Posts by ampjunkie

Does anybody know a good way to contact TJ? I've tried their e-mail, FB, etc. but no response at all to my request (trying to get an upgrade to a pack). Thanks in advance.

Quote from radiooctave

Regarding the possible patent infringement of the "neural capture" process available in the Quad Cortex:

There is a legal part of the issue, and a practical part.

The legal part is basically about whether there is actually a patent infringement by Neural DSP when selling/offering the Quad Cortex with the capture feature, or whether they are legally free to do it.
The practical part is about whether, under the assumption that Neural Capture actually does or at least might violate one or some of the patents owned by Kemper, it would make sense to sue, or whether the trial costs - or even a possible risk of losing the trial - might be to high (if one assumes that there is no legal infringement, going to court does not make any sense whatsoever).

The practical part has to do with the fact that patent infringement lawsuits typically cost a freaking truckload of money, and you might get it back from the infringer, or at least to some amount, but if the costs for the lawyers and the court fees etc. are much higher than what you could get out of it, then you have to see whether a product can be so dangerous to you that you want to keep it out of the market at almost all costs (or whether you want to try to settle on an agreement with the infringer in order to not risk your own cash flow etc.). And: Sometimes, infringements are not that easy to prove, in particular in software-based implementations - i.e., to be totally proven, not some "it must be like this" guessing, but sufficiently solid proof so that a judge will rule over tenthousands (or hundreds of thousands) of $$/€€ on basis of the proof.

The more technical part is the legal part. It seems that the european patent is valid in Germany, UK, France and Sweden, and the protection of the patent (what the patent owner truely "ownes" as invention) is actually for the imlpementation of the profiling process as some Wiener-Hammerstein model of a hyperbolic tangent sandwiched by two frequency response transfer functions (the ones to be found by the profiling in order to represent the amp in question). If Neural DSP found some workaround here, they would appear to be free. They claim they are doing some neural-network-like approach, however without specifying what exactly the networks are "learning"/training (but a priori, it sounds different).

However, the US patent and a further German patent both have a protected invention that seems insanely general, it looks like it might cover all possible profiling/capture/younameit processes as soon as the process uses a comparison/difference of two frequency response curves (one for the real amp, the other for its profile). It is difficult to imagine any possible implementation of a profiling/capture process without comparing these two frequency responses. One probabely would have to implement the process completely in time domain rather than with frequencies (to be absolutely sure about not touching the Kemper patent), and I find it difficult to believe that such an implementation is technically feasible at all (in particular, when hearing the white noises involved).

Given what is protected by the US patent and the feasibility issues with what's left to do then, I could imagine that the Kemper US patent actually might be infringed by the Neural Capture process. Whether this is easy to prove now (I mean, "court-solid" proof), could be a totally different story

Display More

Writing a good patent is like a balancing act:

1. Making in general enough that it can cover a lot of things, but hasn't been previously done. But also ...

2. Making it specific enough so that it is patentable

For Kemper, I would say it is easy enough to patent a *very specific* profiling process. As you mention, some specific mathematical model and implementation. I can see this as more easily defensible. But the more specific it is, the easier it is to get around it.

The thing you mention on Kemper patenting a process whereby two EQ curves are compared -- that seems pretty general. If they were granted a patent on that, I could see that be defeated in court based on previous SW or HW that does this. Many SW or HW equipment today do this sort of thing (i.e. tonematching, Tonedexter, etc.), or any series of audio SW plugins or apps that compare EQs of incoming songs or signals and create EQs to match.

In any case, I am speculating here but I think Neural have some profiling method that does some some of matching to do capture comparisons with the reference, and does so using a NN model rather than something more specific in Kemper's case. In this sense, it isn't violating their patent on the specific profiling method. But would violate some general patent that compares frequency responses. But as I said, the latter seems so general that it would be invalidated if brought to court.

I believe these rigs from r.u.sirius are the Bogner Ecstasy 101B or the 20th anniversary version. The 100B version is very rare, with only 150 made. The 100B is the most sought after, and I have not seen this particular model profiled yet. If anybody knows, please let me know. Thanks.

Amazing what you can get from kits these days -- and you are willing to finish and assemble yourself. These babies play as well as guitars 5-10X the price!

https://modernmojoguitars.com/forum/thread-255.html

Sankey Black Swan

[Blocked Image: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5801158ce3df2898d6aaf1c3/58069132e58c62d93f0c5540/5806916f2994cac2209e7b23/1476825456769/DSC_0146blackswan.jpg?format=750w]

Bogner Ecstasy 100B.

This is the best summary I have seen so far on this (with a focus on Canadians). Looks like it affects more exporters of rosewood or finished goods containing rosewood.

https://www.facebook.com/perma…035260&id=198729443538942

Dr. K's Fine Guitars -- the Bad-K!

[Blocked Image: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5EcTemqCaDA/VpL4XxraEHI/AAAAAAAABoQ/nEfLwUQvx4s/s1600/001.jpg]

I really liked Minuano by Pat Metheny. The sound was a bit thin, but he's probably not using his full rig. Like he does here:

Here's the story behind these amps:

http://www.mojotone.com/suppor…ier-Builders/Lerxst-Omega
It's based on a Marshall Silver Jubilee 2553 -- 25-/50-watt amp from the ’80s.

[Blocked Image: http://lerxstamps.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/lifeson-rig.jpg]

I use two Yamaha FC7 volume/expression pedals. These are about $45 USD each. Extremely rugged rubber. The only thing people complain about them is the longer throw, but I like the distance and the sensitivity. Also, these things are made in Japan and have been in production for decades. Many people have had them for decades also ...

Need to add:
* Panama Amps (there are a few models: Fuego, Infeno, Shaman, Loco, Tribute)
* Bogner Ecstasy 100B. I know Bogner is already represented, but the 100B is rare and supposedly better sounding than the 101B, Classic, etc.

• Lerxst Amps Omega Amp 50W Head -- with Lerxst Omega 4x12 Cabinet (Basically a custom hand-wired signature amp, originally made for Alex Lifeson that is based on a Marshall Silver Jubilee)
• Panama Amps (mentioned before)
  
  
  • Fuego
  • Inferno
  • Shaman
  • Loco

Quote

Scott doesn't delete posts simply because they are negative toward Fractal, and he doesn't use the forum to push any brand-Fractal or otherwise. He's actually extremely impartial and open-minded. The only people who have a beef with him are people that have gotten in trouble there, and I can say with complete confidence that they are almost always the source of the trouble, not innocent victims.

I've been reading TGP for many many years, and this is definitely not true. There is a bias towards Fractal on TGP (and against every other modeler). Both Scott and Alec (owner and moderator) are Fractal fan boys. It is subtle, but they are there at every turn to stick up for Fractal. They are walking billboards for the company. The most common response from them when they state their views is that it's "only my opinion" along with the cliched "gamechanger. " Yet the way it is phrased, it's almost stated as fact and that your opinions don't really mean much if it's against Fractal. It's true that they don't rag on Kemper. But they rarely give kudos to Kemper.

Just read this very long (but entertaining!) thread and you'll begin to see the biases that people have -- including the owners and moderators of that forum.

http://www.thegearpage.net/boa…er-axe-fx-debate.1411293/

Summary: someone doesn't like the Axe-FX -- thinks Kemper is better. Says he owns Kemper, Axe-FX II, and Ultra. Scott as well as Cliff (Fractal owner) don't believe him -- call him a troll. He posts a photo which shows all 3 units as requested by Scott. They claim it's fake and go to great lengths to discredit him. Looks like a lynching. Neither take the high road in their approach. Turns out they are wrong and both have to apologize. Just goes to show how fast they are to be on the defensive when faced with any negativity towards Fractal -- a true symptom of fanboism.

Quote from ampjunkie

Bogner Ecstasy 100B
Egnater IE4 into VHT 2/50/2
PRS Archon
Bogner Helios

Can strike all of the above off the list except the Bogner 100B. I've seen the IE4 on RE, but not sure if it went into a VHT 2/50/2. Archon and Helios available commercially.

Quote from paults

Running two amps/models/rigs at the same time can sound harmonically richer, and can be a way to sound more like the typical doubled guitar parts, if mixed in stereo, and one of the two side has a small amount of pitch shift and a tiny amount of 100% wet short delay.

For someone who wants that sound live, two KPAs is an ideal way to do it.

Agreed -- that would be a cool sound. But if you are talking about doubling the guitar sound, normally it isn't done using very different guitar tones. The doubled tones are usually very similar, so it's easily handled by the sound engineer with outboard gear. Unless you are talking about doubling an electric with an acoustic (very common). In which case a KPA isn't going to get you that anyways.

Can you give a case (song) of two amps played at the same time (doubled) but are drastically different in tone (not counting acoustic guitar doubling)? Maybe I just listen to guitar bands that don't use this technique. Sure, it's cool to be able to do live, but I don't think it's that common recorded -- much less live.

I would like to have someone put forth a good example of the need to ever run two or more amps in parallel (not serially as I have never heard of someone micing an amp and putting that into another amp). I know it's done in the studio to get multiple takes/tones of the same guitar part. But it isn't a must as it can be replicated via re-amping. There are three situations where people play:

• Studio recording: it's sometimes desired to have multiple amps running in a mix. But in the studio, I think it's rarely cut live. You can re-amp to your heart's content, so you really don't need one Kemper to run two profiles in parallel. Simply record one dry track and re-amp with one profile, then re-amp with another and layer and mix as needed. Or just double-track like they used to (Randy Rhoads). In the studio, I am sure the engineers would rather have these separated as tracks so they can apply different EQ, compression, delays, etc.to each amp tone.
• Live playing: it's rare to see multiple amps running at the same time. You might have multiple amps to get you clean, rhythm, lead (a la Eric Johnson) but they never run at the same time. It's rare to see it.
• Bedroom noodling: do you really need multiple amps running at the same time? I guess it would be cool to have a Fender in the left channel and a VOX in the right. But is this feature really practical given the extra computational power needed?

I would love to see a true double-blind test between old and new FW. Just the expectation of the new FW with all the new algorithms, etc. can easily convince you that it sounds better -- or 100% more realer! Just because it models more accurately doesn't mean that it will sound better. Maybe "improved" modeling just means extra fudge parameters to make it sound better ...which is what I gather from the press release on the models being more based on empirical data. Ironically, if you continue down this path of modeling based on empirical data (less on circuit schematics), you arrive at -- THE KEMPER!

BTW, for this new FW from Fractal, here's the same caveat:

NOTE: This firmware represents a significant update in the amp modeling and the amp models themselves. Many models have been redone. Although care was taken to ensure as much compatibility with existing presets as possible, your presets may be altered.

I think it really depends on what kind of sound you are looking for. I found it very useful to research what was used on specific recordings by specific guitarists. For example, I have noticed that for guitarists like Alex Lifeson or John Petrucci, they like to use a combination of mics -- like SM57, MD421, etc. And maybe mix the two. On Petrucci's sound, see here: http://www.musicplayers.com/fe…006/0306John_Petrucci.php

Alex Lifeson has used a variety of mics though the years, but recently it seems to be SM57 and U47, again mixed to a mono track.

I also noticed that many people use the Royer R-121 -- esp to add girth and low-end. If you listen to IRs, you will easily hear that.

For my tastes, I like recordings which use SM57, MD421, and R-121 for lead and rhythm. Usually miced very close to the grill and slightly off the cone and on-axis. For clean tones, I still like the U87, U47, or AKG 414 or some mix.

Tim seems to use the Kemper everywhere -- including acoustic gigs. You can also see him use a Kemper Rack when Adele performed recently on The Today Show in NYC.