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

  • donbarzini does raise a good point about feel (That sentence itself is just plain wrong...) but before we take a second to wonder just how on earth donbarzini would go about feeling stuff can I take us back to what been mentioned before about perception... CK is right. The only way forward is to do blind testing. If the difference is that pronounced (And to some it seems that way) they should be able to pick it out above chance levels (P<0.05 etc). This isn't meant to trick anyone - just to remove extraneous variables that could well be influencing people. The sound is easy enough to do (sort of!) with reamped tracks but the feel would present a problem. Unless some of you live near enough eachother to do this in person. Copy a Rig across both machines then conduct blind 'feel' tests - 1.6 vs 1.5.xx


    I'm not saying this needs to be done - I personally didn't detect a problem but others seem to and that's a shame. So... in summary who's up for a blind feel test with Diry donbarzini then... ah.
    EDIT: I wrote this at lunch but only just posted...things have moved on again but I hope the point is still valid


    It must be noted that I was completely nude, only wearing totes galoshes and a head band (lower) when I did this comparison....

  • As for me, I am now back on 1.6 - the new features are too good to be missed. I still feel that the whole difference thing in my case comes from the effects - probably the reverb and delay - the plain stacks are not different at all. I am still up for a test and have supplied my email to support. It does sure sound interesting to do that - although in my case it would have to be a comparison of different rigs rather than stacks.

  • It must be noted that I was completely nude, only wearing totes galoshes and a head band (lower) when I did this comparison....

    This is for ckemper (in case he reads it): What do you say about making fun of people who feel that there's no difference and too scared of posting on the forum? What do you make of these remarks then? I am too scared that someone is going to mock me, so I no longer dare post my opinion on this forum ... ^^

  • You guys crack me up - now someone mentioned the latency might be a tiny bit higher on 1.6 and folks chiming in saying it's unplayable. As highly entertaining as this thread is here - I won't read more in here...I really prefer to care about music than 0,01 ms (or whatever figure) of more latency. Mind you, I am using the Kemper in a professional studio almost daily....back to more important stuff...


    This thread is a paradise for every psychology student.
    It is all about "modelling": http://goo.gl/KVWJ5
    Keyword: pacing

  • You guys crack me up - now someone mentioned the latency might be a tiny bit higher on 1.6 and folks chiming in saying it's unplayable. As highly entertaining as this thread is here - I won't read more in here...I really prefer to care about music than 0,01 ms (or whatever figure) of more latency. Mind you, I am using the Kemper in a professional studio almost daily....back to more important stuff...


    The new poweramp will be unpayable, but not the 1.6 firmware. I'm using it daily and I don't want to renounce to future features because I'm not happy with the sound of new firmwares. I paid 1.400€ and the product roadmap is important to me.


    I still feel that the whole difference thing in my case comes from the effects - probably the reverb and delay - the plain stacks are not different at all.


    I'm not using reverb or delay, but almost all my rigs have post-eq and feel different between versions.

  • Another thing:
    You might think that why is a small change so important? For example Axe users always get changes, and they live with it. Most of these changes are advertised as improvements. But the Kemper works (and advertises itself) in a way that a simple capturing "profiling" process results in the "perfect" profile, so there is no need to improve. Great. This is why I'm so concerned with this case. If this would be an improvement then the Kemper team would advertise it as such. So it is probably not. Also it is a strange coincidence that the removal of aliasing is also in this version. So the sound quality might suffer a bit as a result of less aliasing.


    And all these insults against people who hear the difference and not happy with it are I guess just as boring and stupid as our "whining". Again only Kemper team can stop this with open communication and a basic interest in finding the root cause (if it is not an already known thing for them)

  • I'm confused, is there no foolproof way to test whether there is a real difference in sound between 1.5.x and 1.6? I don't consider double-blind testing foolproof since you're still relying on human (mis)perception and there could be real differences that are only apparent in certain testing conditions and only audible to certain people at the right moment. Does the variable latency issue mean that reamping and test signals aren't reliable ways to test this supposed problem?

  • [size=12]Shit, I got naked , wrapped myself in tin foil and hid under the couch while eating coco puffs after reading this thread!!!

    I read all this and immediately had to seduce my dog afterwards. With our collective talents how have we not solved this already?

    Suhr Classic Pro, Fender deluxe Strat & Baja Tele, Gibson ES335, Ibanez S Prestige 2170FW, Eastman AR371CE, Variax JTV > KPA > Patch bay inc. Strymons (Mobius, Timeline, Blue Sky), H9 Max, TC Triple Delay, & POD HD500 > Adam A7Xs

  • I used to be a big time audiophile. I'd read every magizine or piece of literature about high end stereos I could get may hands on. I've more or less grown out of that phase ... 'probably just transfered that obsession to guitar playing and recording. :D
    Anyway, I remember reading an article about a double blind test aimed at high end stereos vs low end. The test had two stereo rigs setup in identical rooms...one room for high end and the other for low end. The test listeners were professional audiophile critics that reviewed and wrote about different stereo offerings. The test was spread out over three days. The idea of the test .... the critics had to listen to an identical piece of music on both of systems and determine which was the high end system and which was the low end system. The subjects consistently got it WRONG half of the time. The subjects would also reverse themselves from day to day.
    I'm happy with 1.6 and don't hear a difference...today. :D
    I guess the only way to resolve this is to have Kemper do their own testing through electrical engineering equipment and post the results. I fully trust the results will be accurate and unbiased. But, it won't make any difference to me anyway 'cause, as I wrote, I don't hear a difference...at least, not today. :D

  • I would love to be part of CK's test. I think Armin's clips reveal a noticeable variance in tone.


    I'm neither crazy, nor psychotic 8o8o


    Great thread and I see no problem with people taking the test from CK.

  • If there´s really no sound difference, I´m really fuc**d up, because I inmediately felt a difference in 1.6 (in the wrong way) and now I´m a little bit reluctant about the sound in my Kemper.


    I hoped this issue to be solved, but, if there´s nothing to solve, I´m still fuc**d up, because I still feel there´s something wrong and now nobody´s gonna try to solve it. ;(

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

  • I have gigs and recordings to do - so still no own experience with 1.6. Would love to join in CK's tests. Not really shure if it's possible; not much time for this.


    I love Paco's picture here. It is telling a lot about what we are talking about here...

    I think this thread turns into a teaching about what is and what is not communication. There is a limit to what can be done on an internet forum. Especially when you talk about such subtle sonic details.

    www.audiosemantics.de
    I have been away for quite a while. A few years ago I sold my KPA and since then played my own small tube amp with a Bad Cat Unleash. Now I am back because the DI-profile that I made from my amp sounds very much convincing to me.

  • Quote

    If there´s really no sound difference, I´m really fuc**d up, because I inmediately felt a difference in 1.6 (in the wrong way) and now I´m a little bit reluctant about the sound in my Kemper.


    I hoped this issue to be solved, but, if there´s nothing to solve, I´m still fuc**d up, because I still feel there´s something wrong and now nobody´s gonna try to solve it.


    Did you read this thread before upgrading? Because the power of suggestion and placebo shouldn't be taken lightly... :)

  • You guys crack me up - now someone mentioned the latency might be a tiny bit higher on 1.6 and folks chiming in saying it's unplayable. As highly entertaining as this thread is here - I won't read more in here...I really prefer to care about music than 0,01 ms (or whatever figure) of more latency. Mind you, I am using the Kemper in a professional studio almost daily....back to more important stuff...

    + 1


    This thread is becoming completely insane.

  • I'm confused, is there no foolproof way to test whether there is a real difference in sound between 1.5.x and 1.6? I don't consider double-blind testing foolproof since you're still relying on human (mis)perception and there could be real differences that are only apparent in certain testing conditions and only audible to certain people at the right moment. Does the variable latency issue mean that reamping and test signals aren't reliable ways to test this supposed problem?


    CK already said he performed the test and there was no difference. Regarding perception, well perception is reality isn't it. There are 2 very easy ways to determine a perceived change being real vs imagined and both involve a double blind test with control:


    1. Set up 3 Kempers 2 of which are on the same firmware and play all of them and grade which one feels different. If the tester can not pick the correct FW as being different, the difference is insignificant


    2. Reamp 3 clips 2 of which are on the same firmware and grade which one sounds different. If the tester can not pick which is different, the difference is insignificant.


    I used to be a big time audiophile. I'd read every magizine or piece of literature about high end stereos I could get may hands on. I've more or less grown out of that phase ... 'probably just transfered that obsession to guitar playing and recording. :D
    Anyway, I remember reading an article about a double blind test aimed at high end stereos vs low end. The test had two stereo rigs setup in identical rooms...one room for high end and the other for low end. The test listeners were professional audiophile critics that reviewed and wrote about different stereo offerings. The test was spread out over three days. The idea of the test .... the critics had to listen to an identical piece of music on both of systems and determine which was the high end system and which was the low end system. The subjects consistently got it WRONG half of the time. The subjects would also reverse themselves from day to day.
    I'm happy with 1.6 and don't hear a difference...today. :D
    I guess the only way to resolve this is to have Kemper do their own testing through electrical engineering equipment and post the results. I fully trust the results will be accurate and unbiased. But, it won't make any difference to me anyway 'cause, as I wrote, I don't hear a difference...at least, not today. :D


    CK is under no obligation to post the results IMHO. He's already stated in this thread his tests resulted in no difference EXCEPT a reduction in aliasing. Read that sentence again. He did not say there was absolutely no difference, but qualified it but the reduction in aliasing. While that difference is likely negligible to the vast majority of us, some could probably heard it all the time. An easy assumption (though not absolutely correct) would be that those who prefer the sound of the previous firmware actually prefer the sound of some aliasing in the signal. Are we so presumptuous to accuse the inventor that he's not an expert of his own device or that he's purposefully deceiving us? Another easy assumption to make (which is absolutely correct) is that the power of suggestion is immense...