-all-trade DSP chips, which require greater memory and speed to be able to code comparable processes with comparable latency. Think of a 90's arcade machine compared to a PC running an emulator; the PC has to be much more powerful than the 90's machine, because it's chips aren't specifically designed for the same purpose, running the same game at the same speed.
-
Mr Kemper has consistently stated that they haven't yet maxed out the potential of the current hardware with regards to updates and feature improvements.
That's a good line but course that's the case or the unit would fall over.... Developers can't program more complex reverbs and effects way beyond what is there.. only incremental improvements.... last heard were Reverbs improvements but effects like chorus were not record worthy... they could pass a covers gig that's it. If that argument were true hire a ex TC Or Lexicon programmer and give us record worthy effects please. It's like field of dreams you give programmer the space he will fill it... -
Developers can't program more complex reverbs and effects way beyond what is there.. only incremental improvements.... last heard were Reverbs improvements
Have you heard the new reverbs? Compared them to the old? If you had, you would know that they are way beyond what was there before
-
Monkey Man above says I can output at 96k as is now. In the new model you could give a switch to digitally out at 96k for those studio guys committed to that and you can just tick that supported box off. Make it obvious that 96k is supported. I hear you saying you believe there is no sound advantage but it wouldn't be snake oil give a switch to support that output spec?
CheersKB
We are using a high quality sample rate converter to support any sampling frequencies that you want to use in your DAW.
The Profiler will continue using its proprietary sampling frequencies and will not change its sound. Not to the better, not to the worse.
Further, we do not give recommendations for sampling frequencies.
Why would this be snake oil?
-
Or 96k
There has never been a real non-voodoo reason for 88.2k to exist.
This is btw. something the cork sniffers are always missing out.
Running a project at 96 kHz and later converting it down to 44.1 kHz requires a math-intensitive sampling rate conversion, while converting down from 88.2 kHz is about as easy as taking every second original sample value.
I always wonder why there is rarely a recommendation for using 88.2 kHz instead of 96.
Maybe it is because those who believe in high sample rates do not have deeper knowledge about signal processing, and those who have the knowledge do not recomment high sample rase anyway?
-
Just for discussion, wouldn't taking every second value @ 88.2 KHz creating aliasing for frequencies above 44.1KHz? I thought it was a good practise to always run a low-pass filter when resampling. However, there shouldn't be much information in this area. The aliasing effect must be minimal.
-
You are right.
Filtering is necessary, but not a heavy task.
That's why I said "is about as easy as ..."
CK
-
Ah, that explains it! Thanks
-
Some details:
It's true that many studio guys believe in 96k. But it's a believe only, and they are wrong.
In my day-to-day encounters with professionals from the studio, broadcast, live and post production strands of the audio industry, it’s interesting that only the commercial studio userbase puts forward 96 kHz as a consideration in terms of what they hear. In other sectors, it’s only discussed in terms of system latency and interfacing (e.g. MADI or Dante channel counts halving from 48>96k), or network audio bandwidth double if for same channel count etc. Seemingly far more impactive/beneficial to the audible performance of DSP products I work with has been the progression from fixed 32bit to 64bit floating point DSP calculation, greatly reducing quantisation distortion due to the higher resolution of coefficients generated to instruct changes in DSP parameters.
