Posts by Boanerges

    No... Input settings seems to be out of the question.


    The issue is still there: muffled sounds when I change from Browse Mode to Perform Mode and vice versa. The muffled sound goes away by changing patches horizontally, that is, when I'm in browse mode, I change to a new profile and back again while still being in browse mode etc. Same with perform mode.


    That means I can still use the KPA as I only change between performances and slots within performances.


    But I still think it should be resolved, as there must be something fishy somewhere.


    You could open a support ticket and attach a backup of your Profiler. This way, it could be analyzed.
    But I am pretty sure, you should check about the lockings and copy the INPUT section over to Performance Mode.


    I will do immediately. But let me be sure I have it correct: your theory is that it's different input levels making for the difference? Wouldn't it still be a bug, given the scenario I described?


    And thanks for replying ;)


    Thanks a lot
    Yeah, seems solved there, but in my case it appeared with 2.3.3, or at least so I think. (I see another user that claims this wasn't fixed in 233 in the thread below...) Been using my kpa extensively, but haven't noticed this until after upgrading to 233.

    When I go from browse to perform and back = sound is muffled, and I haven't touched any parameters or stored anything. Going to a different profile and back un-muffles the sound, but still I haven't touched any parameters or stored anything.


    There's a post further down here about 2.3 muffling the sound that describes the exact same problem as I have.

    Pardon me if I upset somebody, but I noticed a strange thing with my KPA. I attach a link to a sound cloud clip to illustrate. Here's what happens:


    I'm in browse mode, testing a new Friedman profile. In order to compare with an existing profile that I use, I switch to perform mode and listen to my Friedman profile there. Then I switch back to the first Friedman profile I'm testing in browse mode, and all of a sudden, this profile sounds amazingly anaemic and lifeless. Still in browse mode, I turn the browse dial to a different profile and then back again to the Friedman, and this seems to reset what's wrong -- everything sounds normal again.


    In the following sound clip I recreate the operation: Clip 1 = the Friedman I'm testing in browse mode; then I switch to perform mode and back, clip 2 = the Friedman after returning from perform mode, dull and lifeless; clip 3 = the Friedman after resetting it by browsing to a different profile and back, in browse mode.


    What's this?


    https://soundcloud.com/arneolav-1/possible-bug

    After one of the latest firmware updates, my KPA would no longer work with my Gordius Little Giant 2 (KPA screen going blank in performance mode, only bank up button working etc.). I asked Xavier from Gordius for a solution, and he said this:


    "I know the latest KPA firmware introduces some new functionality regarding performance "pre-select" mode, but you should be able to disable this new feature in one of the KPA system menus. When you do that I would expect the KPA to behave as before."


    Can anybody point me to what this is and how I can disable it in order to get my Gordius working again?


    Thanks!

    Lots of similar experience here, I guess. Another thing that surprises me, both with the KPA and with, you know, the competing high-end modeler, is how it brings out the characteristics of different guitars. Contrary to one of the many myths about tube vs non-tube amps, it's easier to retain a clear and uncluttered signal with the KPA so that there's actually an audible difference between my different strats even when using pretty much gain. When firing up one of my tube amps, stacking overdrive pedals to achieve the type of gain I like, some amps tend to wash out differences between some guitars. With the KPA, I can bring out more of the amp's gain in ways that gives me more control over the tone; input control, a neutral boost, notch the gain control up a tad, etc. Also, the eq can be changed in subtle ways. And all of this without the shortcomings of the tube amps, which by the way is part of what's fun with tube amps as well, where a notch up on the gain or down with the treble completely changes the characteristics of the gain and feel of the amp. But I simply love having a great amp captured and being able to touch upon it without ruining the core tone and feel.

    great story!


    thanks. :)


    now, ... about those Friedman and Dr Z profiles... :D


    Hehe, I'll get them out there soon. I haven't profiled my DR Z yet, but I have a couple of profiles of my Friedman (with a good, broken in Scumback H75, their take on a Greenback) that are golden and which I use live regularly both with my Strats and Les Pauls. I also have a couple of good profiles of my modified JCM 2000 which sounds great -- great, old mid gain Marhsall sounds that sounds great with pedals in front. At low volumes they might not immediately capture your attention, but in a mix and at loud volumes they are chewy and really good.


    I'll work with the DR Z too at some point.

    Pretty uninteresting rant following and you know where it's going to end, but it's good for community building, right?


    At a recent studio session, working with the engineer, we decided to bring a load of amps and cabinets and experiment with different combinations to set the sound. I brought my Friedman BE & a DR Z Antidote, both incredible sounding amps, paired with a couple of Scumback loaded cabinets. I also brought the KPA and a competing, high-end modeler (with which I have years of experience), and I had already recorded a couple of tracks with the other modeler.


    We set up the amps in different rooms with several close & distant mics, worked to eliminate phasing issues, moving around and adjusting until each amp sounded great alone and in combination. We recorded a couple of takes with my strat, looking for a jangly, mildly overdriven strat sound. It sounded good, naturally, how bad can those amp sound?


    After a couple of takes more, I asked the engineer/producer if he could hook up the KPA, which he was interested in, as the KPA keeps showing up in big studios everywhere. He wasn't too keen on the competing box, as it sounded a bit too correct on the tracks we had used it on. We hooked up the KPA and I went for one of the AC30 models that is floating about for free (either a free one from Amp Factory or one of the stock KPA ones). And to quote the late Steve Jobs: Boom! There it was, juicy and shimmering with the jangly speakers and all, and that el84 chime that breaks up when you push it. We spent 15 minutes discussing how awesome this was, comparing it with the other stuff we had used so far. We also browsed through a couple of different profiles I had made myself by carefully adjusting the amp and mic (just a single 57) at home, and these profiles sounded equally good and _right_.


    So we decided to redo a couple of tracks and do the rest with the AC30 profile, my own profiles of my old Marshall plus my Friedman. And -- man! -- comparing the KPA with the rest of my gear (first time I use the KPA in a recording production outside of my own tracking studio) in a commercial studio setting, finding out how great this box captures the sound and feel of the amps, is both a blast and extremely educative for a tone freak. I've used it a lot live, but listening to it closely in context in comparison with amps and that competing box is different.


    How fun is that? ;) Now I want two!

    I have both the powered kemper and the matrix 1000 fx. Both are great sounding amps. I really dug the hell out of the matrix prior to buying the powered KPA, but I like the internal B&O amp even better. Great sounding both thru frfr and guitar cabs (which is the way I use it now). And it's powerful enough to roll with a loud rock drummer on stage. I was afraid the powered KPA would sound inferior to the Matrix and that it would not be loud enough (1000 vs 600 w), but it more than kept up.


    AND it's light weight, dead silent and does not produce heat. Dunno how they make it, because it really sounds heavy, hot & noisy ;)

    i would be happy with either one, but i find the kemper feels more like the real thing. the axe (I or II) sounds somwhat flat / one-dimensional. i think it is due to the IR/cab section


    The IRs are extremely important, and I have yet to shoot my own IRs for my Axe. Still, I've tested a gazillion IRs (Redwires, Ownhammers, Fractal Audios, different downloaded from forum members etc.) and many of those are really great. But I can't get rid of that flatness, for the lack of a better word, in the sound, no matter what IR I use. To me, the Kemper seems to win when it comes to tone, complexity, gain structure etc. The Axe is great, though, and I'm sure that what I hear as "flat," some will find desirable.

    Love these comparison threads, even though I shouldn't ;)


    Here's my take on the feel-thing between the Axe and the Kemper.


    To sort of qualify my opinions: I've been using the Axe Ultra extensively for 2,5 years (ca 80-100 live gigs per year + a few studio sessions), using the Axe 2 the same way for about a year. I really dug how the Axe instantly replaced all the tones and fx I used live, and then some, and I really fast got used to hearing myself through FRFR monitors. I bought the Kemper 1,5 years ago and have been noodling with it at home while still using the Axe live.


    My eye (ear) opener was when I profiled a couple of my favourite amps (a Marshall and a Friedman) with the Kemper some six months ago. No fancy setup, just dialling in a good miked-up sound in my home studio with an SM57. This sounded incredible and I was stunned as to how great it felt to play through. The OP asks for a "feel" comparison, and precisely the "feel"-thing was what caught me here. I set the Kemper up with a midi board and used the Kemper's own effects, which also are great (although I would want a few more), and this rig effectively replaced my Axe almost overnight. To me, the Kemper with profiles of my amps dialled in the way I like them, with my guitars, sounds nothing short of freaking amazing.


    A couple of weeks ago, I brought my Axe to the gig, sort of to compare and see if I'm in some kind of honeymoon phase with the Kemper. Again, this is imho: The Axe, as good as it is with effects and routability, sounded way flatter and less three-dimensional, if that makes sense, compared to the Kemper. I worked for hours with the Axe, browsing through my entire Ownhammer library of IRs, changing amps, etc. but I couldn't get close to the 3D swhirl and warmth of my Kemper profiles.


    So, as for that warm, punchy and responsive 3D amp feel, the Kemper wins for me. And to me, the basic sound of the amp is the most important.


    I'm not making big empirical claims here, this is based on my preferences, what I'm looking for in an amp. I'm sure a lot of people will chime in with more or less the same arguments in favour of the Axe, and that's great. But I'm sure a lot of people would listen for and hear the same things that I hear too.


    What I haven't done with the Axe, which I probably should do, is to shoot my own IRs and perhaps even tonematch my amps. That will have to come later, now I must find a great tweed amp and profile that with my Strat and Les Paul ;)

    So the Kemper PA into a guitar cab sounds like A real guitar amp+cab, but not necessarily the one modeled? Cause I wouldn't expect it to sound like the modeled version... but I would need it to sound legitimately like AN amp.



    More or less, yeah. But I guess that how close you can get to the actual rig modeled depends on your approach. I can only speak for myself; I profiled my Friedman BE/Scumback H/M75 rig. On tape, I got the profile to be pretty similar to the rig miked up, so for recordings and live through a PA system, I've more or less captured the amp at a sweet spot (to me). I then did a test recording where I ran the Friedman profile without cab sim via the Kemper's power amp through the very speakers I used for the profile, using the same microphone & mic placement. One would think (by a digital layman's logic) that this would yield somewhat similar results to going direct with the cab sims on, and it actually did. It was not identical, but it was pretty close and most importantly it sounded great. To answer your question above: it approximated the modeled rig. And most certainly it's good enough for stage monitoring and rehearsals. It gives me the oomph I need on stage for certain gigs, it bugs the hell out of my bandmates so that we can spend som old school quality time together arguing over stage volume, and at the same time I can run the entire profile direct through the PA.


    And I can leave the cab altogether and use FRFR monitors, using the exact same profile, which I often do (and love) as well.


    This, imho, is very flexible, and the KPA is light and easy to carry around, even with the internal PA (which adds very little weight). Given the sound quality of the KPA, this is ideal to me. For the time being, at least.


    I need to talk to the American distributor about trying one. It's not like anyone in Dallas has them in stock. But that could definitely be my constant live rig if it's legit.


    I'd really recommend that you try this out. I'm totally surprised by the sound quality, feel and power of the B&O power amp that comes with the Kemper.


    But yes, different strokes. If you prefer or don't mind the sound of PA gear onstage, go for it. It certainly is a convenient solution (and you get to hear, more accurately, what the audience is hearing). It is a DIFFERENT sound than an amp onstage. I, for one, would love to know how closely the Kemper PA through a guitar cab sounds like an amp sitting next to you.


    I agree with this -- to me, some settings kinda demand the sound of a real cab onstage (although others would probably do without). IMHO, a real cabinet fed with the KPA PA gets pretty close, but there's (still IMHO) a difference directly comparing it. But for me, it's more than close enough, and I'm sure that if I set out to make it close (making a di profile of the amp etc.), I could get it closer. I use the same cab onstage as the one that I profiled, so when I listen to everything together (what I hear from the PA and stage monitors in addition to the actual cabinet), it sounds really close, and is way more controllable than if I brought my 100w Marshall.


    Nice sounds and playing, by the way.


    Boanerges, just curious here : the previous rig you are referring to, which made you regret you didn't bring the powerrack as a backup, is it the KPA/Matrix combo, or is it the "competing product"?


    Regards


    Sorry for being unclear ;) What I wished to state, to make a short story long, was that I regretted that I didn't bring my KPA with the internal power amp (i.e. the Power Rack), which I've been using the last months and which sounds amazing. I have been using this "competing product" for several years live and in studios, although I have had a KPA for a couple of years too, noodling with it at home. Half a year ago, I thought that I'd either give the KPA a serious go or get rid of it, so I spent a few nights with it at home setting it up with a couple of suitable amps. And at loud stage volumes it all came together -- dynamics, warmth etc. So I went on and made a couple of profiles of my favourite amps/cabinets (a Friedman BE and my old Marshall DSL), which made everything even better. It made me smile every night ;)


    But then I started thinking about how pleased I used to be with this "competing product," and given that plus the fact that this "competing product" has a better footswitch solution, I decided to haul it with me for a gig, just to see if the honeymoon phase with the KPA was over. But it wasn't, apparently, and I spent the rest of the night trying to find the ooomph, warmth, 3-dimensionality that I get from my KPA, with no success. The "competing product," in comparison with the KPA, sounded stiffer, harder and harsher than the tones I'm getting from my KPA. This really surprised me; I would never have thought that I'd actually spend a night being displeased with this "competing product."


    With the KPA, I go from the KPA to the FOH directly, and I have the sound that goes out in my front monitors. But I also run monitor out from the KPA with the cab simulation of directly into a 212 Scumback equipped cabinet, and I use the internal power amp in the KPA to power this cabinet. This is the same cabinet that I used for my own profiles, so I feed the profiled cabinet out through the FOH and use the original cabinet onstage.


    I occasionally use a FRFR monitor onstage too, which sounds great (I have the Matrix one, can't remember the model name right now), but different, suitable for quieter gigs or for fly gigs when I need to bring everything with me in the plane's overhead lockers ;)

    FRFR's sound awfully boring to me. I don't enjoy playing through a piece of PA equipment. But more importantly, many bands MISS the sound of a guitar amp onstage. An FRFR is nowhere CLOSE to the same sound across the stage... it doesn't "thump" and it doesn't spread as well.


    But I don't know if the Kemper power amp is the way to go. Haven't tried it.


    I'm not sure if Your response helps the OP at all, but that's up to him to decide. I'm guessing you haven't played many gigs with a first class frfr solution such as the KPA or Axe-FX, and haven't tried the Kemper PA at all..? Anyway, I'm with Ingolf here; FRFR can be really great, and the sound dispersion from e.g. a coaxial frfr speaker is way more even than a classic Marshall 412 cab, which is legendary for its directionality. Both ways have their advances, none is better than the other, it depends on needs and preferences. I'm having great results with both, depending on the setting, and I know that many guitarists have the same experience.


    Peace out.