Well, reamping it is then for me. It's a bitch, however, because of downgragding and upgrading the FW versions - I hate that. But okay: I want to find out whether my ears have been deceited (could be) or not.
A few things though:
1) I am not really convinced that the Kemper team has addressed this issue (merely) in terms of MatH's reamped test of the different FWs. I mean: Wouldn't you do your own testing, if you were on that team and facing a thread (threat) like this?
2) If I (and probably others as well) record a DI guitar and then reamp it in the different FW versions, I will make sure that I do this with a profile that doesn't use and stomps and post-amp effects. Then I'll do the same thing with stomps and post-amp effects. I say this because in all of the rigs that I use, I have at least the stomp and / or a reverb activated. It could be that my rigs sound "different", yet there might not be a difference in the profiles (that is the pure profiled amps).
Hm, don't like the sound from FW 1.6 (Edit Fixed now)
- Armin
- Closed
- Thread is marked as Resolved.
-
-
Good point!
-
Seems to be everyone at first was saying how amazing 1.6 sounded without the aliasing and it sounded better. Then later one person posted that it sounded worse and then everyone all the sudden piled on.
it happened over a day or 2, not a week. people have lives to live
-
A thread like this and the fact that 1.6 just came out can play with people's heads... It had me fooled for a while until I decided to grab a familiar combination of guitar and KPA rig and sure enough the magic was still there. Now after reading Mr. CK's post... Myth busted
-
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
I noticed a difference while playing. My perception was that it sounded (and felt) different. Usually I am pretty good at this and it is a problem some times because it makes me to spend too much money on expensive cables, etc... I also understand that sometimes these things are just temporary perceptions and that even the same clip can be perceived as sounding different when listening to it more than once. That's why I made both clips reamping. Although I can hear the differences in my clips, I noticed it more while playing as it somehow felt different.
I probably don't have tools as good as you have to do a more accurate analysis but continuing with the "scientific" approach I just compared both of my tracks with Ozone 5. Here is what I get:
[Blocked Image: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/74444515/Screen%20Shot%202013-01-16%20at%201.26.06%20PM.png]
The green line is 1.5.4 and the magenta line is 1.6.0. The pretty much overlap in average but you can see that are not identical. The red line is the differential matching EQ that Ozone calculates to make the 1.6.0 track to sound like 1.5.4 track on average. If Ozone does not lie and I am doing it correctly you can see for example that the high end on 1.6.0 is not the same since the differential matching EQ is progressively going down in that area.Here you have a few screenshots of some parts for both tracks in Reaper. You will notice that the shape is different as well. The one on top is 1.5.4.
[Blocked Image: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/74444515/Screen%20Shot%202013-01-16%20at%201.37.42%20PM.png]
[Blocked Image: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/74444515/Screen%20Shot%202013-01-16%20at%201.38.19%20PM.png]
[Blocked Image: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/74444515/Screen%20Shot%202013-01-16%20at%201.39.23%20PM.png]
-
Edit scratch that, I misread the images.
It would appear that 1.60 is slightly more compressed and less dynamic than the previous version from your images
Did they really just up the sample rate to solve the problem? Or did they do something else, some method of adding attack for compression? (Reducing transients perhaps?). I need to do my own remap and analysis when I finally get time.
-
Edit scratch that, I misread the images.
It would appear that 1.60 is slightly more compressed and less dynamic than the previous version from your images
Did they really just up the sample rate to solve the problem? Or did they do something else, some method of adding attack for compression? (Reducing transients perhaps?). I need to do my own remap and analysis when I finally get time.
All three are obviously different parts. And obviously the bottom two have a lower level. Other than that this grafics don't tell anything. You can't make any assumptions about the dynamics of a signal by watching the waveform-display of a sequenzer if the parts and the levels are different.
-
All three are obviously different parts. And obviously the bottom two have a lower level. Other than that this grafics don't tell anything. You can't make any assumptions about the dynamics of a signal by watching the waveform-display of a sequenzer if the parts and the levels are different.
The 3 tracks screenshots were taken at different parts of the clips I posted and they are just to show that you can appreciate that they are not identical just by checking at the wave shape. Their purpose is not for comparing dynamics, compression or anything like that.
-
I must say I'm astounded & disappointed by CK's comments of no difference in sound between versions.
I'm no engineer which is stating the obvious, however, I'm a VERY experienced player/musician who has and has had MANY
high end amplifiers plus the competition over MANY years and there is a difference.We still haven't been advised how aliasing was addressed in any detail and this is possibly where the difference has started.
I can't articulate the change in technical terms but for me when playing gain type sounds 1.6 isn't as "toothy, biting or raw like a real amp"
If there's no change/big deal can't CK provide 1.6 firmware with anti aliasing and firmware like 1.54 with the added functionality of 1.6
but KEEP the aliasing?I'm happy to pay for such an OS.
How about it CK?
-
I have loaded your wav-files once again into my DAW and although it's subtle, I can definitely detect a difference between them. It's of course only a slight difference and to me most striking when I loop just one phrase of about 2 seconds over and over again while changing between the two wav-files. But there is a difference!
I have done part 1 of my reamping with FW 1.6, I am now downloading FW 1.5.4 and I will downgrade and reamp again. Can't wait to see (hear that is) the results. -
If there's no change/big deal can't CK provide 1.6 firmware with anti aliasing and firmware like 1.54 with the added functionality of 1.6
but KEEP the aliasing?I'm happy to pay for such an OS.
How about it CK?
+1111111
-
I'm also disappointed by the official response. To be honest something smells fishy.
I really hope there will be a solution for getting back the pre 1.6 sound without the need to downgrade and loosing the new features. -
I'm also disappointed by the official response. To be honest something smells fishy.
I really hope there will be a solution for getting back the pre 1.6 sound without the need to downgrade and loosing the new features.I think we should wait until we get more reamped clips.
-
The solution is to put some "preamp filters" into a new stompbox available into the X slot.
-
Ok. Did a test with Morgan AC20 profile in firmwares 1.5.4 and 1.6.0. Reamped through spdif no changes in configuration. Inverted one of the two tracks and this is what you get when you sum both. Isn't this the difference between both tracks?
-
Here is my track dry in case some one wants to do some reamping. I suggest to do it using SPDIF from your audio interface and then SPDIF back to your audio interface as well. That way there will not be any inconsistencies caused by cables and analog/digital conversion.
-
Noooo, this must be only your imagination. There is no difference. Even Andy from Ampfactory can tell you it is the same...
Ok. Did a test with Morgan AC20 profile in firmwares 1.5.4 and 1.6.0. Reamped through spdif no changes in configuration. Inverted one of the two tracks and this is what you get when you sum both. Isn't this the difference between both tracks?
-
Ok. Did a test with Morgan AC20 profile in firmwares 1.5.4 and 1.6.0. Reamped through spdif no changes in configuration. Inverted one of the two tracks and this is what you get when you sum both. Isn't this the difference between both tracks?
I'm not sure, but I think that KPA's variable latency makes a null test meaningless.
-
Ok. Did a test with Morgan AC20 profile in firmwares 1.5.4 and 1.6.0. Reamped through spdif no changes in configuration. Inverted one of the two tracks and this is what you get when you sum both. Isn't this the difference between both tracks?
You do realize that the variable latency will prevent a null test right?
EDIT: ReDRuM beat me to it.
-
Ok. Did a test with Morgan AC20 profile in firmwares 1.5.4 and 1.6.0. Reamped through spdif no changes in configuration. Inverted one of the two tracks and this is what you get when you sum both. Isn't this the difference between both tracks?
What did you do? Did you change the phase in one of them and then try to cancel each other being the resultant the difference between both of them? If so I don't think it is that simple.
