Posts by liulululi

    In the perfect world the profiler would offer a global eq with
    Lowcut and Highcut with selectable slope
    Lowshelf and Highshelf with variable slope or Q
    2 to 4 peak eq's full parametric.

    Yes, that is just what needed -because of the imperfect world! :)


    Please take such a unique piece of equipment as KPA to another level also in that way.


    X-slot needs to be liberated of the studio EQ:s slavery to another more important missions ;)

    if it's not included in the kpa itself we can get 31 band eq units quite cheaply anyway

    I do not want to put for example 300 euros to Behringer Ultrcurve DEQ 2496 for that purpose if it is possible to get with KPA firmware.
    And there isnt cheaper units for proper use as far as I know.



    To CK my explanation is here to be understood:


    Equipment:


    A) Two Atomic Reactors in stereo
    B) Yamaha DXR10 -tools needed for compensate room acoustics
    C) Mesa 20/20 guitar poweramp > reqular guitar cabs in stereo


    Reasons to have better output eq;
    A) I know those Atomics are FRFR -but they sound really good when compensate
    B) With Yamaha it is about correlation of room acoustics in a bad circumstances (you maybe have to put it near to corner in a small place)
    C) With guitar setup with cab off in KPA there is nice to have exactly tuned the sounds as wanted


    In all those cases I have experiment existing output eq far too limited.


    And as tylerhb stated: even 4 fully parametric bands with high and low shelf with asjustable Q
    would be really great and totally sufficient.

    A good 6 band parametric is jest as effective in most situations. Each band has a center frequency, Q (width), and gain.

    With parametric I do like this:
    boost some band, scroll slowly through the frequencies, find the "bad" ones, if there is any
    -and cut them accordingly.


    With that method it is so easy to find problem freqs 8)

    musicman65, I agree completely.


    Let´s put that in a commercial way:
    I cant believe anybody potential customer who is thinking to buy KPA doesnt think it is a bad thing having that option :)

    When setting up linear listening to recording studio there is many
    things to take care about: acoustics, equipment positions to prevent
    reflections etc. It is nowadays common that those monitors
    also will be calibrated with calibrating system sofware.


    So nobody producer or player is going to ask eq:ing of monitors
    when doing recordings or mixes. They trust that monitoring is ok.


    Here, in these threads with KPA, we are talking much about
    listening FRFR:s or guitar cab in a live situation where acoustics could be whatever.


    Frequesting for multiband eq to KPA output is not only for making "bad"
    monitors itself more linear, in many cases the need is to compensate
    acoustic behaviour of that room where you are playing.


    It seems that here in a forum is many people are used to
    use that kind of multiband eq:s, its not a thing for a many to get
    much more better reults when proper tools are available.


    And those who are not familiar with that kind of things there in KPAS output
    could be output eq as it is now, multiband could just be optional to choose
    to those who need it.


    The problem of existing eq is that it is so broadband:
    for example if you try to take boominess away you can end to the sound
    which do not have lower bass enough.

    Thanks for exact frequencies of available output eq.


    But there is need to eq also different guitar equipment after KPA,
    poweramp and cabinet combinations.
    Not all want eq only FRFR systems.


    For example there could be boomines or spikes that doesnt fit to those existinq frequencies:
    by turning the frequence which is "near" the needed, it only can make situation worse.


    So, having more available frequencies is all needed.


    I dont want irritate anyone.
    This is just feature frequest.


    Peace.

    honestly, to me that sounds like a 'I want more' request' since I can't figure out a (real world) scenario where it's absolutely necessary to have two fx in 'X'.


    please elaborate.

    Don, I´ll explain.


    Sometimes I use FRFR as Yamaha DXR10 with (cab on), sometimes I just want to put KPA to Mesa 20/20 poweramp + guitar cab (cab off). Also other stuff.
    My need is to have very flexible eq after stonestack to compensate sonic differencies, similar as studio eq in KPA is, so I have used Studio EQ in a X-slot.


    BUT: I dont want to sacrifice one slot to that purpose cause I need also other effects!
    SO: if it would be possible to have eq AND some other effect in a same time, say, in X-slot, then it doesnt matter at all


    ANYWAY: the basic problem that drive me to my request is that OUTPUT EQ IS TOO ROUGH, I cant boost/cut the exact frequencies I need to do.
    There should be possibility to tweak q-parameter, and frequencies.
    It feels ridiculous to have to put some other devices to x-slot´s effect loop or between KPA and poweramp (many seems to do that, you can see it in a forum) cause KPA
    is programmable computer based unit where it shouldnt be problem to take it a bit further in a way I explained....


    CK comments recently in one thread that he doesnt see any reason to keep eq in a x slot all the time...unfortunately I can see because of poor output eq´s.


    FINALLY: if it is possible to do combination as "eq and something" in one slot, why it isnt good idea to continue developing that kind of twins more?


    Really hope you can follow me... ;)


    EDIT: Please look at here, thats very true what has been said in a thread -but in that way you really havent slots anymoore for effects needed:
    www.kemper-amps.com/forum/inde…page=Thread&threadID=5892