Posts by barefly

    Downloaded the pack, awesome profiles, very usable for recording, definately in the leageu of mbritt and Andy, Have to try them out live.
    The band above is playing live, to me I think it shows great craftmanship. Flawless, great sound and feel. Bert never shows off but is a great musician.
    Bert, I know' you made a thousand or so studio Recordings, but do you remember the recording with Lenny Wolf? On the same record is Blues Saraceno and in my opinion you beat hij :)

    Wow, gonna get these! I remember when I was in awe when I heard your solo on the song of Kingdom Come/Lenny Wolf 'You're not the only...I know'. Great playing, feel and tone! You recorded that one in the wisselooord studios, do you by any change remember how it was recorded? Would be great if that amp would be in the pack :)
    I spotted the Kemper some time ago when you performer on the national radio

    External Content m.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
    . At 1.51 visible in your rack, great playing and tone as always!
    Thnx for making these available!

    I googled a litlle to further on the issue, but i think it is too complicated for me to understand But i did find some interesting articles f.e. http://www.academia.edu/232522…ime-invariant_convolverAs far as I understand now, every non-linear system is mathematically calculable (there is a very complex formulation for it, see above article). But that is way too CPU-hungry to perform in real time without latency. To overcome this problem all kind of 'tricks' have been used to try do diminish calculation needed, but all with trade-offs in accureteness of simulating a real world amp. I don't know which method Kemper is using. I guess every different approach results in a kind of different tonal flavor, exactly as is heard in de modellers of different brands.In the above mentioned article there is reference to the VST plug-in of acustica audio ( http://www.acustica-audio.com/ ) which claim to use a very high quality way of modelling (with four models merged into its algoritm : http://www.acustica-audio.com/…cle&id=14&Itemid=247).Has anyone experience with this plug-in? It seems of very high quality and I wonder if anybody has tried it out with sampling a guitar amp?

    It seems to me the patent describes that the KPA sees the amplifier and cab as one system which introducés non-linear distortion on the incoming guitar signal. And that makes sense with the real world I guess (?:-) :( the speaker movement causes distortion in the output tubes dependent on frequency and amplitude of the output signal, where as the input signal introducés intermodulation distortion. So the KPA doesn't use IR at all but by having a relation of the in coming signal to the non-linear amplification and the relation of the outgoing signal on the non linear amplification you could describes the behavior of the whole amplification/cab unit. To differentiatie between an 'amplifier' part and a 'cab' part is actually synthetic but could be done by drawing a line somewhere between these two influences of input and output signal.
    Another reason why i think it must work this way is that the KPA makes no difference between profiling an amplifier like a mic pre-amp and an amplifier /cab system: both can be described the same way with this influences on input and output signal ( but in case of the mic- pre- amp the output signal has hardly any effect at all).
    The axe fx and l6 gear can do non-linear amplification like the KPA does but they can't easily capture all the subtle differences s of different amps. They have to program the very complex interactions between these signals and the non-linear amplification. Should that be the explanation for the sound differences? It's too complicated....
    the Boss was here :) I wished he enlightened us a bit :)

    It should work, but I see an exclamtion mark stands right in front of it, that isn't part of the link. And I saw a mistake I made: the linear part of the amplification (low input signals) it is affected by the input signal, not output.
    I found another interesting thread: http://allsignalprocessing.com…amplification-of-signals/
    In the end it states the equalisation of a non-linear amplitude signal is the hard part to do because of lack of analytical tools (? I don't understand complete :) ) The invention of Kemper is a solution for this problemen I guess.
    I guess then why a KPA sounds different from a axefx or line6 must be in the wat this non-linear amplification is programmed ? Maybe like Sambrox wrote with 7 different Models?

    That is an interesting document, but hard to understand !http://worldwide.espacenet.com…spacenet.com&locale=en_EP This thing from my first post about phase is not what it is about. If I understand correctly the KPA shifts between two kinds of amplification: one for low input signals which is linear and is affected by the output signal and one for high input signals which is non-linear and is affected by both input and output signal. The switch between these two amplications is non-linear and dependent of the input signal if i understand correctly.
    Why kpa is different from the L6 then must be how the way the amplification is stored into the signal processor, because this kind of global describing of the amplification seems to me not to be patented?

    I never have seen a thread about how the Kemper produces it great sound. Maybe it is not decent to start such a thread because this procedure is the secret behind KPA's success and I guess it is protected via a patent. But I am very curious what theoretically could explain the differences in sound quality between different digital devices. If the moderator decides to close this thread, I can understand, but I hope we could start an interesting discussion on the principles of digital sound modelling.
    I guess in the early devices in some way the clipping (distortion) proces was digitally reproduced and after that the effect of the speaker and cab mimiced by some form of equalisation of the clipped amp sound. By optimising this clipping and equalising the end result will be of course better, and that is what I think to hear in products like axeFX and now the new helix. But the KPA must have found an other way to achieve the complex way a guitar amplifier distorts the guitar signal, the fingerprint sound from the KPA is really different from the other gear. This strucked me again when hearing the new helix, which imo indeed has the same line6 fingerprint in it as it predecessors. I'm really fairly ignorant in how things are technically worked out in amp modelers and I'm wondering if somebody has an idea how this could be achieved in the KPA.
    I think an important part in a good sounding modeler is phase allineation. When you record and you use inferior equalising plugins you get this 'washed out' sound (like old L6 gear has), more exactly: the opposite from an 'in your face' sound. I guess a speaker will always be phase-coherent because there is no other way for it to move and when you place a mic directly in front of it, you keep this coherence in the recorded signal what gives the 'in your face ' sound. Plug ins in DAW's have evolved over the years and the last years lots of EQ's can be bought which don't influence the phases of different frequencies during the eq-process. These eq's almost always sound better, especially when you want to preserve the directness and openess of the sound. I think these quality improvments in DAW-eq-ing is comparable with the improvements in gear from ie L6. But KPA must have done it in another way: it sounds really 'in your face' and still after five (?) years after introduction is ahead of the competition on this special topic of modelling. That makes me think that the solution must be found in the way the clipping sound is produced. If you manage to form the initial clipping as a function of not only amp characteristics, but speaker/cabinet characteristics as well I think you could have much more control over the endresult. This would be very different from first producing an amp-like clipped signal which you adapt with eq-ing.
    I'm very curious if somebody has an idea how it works, but again, maybe it is not appropriate to discuss such matters on this forum.