Posts by Maurizio70

    This review seems written by me... I have exactly the same thought of the pros and cons of this incredible unit.


    The improvements that I hope will be implemented soon are expecially:


    1. More Effects
    2. Editor and a better on-device management system


    Maurizio

    A is the real amp through Kemper
    B is the pure real amp
    C is the KPA


    This time the sounds are very similar, and all very very good. I like a little bit more B from the three...


    So, let's wait for the solution... I like toooo much this kind of test, very funny!
    please, more than these!!! :thumbup:

    I don't understand why this is so. A fender, vox, mesa will all have different clean sounds. If you are running a test signal through each of these clean preamps and modeling the output, wouldn't you get a different modeling response for each of the preamps? (Many thanks for you being on these forums and responding to our questions.)


    Really THANKS to Mr. Kemper for such important clarification first of all !


    I believe that a clean Fender, Vox, Mesa and so on are really awesone replicated in all their differences with the KPA. The problem, for what I understand, is only that in the CLEAN modeling cases, it is impossible to exactly separate with only ONE test signal the behaviour of TWO part (the Pre and and the Power AMP).
    Instead this is in some way achieved for the distorted Amps (I run just some quick test and the distorted Amps differs a lot each others).
    So, good to know than in the profiling process there are, at the end, two big different methods for the profiling process: clean and distorted. And that for the clean one they use a "default" preamp, leaving to the Power CAB section the proper characteristic of the sound.


    Maurizio

    Ciao! I believe that what you are reporting is strongly related to the discover we made in the thread


    'CLEAN AMPLIFIER: the Kemper Amplifier models are exactly the same between ALL the profiles'
    The differences in tone and charateristic are all modeled in the Cab part.


    Due to this behaviour the option CAB off for the Monitor OUT have less sense, because it takes off also some important caratheristic of the preamp itself, so to maintain the same sound in the monitoring, it's better to leave Cab ON and use an FRFR speaker.


    This is true for sure for the Clean ones, we have to do some tests to understand if this is also true for the distorted ones...


    Maurizio

    Other comments can be:


    1 the option CAB off for the Monitor OUT have less sense, because it takes off also some important caratheristic of the preamp, so to maintain the same sound in the monitoring, it's better to leave Cab ON and use an FRFR speaker


    2 since the Kemper models all the chain Preamp-PowerAmp-Mic all at once it is very difficult for the modeler to separate the behaviour between the various parts, and infact he doesn't manage to do it in a perfect way, to mantain such differences the modeler should take two pictures in parallel of the pre and of the power amp using a sort of four cable method... Which is not the case...


    3 be careful when we will switch between different Cab maintaining the same Amplifier, beacause we are changing also the character of the Amp itself!!

    There's a difference when it is not a clean sound with gain on zero anyway ..not a huge one but it's there..so yes the cab contains a lot of the amp actually which is good to know when you want to mix


    I take the opportunity from this important POST from BRUNO "Well.. Try this test" to make futher investigation test.
    I believe that such discover is very important to clearly have a specific title thread, so I open a new one called


    "CLEAN Amplifiers: the Pre in the Kemper Models is IDENTICAL for ALL !!!"


    Here are the conclusion:
    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/568398…enHotRoad-FenDeluxe85.wav


    In the modeling of CLEAN amplifiers they differ only for the CAB emulation. But this also means that the modeling, while being very faithful as a whole, absolutely it is not in the subdivision between preamp and power amp. It is absolutely not credible that the Fender Deluxe 85 amp has the same sound of a tube amp Fender Deluxe Hot Road or the same of the amp Hiwatt DR103 !!
    I believe that such behaviour should be mentioned and explaied in some way in the instrucion and guide for the KPA from the Kemper team...

    Hello guys,
    I take the opportunity from the POST from BRUNO "Well.. Try this test" that I report below to make futher investigation test.
    I believe that such discover is very important to clearly have a specific title thread:
    - I take 4 different clean Amplifier modeled by the Kemper:
    HIWATT DR 103 1972;
    ALEMBIC F2B 1974;
    Fender Hot Road Deluxe (tube based) profiled by me;
    Fender Deluxe85 (transistor based) profiled by me
    - Then tweak the parameters all the same (GAIN 0, all the others 0 except Tube Shape 3.3
    - Then LOCK EQ OFF, LOCK the Input, LOCK the CABINET OFF and switch off all the others stomp, if present
    - Finally compare the same EMaj Chord LOOP


    Here you have the result in WAV:


    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/568398…enHotRoad-FenDeluxe85.wav


    So, the conclusion, is that in the modeling of CLEAN amplifiers they differ only for the CAB emulation.
    But this also means that the modeling, while being very faithful as a whole, absolutely it is not in the subdivision between preamp and power amp. It is absolutely not credible that the Fender Deluxe 85 amp has the same sound of a tube amp Fender Deluxe Hot Road or the same of the amp Hiwatt DR103 !!
    Finally, I believe that such behaviour should be mentioned and explaied in some way in the instrucion and guide for the KPA from the Kemper team...


    Leave your comments, as I want to know other opinion about that, thank you very much!


    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    BRUNO
    Saturday, April 7th 2012, 6:34pm
    Well.. Try this test
    Take 3 or 4 of your fav clean sounds..make a copy of them with gain on zero ,clean sense,definition and all Eq on 5 ,no effects.Same cab for all... well to sum it up same exact setting for all...difference should come from the amp profiled ..what do you hear ?
    Here I have 3 times the same exact tone with a Vibrolux,Decatone and CAE ..so when gain is on zero the tone will come from the cab and settings..amp profiled doesn't really matter ?
    Quoted from "Vincent88"
    So you are saying that these 3 profiles sound the same with the stock gain setting?
    If you set them the same way with EQ and other parameters yes..
    There's a difference when it is not a clean sound with gain on zero anyway ..not a huge one but it's there..so yes the cab contains a lot of the amp actually which is good to know when you want to mix.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the version 1.0.6 when you link (as I do often) all the volumes together, Phones, Monitor, Main, Master and you turn the knob left and right the volumes have completely unexpected behaviour: every one after some turns has his own value; even some of them go to zero and so on. Then you have maually, one to one, restore the initial settings you want.


    It seems as if the new idea behind the BUG was to link the volumes maintaining the relatives differences :wacko:
    (so, for example: if you set "Monitor Volume" to -10 and "Main Volume" to -5 and they are linked together, when you turn left "Master Volume" to -12, "Monitor Volume" automatically must become -17... but it doesn't work...). Does anyone can do some tests to see if it occurs only to me?


    Thank you!
    Maurizio

    Maybe my measuring setup is not as precise as yours... How do you measure it? Also what is the state of the STOMP / STACK / EFFECTS buttons. Do you measure on the same patch? Did you do a system initialization? Do you use the analog INs / OUTs?


    I measure before the latency of a chain (without the KPA) with a Send/Return loop active (only a single cable), after I simply substitute the cable in the Send/Return loop with the KPA (Analog Input/Output) and re-measure the latency. So, the latency introduced by the KPA is simply the difference between the previous two.
    Measuring it using the same chain and then make the "difference" with/without the KPA is very precise because it remains independent from all the other stuff used (cables, audio soundcard and so on). All measurements were done with only STACK module ON and using always the same patch. It's not easy to explain, so I hope it was understandable ;(

    Sure, I'll drop a mail to support.
    Well based on my measurements I'm pretty confident that both 1.0.5 and 1.0.6 have the same latency: around 3.3 ms if my measuring method was correct. (I have used CEntrance LTU program + my RME 9632 card).


    Daniel, I update my previous post and do more accurate measurements:
    1.0.4 latency was about 207 samples (4,7 ms);
    1.0.5 latency was about 107 samples (2,43 ms) (and THE BEST TILL NOW reached and that really meets the specifications);
    1.0.6 latency was about 134 samples (3,04 ms)...


    So, based on my tests, from 1.0.5 to 1.0.6 latency is very similar but not exactly the same... And thanks for your additional testing!

    How's the latency compared to 1.0.5?


    UPDATED
    I miss a substraction in previous ONE and I did some more accurate measurements, here you have the results...


    The conclusion is that latency is a little worst then in the 1.0.5, but still good compared to 1.0.4.


    Here you have the data:
    1.0.4 latency was about 207 samples (4,7 ms);
    1.0.5 latency was about 107 samples (2,43 ms) (and THE BEST TILL NOW reached and that really meets the specifications);
    1.0.6 latency was about 134 samples (3,04 ms)...


    I try before and after System restart, and the latency is exactly the same, so no need for that.
    Also, indipendently from the measurements method (anyone has its), I use always the same for every KPA version, so at least the comparison from them is totally effective.


    Did anyone measure it? I believe that on latency the Kemper Profiling Amp still must find his stability :|
    Also I noticed little difference latency depending on the chain effects used (with others MultiEffect consolle this not happened).
    For example I measure that in 1.0.6 if all the chain is off (also Stack module off) latency is 2,6 ms.


    Maurizio70