Am I the only one that think 1.6.0 sounds slightly better? Weird...
No
Hm, don't like the sound from FW 1.6 (Edit Fixed now)
- Armin
- Closed
- Thread is marked as Resolved.
-
-
Am I the only one that think 1.6.0 sounds slightly better? Weird...
No. -
NoWell, if the French audiophile scientist genius with Dr Spock ears reckons 1.6 sounds better, then I'm going with the Frenchman.
-
Wow guys,
Congratulations for more than 200 posts in an incredible thread.
Fully grown men hunting a witch.
Only one attempt to make a more scientific comparison (MatH) with reamping.
More posts addressed to me to chime in.
Even more posts refering to the A/B comparisons that were not done by reamping.
Some say, the 1.60 gained high end, some state it lost.
I was of course able to hear vast differences in all A/B comparisons, that were not made by reamping.
What else could I hear? Both tracks were played with several minutes of pause for the upgrade or downgrade.
The second track were played with a different energy, often less. That resulted in a duller spectrum.
But by the attacks it was clearly noticable that both have the same colour.
The only valid track is the reamped track of MatH. Fredboardminer applied an EQ at 6 kHz by 2.5 dB, which is a lot.
This drove the sound way off from the original, it changed the whole balance. Fredboardminers attempt helped me to tune my ears for MatH's A/B comparison.
I checked intensively through studio monitors and headphones and I can say, that both tracks sound absolutely identical.
We had a number of producers and pro guitarists checking these tracks. Same result.
We have made a spectrum analysis of both tracks. No difference in the high end.
I have asked Andy (Amp Factory). Heard no difference, saw no difference in the spectrum. Felt no difference when he switched on 1.60 earlier as a beta tester.We have not changed the code in terms of sound. Only the aliasing issue and the Green Scream were addressed. There was no need to change the anti-aliasing filters.
I was out of the house and busy for two days, so I am late here.
Armin, you are an engineer. Any comment to MatH's A/B comparison?
CK
-
It must be time for a way unscientific poll... afterall nothing promotes panic more than a good old vote
EDIT: Posted this within seconds of CK's reply. Panic over then... maybe. Busy week for the Kemper crew... -
Now what fellas? CK said...
-
I wanna have that popcorn smiley now....
-
Like I said earlier, private message me if you need a phone number of a good psychiatrist.
We have not changed the code in terms of sound. Only the aliasing issue
and the Green Scream were addressed. There was no need to change the
anti-aliasing filters. -
WOW, I most definitely did not expect this answer.
I need to schedule a hearing test...
Hmmm... -
So...does this mean that all who like 1.5 better prefer the sound of aliasing?
(I still stand by my previous quote that one of my favorites seems to sound brighter than before...but maybe its simply my tastes have changed and that profile lays outside that window, in other words all in my head)
-
I wanna have that popcorn smiley now....
Here - have some of mine, there's plenty to go around... let's see what happens now.
[Blocked Image: http://www.organicliaison.com/pub/images/Popcorn.JPG]
-
CK is doing his cliff.
-
Now what fellas? CK said...
More testing. As soon as I can, I'll reamp a guitar through an Andy's clean+ profile.
I cannot hear differences in MatH test but there is too much gain to notice the lost of clean chime some of us are detecting.
-
More testing. As soon as I can, I'll reamp a guitar through an Andy's clean+ profile.
I cannot hear differences in MatH test but there is too much gain to notice the lost of clean chime some of us are detecting.
Reamping is the way to go.
-
May we ask CK what method did you use to reduce aliasing?
Of course I understand if it is non public... -
Display More
Wow guys,
Congratulations for more than 200 posts in an incredible thread.
Fully grown men hunting a witch.
Only one attempt to make a more scientific comparison (MatH) with reamping.
More posts addressed to me to chime in.
Even more posts refering to the A/B comparisons that were not done by reamping.
Some say, the 1.60 gained high end, some state it lost.
I was of course able to hear vast differences in all A/B comparisons, that were not made by reamping.
What else could I hear? Both tracks were played with several minutes of pause for the upgrade or downgrade.
The second track were played with a different energy, often less. That resulted in a duller spectrum.
But by the attacks it was clearly noticable that both have the same colour.
The only valid track is the reamped track of MatH. Fredboardminer applied an EQ at 6 kHz by 2.5 dB, which is a lot.
This drove the sound way off from the original, it changed the whole balance. Fredboardminers attempt helped me to tune my ears for MatH's A/B comparison.
I checked intensively through studio monitors and headphones and I can say, that both tracks sound absolutely identical.
We had a number of producers and pro guitarists checking these tracks. Same result.
We have made a spectrum analysis of both tracks. No difference in the high end.
I have asked Andy (Amp Factory). Heard no difference, saw no difference in the spectrum. Felt no difference when he switched on 1.60 earlier as a beta tester.We have not changed the code in terms of sound. Only the aliasing issue and the Green Scream were addressed. There was no need to change the anti-aliasing filters.
I was out of the house and busy for two days, so I am late here.
Armin, you are an engineer. Any comment to MatH's A/B comparison?
CK
Translation ==== the KPA will stay with 1.6 (sorry pacocito & Armin)
(next time you could make it shorter ) -
Now what fellas? CK said...
I checked intensively through studio monitors and headphones and I can say, that both tracks sound absolutely identical.
We had a number of producers and pro guitarists checking these tracks. Same result.
We have made a spectrum analysis of both tracks. No difference in the high end.
I have asked Andy (Amp Factory). Heard no difference, saw no difference in the spectrum. Felt no difference when he switched on 1.60 earlier as a beta tester.We have not changed the code in terms of sound. Only the aliasing issue and the Green Scream were addressed. There was no need to change the anti-aliasing filters.
Thanks CK, that's enough for me.
Your findings are much more scientific, than me listening to samples on computer speakers, or loading, and reloading FW versions.
I am happy beyond words, that nothing has changed. -
Well, if the French audiophile scientist genius with Dr Spock ears reckons 1.6 sounds better, then I'm going with the Frenchman.
I know for sure that the rack version will sound better than the black version which sound better than the white version. -
Just to be clear, the issue was discovered and noted in the private beta
phase by some users. I'm sure CK and team is on the case and we will see some updates / comments on this soon. Keep rockin' till then. (with the firmware of your choice)seems to be a lot having the same premonitons
-
I know for sure that the rack version will sound better than the black version which sound better than the white version.Damnit, I've got the old shitty white and green one
