Analog vs SPDIF - worth it?

  • You can always reamp with the Kemper effects later, with the mix in mind. A dry direct signal is always a safe measure. You can record also with effects if it is more inspiring (it usually is) and then reamp if necessary. It is annoying when you realize your take has too much gain, reverb or whatever.

    Never too old for rock'n'roll

  • You can always reamp with the Kemper effects later, with the mix in mind. A dry direct signal is always a safe measure. You can record also with effects if it is more inspiring (it usually is) and then reamp if necessary. It is annoying when you realize your take has too much gain, reverb or whatever.

    Yeah, that's what I do - wet signal in stereo + DI. So far it's worked great and I haven't needed to reamp something because I don't like the effects in the mix.

  • For my new album I decided to move to a sample rate of 48 kHz. In the past this was 44.1.

    Now, I am in a treated room and when listening through my Genelecs or my headphones, I honestly cannot hear any difference between a stereo SPDIF with FX (lush clean tone I want to record with effects) and the same signal recorded analog. That was suprising.

    I split my guitar signal before going into the Kemper, so I am free to use any INs and OUTs.

    Now what I want to try out is what happens with me using my Torpedo LIVE, and whether I can hear any difference in tone when using that via SPDIF.

    BTW, the reason I started thinking about 48 kHz was because of this video from fabfilter:

    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.


    Cheers,

    Sven

  • One advantage of S/PDIF over analogue (at least for me) not mentioned before: There is no tweaking of gain levels. x dBFS sent from the DAW is exactly x dBFS at the Profiler input and vice versa.

    Also worth mentioning, with reamping it's four conversions taking place when using analogue in and out.

  • I remember trying this out years ago and I liked the analog better, I was also running it into a 1073 style preamp. My OxBox is the opposite, I like the SPDIF input better. Either way, not a huge difference and definitely one that can be adjusted for elsewhere.

    “I'm not an abstractionist. I'm not interested in the relationship of color or form or anything else. I'm interested only in expressing basic human emotions: tragedy, ecstasy, doom, and so on.”
    ― Mark Rothko

  • I didn't get it. Please help me find the counting error.

    S/PDIF Recording:

    1. Conversion: A/D at Profiler in

    S/PDIF Reamping:

    • no conversion

    Analogue Recording:

    1. Conversion: A/D at Profiler in
    2. Conversion: D/A at Profiler out
    3. Conversion: A/D at interface in

    Analogue Reamping:

    1. Conversion: D/A at interface out
    2. Conversion: A/D at Profiler in
    3. Conversion: D/A at Profiler out
    4. Conversion: A/D at interface in

    Is it really six more conversions for whole round of analogue reamping?

  • I always take it in analogue just like I would any guitar amp.

    Yeah, but: Your amp (Profiler) is digital as is your recorder (DAW). And for reamping: Think of the Profiler as a plugin to your DAW. Would you put any double conversion via external interfaces before or after the plugin?

  • Being as I have always used analog with a Reamp box for real amp heads, I have continued with Kemper. Switching clocking is something I am likely to keep forgetting anyway.


    With guitar signals not covering a huge bandwidth, it doesn't bother me anyway.

    Karl


    Kemper Rack OS 9.0.5 - Mac OS X 12.6.7

  • Being as I have always used analog with a Reamp box for real amp heads, I have continued with Kemper. Switching clocking is something I am likely to keep forgetting anyway.

    That's what's so great about the Profiler: You can do it either way and it's totally fine. People who are used to the smell of hot valves can go digital without even noticing while people familiar with the digital domain can integrate the baby without hassle.

    With guitar signals not covering a huge bandwidth, it doesn't bother me anyway.

    Conversion losses (non-linearities, noise of different kinds) is not a matter of bandwidth BTW.

  • It's more-obvious in the higher frequencies, 'though.

    With guitar signals not covering a huge bandwidth, it doesn't bother me anyway.

    Even if they had a 20kHz bandwidth, it'd take dozens of conversions in order to become apparent where the vast majority of modern interfaces are concerned due to the accuracy of reconstruction carried out at every D/A stage.


    So, the fact that we're generally dealing with bandwidth-limited signals where amps and guitars are concerned, is yet another "insurance 'policy", an additional margin for error which in reality isn't even audible. So yeah, it's all-good, Karl. 8)

  • That's what's so great about the Profiler: You can do it either way and it's totally fine. People who are used to the smell of hot valves can go digital without even noticing while people familiar with the digital domain can integrate the baby without hassle.

    Conversion losses (non-linearities, noise of different kinds) is not a matter of bandwidth BTW.

    I just find that mid-range frequencies are less critical.

    Karl


    Kemper Rack OS 9.0.5 - Mac OS X 12.6.7

  • Even if they had a 20kHz bandwidth, it'd take dozens of conversions in order to become apparent where the vast majority of modern interfaces are concerned due to the accuracy of reconstruction carried out at every D/A stage.

    Totally agree! But keep your interface at a cool place if you go for dozens of conversions ?

    It's more-obvious in the higher frequencies, 'though.

    I just find that mid-range frequencies are less critical.

    Got it, silly me. Thought you were referring to the bandwidth (i.e. sampling rate) of the interface.

  • Yeah, but: Your amp (Profiler) is digital as is your recorder (DAW). And for reamping: Think of the Profiler as a plugin to your DAW. Would you put any double conversion via external interfaces before or after the plugin?

    yes. Except that it sounds better recorded back in through the analogue preamps.

  • yes. Except that it sounds better recorded back in through the analogue preamps.

    Does it really? I'm not excluding anything but a sound test for proof would be nice. Both solo and in a mix. :)

    Think for yourself, or others will think for you wihout thinking of you

    Henry David Thoreau

  • it sounds better recorded back in through the analogue preamps

    There's no point in using preamps when you record (AD-convert) line level signals ... unless you want to color (alter) the sound.

    If the latter is true, you can do this at any point in time, even with a recorded S/PDIF signal.

    There's no "better" from a technical point of view, even less when you consider that there has been preamp(s) involved in the profiling process already. Get the sound right in profiling. ;)

  • while we're here though,

    something I wonder about:


    Their instructions are clear that when reamping one should use the RETURN Input and not the Alternative Input.

    Anyone now why exactly??

    I have used a Reamp box and then into the front input. It sounds the same as playing the guitar directly. Is this wrong?

    Karl


    Kemper Rack OS 9.0.5 - Mac OS X 12.6.7