Hm, don't like the sound from FW 1.6 (Edit Fixed now)

  • Now we have two Ozone matches done by the same method with the same sources, having different results.
    What do we do now? Call iZotope?


    I missed that. What are you referring to?


    I did a match of my 2 tracks and another match of the tracks of joerch. He used another rig with much less gain than me. The result of the match of his tracks (which I did as well) is much closer than the resulting from my tracks. The differential EQ curve is almost flat.


  • With all respect, ckemper, but here I am pretty sure that you misunderstand the graph. MadH is in matching mode of the Ozone 5 EQ - that means, that the red line indicates, what the EQ has to do in order to match one EQ to the other one. The fact that the red line shows ups and downs is a proof that it is NOT a perfect match.


    Yet, there might be reasons and the change in sound might be more subtle and almost inaudible and so forth .- but taking MadH's Ozone 5 snapshot as a proof for a perfect match is wrong.


    One more thing: When you mention the two users who were "afraid of posting that they don't hear a difference" you seem to imply that their ears and listening environments are "correct" - it might also be the other way round.


    Maybe you are right. Those users have explained to me the reasons to have not posted, but that might have been an excuse.
    I will also not take your perfect match into account any more, since it is only a match of the stack section.
    I understand that MatH's A/B comparison is done with stomps and effects.

  • Maybe you are right. Those users have explained to me the reasons to have not posted, but that might have been an excuse.
    I will also not take your perfect match into account any more, since it is only a match of the stack section.
    I understand that MatH's A/B comparison is done with stomps and effects.


    He is right. The red line is the EQ curve that shows the difference between both tracks (1.5.4 vs 1.6).


    My comparison uses only the amp section. No FX, no stomps, no noise gate.

  • Sorry, with all my respect to CK and all the other guys opinions, the sound has changed.I even didn't know about this thread when I was wondering why my Kemper felt different when I updated to 1.6.


    Sorry, no matter what you say, no matter what proofs you bring.I'm not deaf and I clearly hear the difference.And I wasn't contaminated with this thread when I heard something was different.

    Proud Kemper+Axe FX II user.....yes, you can hook'em together, they WON'T explode.

  • Sorry to change the subject slightly, but all I'd like to know right now is are we staying with how it is right now, or will there be any changes in future firmwares, cos I have a song to record :) And now I don't know weather I should stick to the apparently new and (to me, barely noticeably) changed tone, or will there be an attempt to "fix" it and make it sound like 1.5.4 did, in which case I should use that one?


    I know beta is not exactly to be used for recording, but if this is the tone we will stay with, i'll use the 1.6 one. Or if not, i'll use the old 1.5.4 one... so, what to do? should I just wait?


    I would never use Beta anything for anything serious. The main goal of a Public Beta is to get feedback about the new features by a large community of users that the Private Beta testers might have missed (Many more tested combinations).


    If your are in the studio, recording, I would stick to an official release. Beta is Beta.

  • Maybe you are right. Those users have explained to me the reasons to have not posted, but that might have been an excuse.
    I will also not take your perfect match into account any more, since it is only a match of the stack section.
    I understand that MatH's A/B comparison is done with stomps and effects.

    Nun mal ehrlich - hier haben in der letzten Stunde bestimmt 7 Leute gepostet, dass sie keinen Unterschied hören und niemand hat sie deswegen bedrängt. Es gibt auch Beispiele, dass diejenigen, die meinen, etwas (was auch immer) habe sich am Klang geändert, lächerlich gemacht wurden. ... Da muss man durch.


    Ich fand's einfach ungeschickt, dass du gerade ein Beispiel als Beweis dafür heranziehst, dass es keinen Klangunterschied gibt, wenn das Beispiel gerade ein Beweis dafür ist, dass es einen Unterschied gibt. Das mag ja viele Gründe haben, die nicht im Kemper liegen, sondern an der Aufnahmetechnik, ... Ich habe hier mehrfach gepostet, dass ich die 1.6 Version gerne mag, weil meine gezerrten Sounds (vermutlich wegen der neuen Effekte) besser klingen, mit dem neuen Hall besser wirken etc.


    Zu MadHs Vergleich kann ich nicht sagen, ob er mit Effekten oder ohne gearbeitet hat. Was sollte das auch beweisen? Ich habe eine Gitarrenspur einmal durch die 1.5.4 laufen lassen und dann durch die 1.6 - ich höre (mit Stomps und Effekten) einen Unterschied, ich sehe ihn im Analyser und vermute, dass es an den Effekten liegt. Das wird vielen so gehen, weil die Effekte den Sound natürlich beeinflussen. Die reinen Profile (und das war ja die Angst einiger in diesem Thread) sind aber unverändert. ... Und nun ist doch gut? Ich bin mal gespannt, was Don nun herausbekommt, der ja fragte, ob ich ihm das von mir im Test benutzte Rig schicken könne.

  • I have an Idea:


    Let us make a version test. To the seven people on this thread that can hear a difference:
    Send your email address to our support line ASAP. Let us make some audio tests.

  • Sorry to change the subject slightly, but all I'd like to know right now is are we staying with how it is right now, or will there be any changes in future firmwares, cos I have a song to record :) And now I don't know weather I should stick to the apparently new and (to me, barely noticeably) changed tone, or will there be an attempt to "fix" it and make it sound like 1.5.4 did, in which case I should use that one?


    I know beta is not exactly to be used for recording, but if this is the tone we will stay with, i'll use the 1.6 one. Or if not, i'll use the old 1.5.4 one... so, what to do? should I just wait?

    which one do you prefer, if any? you have the choice which version to record with. im in a similar situation laying down a verse with both 1.54 and 1.6 and though not reamped, they have a character when flcking between both tracks during playback

  • I have an Idea:


    Let us make a version test. To the seven people on this thread that can hear a difference:
    Send your email address to our support line ASAP. Let us make some audio tests.


    Sent. I just hope this does not turn into the typical trap where the developer tries to discredit the users that are willing to help. ;)

  • All of these "lab rat" tests are irrelevant, play the thing at volume and feel the difference.
    The sense of immediacy and toothiness needs to be focused on.


    For the player the Kemper is the product of choice because of its feel, 3D and player feedback immediacy.


    All of these tests and technical comments ONLY are just like the FAS forum with Cliff and his blind disciples.


    It's this reason I am NOT interested in anything Fractal and why Kemper got my business. Since when has music been
    about just the tech without consideration for the player. It's a machine for "players" after all, correct?


    Can we still get some detail on the change re the anti aliasing in 1.6 and again, why can't we have 1.54 with the
    updates and leave the aliasing alone all together then EVERYONE will be happy?


    This action will then put an end to this debate/discussion. Pretty simple solution don't you think.

  • which one do you prefer, if any? you have the choice which version to record with. im in a similar situation laying down a verse with both 1.54 and 1.6 and though not reamped, they have a character when flcking between both tracks during playback

    I haven't yet had a chance to try it myself as I'm currently away from home, so I'm only judging according to the samples I heard here. I can BARELY feel a very SLIGHT difference in presence, as mentioned, but I can't really tell which one I prefer better. Then again, maybe I'm just imagining it? I'm just concerned not to have two different sounds on the same recording, even if its only a small difference.


    I sure hope I'm only imagining it tho. Can't wait to see those test results :)

  • How would we discredit the users by that?


    Don't take me wrong :) . I just said that because I have some experience with blind tests and in one case that was the main purpose of it (actually someone just mentioned before that particular test ;)). Not saying that is your intention obviously.


    Aside from that, based on my experience some devs opt to go the way so they can demonstrate that they are right (because they are sure they are) and the users are wrong. If that's the approach it is actually quite easy to get the users confused so they are not sure anymore if what they are checking is A or it is B. In other words if the intention is to find if both versions really have differences it's ok with me since that's what I have been trying to help with but if the intention is to find out if we can really tell the differences then I have a good idea of what the result can be inconclusive.


    Btw, the poll that some created about it says that 59% (38 out 64 users so far) hear differences. :P

    Edited 2 times, last by MadH ().

  • WOW - this is an action packed thread :).


    Just had to add in here - you guys have ears that are WAAAY better than mine - I could detect a slight difference (mainly had to do with the mid-high to high frequency band) in a couple of the A/B tests. Im sure the differences might vary depending on the profiles used. I did notice a difference in 1.6 (was playing it through my reference cans) - from what I heard - I liked it better than 1.5.2 (this is what I was at).


    I haven't played the Kemper for a while (but do have a couple of gigs coming up, and will also be hitting the record button on some tracks soon :)). I intend to play it through my QSC K12's and check it out for myself. But I have a question, and also probably my expectations on what I'll hear when I do (play it i.e.).


    I am a little confused between what people state they hear and the results of course. The general consensus seems to be that 1.5.4 has MORE SHEEN, or clarity than 1.6 - but the RED EQ curve shows otherwise. But I will assume (for now) that an EQ plugin can 'hear and discern' better than human ears :).


    Question: Is the RED EQ curve correction line constant across rigs? Or does it vary across different profiles?


    If the answer is yes, then I'd like to share an observation. When playing through 1.5.2 - I did have to make adjustments to the console's (Allen and Heath Zed-32) parametric EQ to get a sound that I consistently liked across the rigs I have loaded (QSC K12s). The corrections were the following (dont remember the numbers exactly - but you can get the general idea):


    1) Roll off the Low end quite a bit
    2) Increase the mid-highs by about a db
    3) Increase the highs a bit.


    Once I did this - then I was able to get a sound that had definition/character (IMO) and it's own place in the audio spectrum - especially with bass, keyboards and drums in there. I also play a Godin nylon string acoustic through the Kemper sometimes - need to verify that as well.


    Now - I understand that my description lacks the details that you guys have shared in here. I will have to fire up the live rig and test it out with 1.6 to see if I like what I hear through my K12s. Shall post my findings soon. I might revert to 1.5.4 if I dont like what I hear - because some of the 1.5.4 clips sounded awesome too!


    I am thankful to the folks who have taken the time to A/B the two versions and share their results with the rest of us. I have the utmost confidence in Team Kemper and I am sure the KPA will be the best modeler out there one day. One of the reasons I got the KPA was because I am a Virus user - and I SIMPLY LOVE it! This is a very hard-working, forward-thinking group of people - who have pioneered some visionary products. We live in exciting times, dont we ;)?


    OH - This forum AND you guys ROCK!

  • Still haven't had time to do a re-amp test myself (still at work), but I had another thought here, has the latency changed between versions? This would result in a pretty big change in feel and in turn that might make a player feel that something is off and attribute it to the KPA sounding duller (whether that's true or not).


    Is it possible that for some people the constant internal latency mode (which sets it up to a longer latency) has been accidentally turned on during update?