After testing both versions with my Telecaster and some good profiles, there is a difference and is not only highs Eq. The previous version sounds richer to my ears and it's more real.
I'm reposting this because yesterday the thread was moving so fast that some sound samples were missed.
This was a clean+ test with only an arpeggio. It's not reamped, but I hear a difference in the mids and low-mids in terms of complexity.
I'm reposting this because yesterday the thread was moving so fast that some sound samples were missed.
This was a clean+ test with only an arpeggio. It's not reamped, but I hear a difference in the mids and low-mids in terms of complexity.
Which is which, I prefer the second one.
The second one is 1.5.4.
IMHO you have to do tests reamping the exact same track, we can't compare two different plays... of course they'll sound different.
In the example above, for what I hear now in my MacBook, there's more difference in the dynamic of playing than in the sound.
BTW I think that every filter (including anti-aliasing) will obviously cut some information so the best choice, as I already said, should be to make it optional with a switch... just like they did with the hidden "fixed latency mode".
My 2 cents...
I'll do a test reamping but I recorded more samples including two and three notes phrases and chords and the result was the same.
I have *never* heard any aliasing, and have read a lot of people saying they haven't heard it either. I wish they hadn't wasted time fixing something that frankly I don't think even exists, especially at the expense of messing up tones that I liked.
A lot of people were hearing it. No offense, but saying that the aliasing wasn't there is just not true.
I'll do a test reamping but I recorded more samples including two and three notes phrases and chords and the result was the same.
Of course, I have no doubt that you can feel it in your own hands and with your ears during playing.
What I was trying to say is that recording two different parts with different dynamic I can make sound better a Pod than a KPA...
BTW the second part of my post was more important: does anybody think that you can filter something without loosing any information? I don't think is possible...
The best is to have a great sound even with the filter applied (and for me they accomplished the mission 
), but leaving the choice to the final user is even better
I
BTW I think that every filter (including anti-aliasing) will obviously cut some information so the best choice, as I already said, should be to make it optional with a switch... just like they did with the hidden "fixed latency mode".
My 2 cents...
+1.
Obviously i'd prefere that this issue can be addressed asap, since we are still on a beta FW.
If this is not possible, it would be awesome if the anti aliasing switch could be saved for each rig and not as a master.
The second one is 1.5.4.
the first is brighter
the second one is softer
and you say that the secondone is 1.5.4 ?
while I prefer the first 1.0.6
Please do not touch anything 
thank you 
When some of us urged the fix of the aliasing problem, we really meant a simple increase of some kind of sampling freqs in order to get rid of the aliasing (at some point in the chain it is (was?) probably below 44 kHz). A simple fix like this probably would not change the tone dramatically. But it would consume more hardware resources... who knows, maybe it is not even possible that way. It is an unfortunate coincidence that the elimination of aliasing came with a tone change. This suggests that some other trick was used in order to get the aliasing-free result.
I'm reposting this because yesterday the thread was moving so fast that some sound samples were missed.
This was a clean+ test with only an arpeggio. It's not reamped, but I hear a difference in the mids and low-mids in terms of complexity.
Thanks for reposting and recording this, I actually missed it yesterday. But to my muddy ears it is the same result as with the other samples: when I add +2 dB at 6 kHz to the first part, it sounds pretty much identical.
PS: well - listening very carefully on the headphones I have to admitt, the EQ makes it sharp in a similar way but even then the second sample is still somewhat chimeyer, yes "richer" as you say. It is vveeerrryy tiny but, yes, you convinced me. There is some difference other than EQ.
Simple logic .
If 1.6 is not different as most of us (can) hear it , CK should jump in a long time ago with some explanation .
If 1.6 is different as most of us (can ) hear it , CK will not jump in, but work on it and fix it .
So , I am back on vintage 1.5.4 while waiting for even more vintage 1.7
If not , I am staying on 1.5.4 or even 1.5.2 , to be sure I am enough faraway from 1.6 
ps
for the guys who were asked so badly for aliasing to be removed :
" Please do not ask for anything else to be fixed .
If someone ask you something , you just have to say - we are happy with what we do have in Kemper , please do not touch it "
A statement of clarification from the Kemper team PLEASE!
PS: well - listening very carefully on the headphones I have to admitt, the EQ makes it sharp in a similar way but even then the second sample is still somewhat chimeyer, yes "richer" as you say. It is vveeerrryy tiny but, yes, you convinced me. There is some difference other than EQ.
Could be this chimey or richness be called harmonic complexity simplified by the anti-aliasing filtering?
After testing both versions with my Telecaster and some good profiles, there is a difference and is not only highs Eq. The previous version sounds richer to my ears and it's more real.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3645952/Test%201dot6.wav
I've listen carefully to all the sound clip posted here (starting from Armin, till this one of Pacocito) and these are my personal conclusions:
1) unfortunately... I've have to say that the difference before previous release and 1.6 is evident, very clear in ALL the clip I heard;
2) the difference is absolutely not in EQ (otherwise CK and his Guys should have been already correct), but it is unfortunately in RICHNESS of the sound spectrum, where the higher harmonics are a little bit damped, so if you raise the EQ after 5-6 kHz you have the impression to adjust like before, but you are only emphasizing some frequency without recover some harmonics lost in the anti-aliasing filter;
3) unfortunately, in ALL the cases, I prefer the sound before 1.6! If you listen only to 1.6 you will like it anyway, but when you compare it to the older you probably understand that before was better, simply because in the latest one we "loose" something ... it's a pity, we cannot loose any part of the unique richness that came out of this magic KPA box!
4) I strongly support the proposal of Armin: put a FLAG at STACK or SYSTEM level where one can choose depending on the type of sound/recording "smooth anti-aliasing filter" or "strong anti-aliasing filter"
5) at this point it is a must, I believe, to compare the ORIGINAL AMP sound during a profile session with the Profiled sound in 1.5 and in 1.6... which one is more close to the original??? ... 1.5 probably, but some exhaustive tests are needed here...
Thanks all of you for posting and study clip in this very interesting and important topic, and waiting for an official Kemper answer, I'm sure that they will not disappoint anyone of us
What is the game? To get the sound that you throw into the Kemper or to get the sound which please you?
IMO the test is between what you put into the kemper and what the kemper build and not comparaisons with old firmwares.
If you record muddy tones you should expect to get muddy tones.
My tests with 6.0 lead me to this conclusions :
_ i recorded first the reference amp by using the digital output of the Kemper, this was my reference file.(in profile mode)
_ then i recorded the Kemper's profile just after the profiling process always with the spdif out -> it was the same (or i can't tell the difference)
_ i recorded the Kemper's profile after the 1 push on the store button -> it was the same
_ i recorded the Kemper's profile after refining -> it changed
_ i recorded the profile after store and going back to the browse mode -> it changed again, darker and muddier...though it was very very subtle
The major change was made by using the refining process (I don't care of it because i have the choice) though there is a slight change when you go to the browse mode, not in a good way IMO.(sounds darker and muddier)
The refining process exhibits more the guitar's frequencies into the profile, which can be useful it's more a matter of taste.
The profile without refining (in profile mode) sounds the same than the reference record.(or i can't hear the difference)
My 2cts
(so the only weak point for me is when i go to the browse mode)
this mess all started because one fully grown male individual™ complained because uber-high gain, bass heavy, non-musical profiles supposedly aliased and now many men are rebelling against a beta firmware upgrade....classic!
I find it quite funny that speculations are becoming a fact in this whole thread (change of sound because of aliasing filters etc.). Maybe you all calm down and wait until somebody from kemper chimes in. Play some guitar in the meanwhile?
I find it quite funny that speculations are becoming a fact in this whole thread (change of sound because of aliasing filters etc.). Maybe you all calm down and wait until somebody from kemper chimes in. Play some guitar in the meanwhile?
you are a very wise male, I would consider having an espresso with you....
I find it quite funny that speculations are becoming a fact in this whole thread (change of sound because of aliasing filters etc.). Maybe you all calm down and wait until somebody from kemper chimes in. Play some guitar in the meanwhile?
+1
im sure they are aware of a thread like this blowing up. its been suggested they had an idea of the issue present, maybe left to see how it went down with users
i must say the features in 1.6 look fantastic. if they can get that with the 1.54 sound it will be all gravy
