Bug in the Kemper cab / stack section

    Quote from hjscheffler

    The issue you reported is currently under investigation by our developers. Please wait for their reply regarding this matter.

    I am pretty confident, that the K-Team will find a solution. But my questions above are not only related to the issue when turning off amp section (and hear how tone changes with another amp part - still turned off).


    Is the cab part IN GENERAL dependent on an (activated or not) amp part - does the same cab part react different with another amp and is some sort of "modelled" or calculated thing going on, simulating authentic interaction? Does the same cab "connect" different to another amp?

    Edited once, last by Ibot39 ().

    Quote from hjscheffler

    AFAIK there should be no difference if the amp module is off or not in regards to how the cab module behaves.
    Once the developers reply i am sure it will become more clear.

    :D
    You avoid to answer the questions. It's an very interesting subject. But you just don't wanna make statements, HOW the modules interact and maybe are dependent and behave when a cab part is copied to another amp part, right ^^


    At least you say they DO behave - that alone is very unique and interesting. Or maybe I interpreted wrong?

    Quote from Monkey_Man

    FWIMBW, Tobi, I felt bad for you.


    I know you're just interested and keen to learn, but I didn't want to pollute the thread pointing this out so figured I'd wait and see how you took it.


    Very-well, as it turns out! 8o:thumbup:

    Appreciate it :love: - but no reason to feel bad!
    Of course I know and accept (now :whistling: ) that I have to wait for the reply of the developers. Just wanted to get as much information as possible, to understand more of the secret Kemper magic going on ;)


    And - as I have already written - I am pretty sure the K-Team will solve it.

    I know it's supposed to be legit in terms of stable congruence? It's early here, anyway, the merged profiles as defined above should be the gold standard and yes some should not be lazy HOWEVER! I would not be so fast to turn down such a great opportunity to make new tones and sounds that would otherwise be very difficult, expensive and or impossible!


    In other words, if I were one of the sellers of profiles, i would market packs of profiles as such. FWIW , that's my 5 bucks (inflation from 2 cents) Chairs!

    Quote from Awesome_Elvis

    I know it's supposed to be legit in terms of stable congruence? It's early here, anyway, the merged profiles as defined above should be the gold standard and yes some should not be lazy HOWEVER! I would not be so fast to turn down such a great opportunity to make new tones and sounds that would otherwise be very difficult, expensive and or impossible!


    In other words, if I were one of the sellers of profiles, i would market packs of profiles as such. FWIW , that's my 5 bucks (inflation from 2 cents) Chairs!

    Cause I do profiles myself, I can see the "temptation" to just copy. Let me explain: Even if different amps are profiled, it is not unlikely, that the mic sweet spots tend to be (almost) the same on the used cabinet. So instead of running through the whole process of making extra studio profiles every time, why not just use the "sweet spot cabs" already taken! Sound difference is not big - and results can be excellent. But it is not the most accurate method possible and should not be called merged.
    There are sellers that stick to good old studio profiles and for use with studio monitors, this may be the most accurate rigs.


    Many roads lead to Rome = good tone :thumbup: But don't call it merged, when you just copy cabs!

    Never mind.

    Disclaimer: When I post demo clips for profiles, there will be some minimal post-processing, unless stated otherwise. I normally double-track hard L/R, and add to the main buss a small amount of EQ and a limiter/comp set pretty light as well. Sometimes I get test profiles in advance of release, though 90% of my clips will be from packs I have purchased.

    Quote from Locrain

    I do the same thing...but if I understand this problem correctly, this is quite a glitch in The Matrix for those of us who take that approach...or for switching cabs at all, isn't it?
    I mean, if it works, it works, and this method does work well, so there must obviously be consistency on some level. And if it sounds good (and it does), it doesn't bother me a lot. But I'm very interested to follow the issue.

    Now that I've read back on this, I really see what you mean.

    Seems there is no fix of the cab bug in sight yet?! Patience ;) I had patience with a tuner bug and spring reverb missing...not talking about an official editor. What is different? All that stuff is not ESSENTIAL (to me and my setup).


    But a bug in a core function (cab section) forces me to pause! It is an essential bug (for me). Every day I hope for an answer. But could be, the next update is maybe in october - so I slowly have to look for other solutions (using real preamps with a power amp sim and good cabs/IR).

    Hi,


    Thanks for reminding me.
    I have solved this issue in the code two days ago.
    The fix will be available in the next firmware release.


    Even though not obvious, this flaw might not influence your work.
    As you have found out, the Amp does influence the sound of the Cab, even when switches off.
    This is due to the erroneous fact, that parts of the Amp did not switch off, when the Cab is on.


    However, this flaw does not occur in the other three combinations, that is
    Amp on / Cab on,
    Amp on / Cab off,
    Amp off / Cab off.


    These combination sound as intended even in the past and actual firmware.
    Thus, you can freely combine or merge any amp with any cab, without this flaw to occure.
    Once the bug fix reaches you, the above combination will still sound the same.


    Thanks for finding this flaw!


    CK