Posts by Quitty

    You're perfectly right with the disclaimer and i never thought this was intended to prove the superiority of one over the other.
    It can, however, show a consistent difference. All clips were more 'lively' on the analog outputs, as if someone ran them through a very subtle exciter.
    Or, you know, a non ideal analog circuit.
    Besides, the fact that we're discussing this on a forum dedicated to an analog-circuit emulator only proves that we prefer non-ideal systems.

    For myself, i'll take S/Pdif and an exciter any day. More predictable, less noisy.

    What works for your strat will likely sound muddy with humbuckers. In general, it will take some searching to find really great clean tones using humbuckers.

    Try the MB OTS by MBritt on the rig exchange.

    The Jazz ones are the shorter version, right?

    I've got both in both delrin and gel. The gels are my favorites but as stated, they wear out rather quickly.
    They are great picks, though. Took me a little while to get the most out of them, though - it wasn't until i learned to adjust my grip while playing that i started really enjoying them.

    Actually, the differences are quite apparent to me.
    2nd clip is slightly compressed and has some low-end resonance. 1st clip has the infamous Profiler transient overshoots :)

    Thing is, i can't say if the resonance is caused by analog or some of it is lost in capacitance -
    just like i can't say if the transients are originally there or caused by saturating this or that op-amp.
    This is nitpicking, but the difference is definitely there.

    I'll bet on the Kemper being the first, but i can't decide which i like more.
    The first is a tad smoother. The second is clearer and less muffled.

    Anyway, i'd be interested in the profile more than the solution :)
    Any chance of you sharing it?

    I strongly echo the suggestion of using Rig Manager. It's by far the most convenient tool for the job.

    I play more proggy stuff than the brootz lately, so i'm in a hot-rodded-modern-Marshall binge for months now - take my suggestions with a grain of salt.

    Sinmix's stuff is great. Very brutal, for better or worse.
    Also try Tim Owens's Friedman BE and Splawn Quickrod - you'll find them under the 'free profiles' subforum. Extremely natural sounding.
    Lasse Lammert's pack is not to be missed, and i'd recommend ArthurD as well (look him up) for paid stuff.

    I'm not loving the Axe sound you've got there, to be honest. Sounds kinda plasticky to me.
    Also sounds like it has potential, but i guess the XFX2 has been known to have a steeper learning curve.

    OK, gave them a run.
    I don't remember which is which, and i didn't visit Soundcloud to remind myself yet because i wanted to try and give as objective an opinion as possible. I do remember i liked the Profiler's S/Pdif least, and that it was the last clip of the bunch.

    First clip sounds worst now. Not bad, but slightly harsher and more dithered, maybe? Sounds like more background stuff and less 'body'.
    Second clip is way smoother. Perhaps a tad too smooth.

    Third and fourth are very close, but i'll take the fourth as my favorite. Very 'meaty' sounding midrange and the transients sound just a tad smeared, making them sound 'bigger'.

    The Profiler's S/Pdif sounds better than on Soundcloud. It's actually very close to the third and fourth clip, but the transients sound slightly quieter and shorter.
    It might be great with other sounds, but this is so over-gained it needs some help with note separation.

    To Sambrox:
    They are damn close, i agree.
    The thing is, it's not that my monitors are that good, it's that i know them so well. I've been mixing on them and listening to my music almost solely on them for the past, what, six? seven years now?
    I am also hyper-sensitive to high frequencies, but i don't think that has as much bearing.
    I'm not sure i could tell the difference on a pair of speakers i didn't know as well.

    Had the Kemper for 3 years now, and i've gigged around 100 times with it by now, on every kind of venue you could possibly imagine.

    1. It's not the same. A mic'd cab doesn't sound like a live cab. Some micing jobs sound closer, but you'll have to get used to it.
    2. Cabs aren't relevant, either. In small venues, cab dispersion is a very serious problem. In any average and above sized venue, the audience hears you only through the PA anyway. So, i'd like to have control over what the audience is hearing. See 3:
    3. It doesn't matter how good you sound on-stage if your soundman can't mic an amp. And you soundman can't mic an amp.
    4. It solves a bazillion problems along the way.
    No XLR? go TS. Sh*tty wiring? Ground lift.
    Need an extra monitor? Monitor out, separate EQ. Need another? you've got three more.
    Need to sum your whole band into two sends (this actually happened once) ? Summing mixer into aux in.

    Just when i think i've gotten all i could from the Profiler, it surprises me in some new way.

    Oh my. I'm sorry, i thought you meant erasing a whole performance.

    I see you've found the 'slot enabled' button already. Slot 1 can't be disabled because it's the 'defining trait' of the performance as far as the Profiler is concerned.
    you can, however, pick a slot, hit 'copy' and 'paste' it on another slot, though, or use the 'rearrange slots' (i think) button to just move them around.

    We actually have a very effective power amp grid control on board, but it might be overseen when it's needed: the Tube Shape parameter set to higher values adjusts the distortion characteristic towards power amp distortion. The profiling manual recomments a value of 9 for typical sounds.

    Wait, i thought higher values are towards preamp tube sound?
    3.3 is the default. Anything above 5.5 usually results, for me at least, with some odd-sounding artifacts as the sound decays. That, however, i can record so as to be practical and not derail this thread further.

    If a reverb tail cannot be created sufficiently by the internal algorithms and not in a DAW, we should discuss the present reverbs instead.

    There is no need for us to prove the authenticity of close mic'd profiles, as it is proven by uncounted users.
    As you know, we have improved the profiling a bit during Version 2.5 to 2.8. Still there is situations possible where profiles are not spot on, especially when the amp produces power amp distortion. This is what happened to Andy, as I remember.

    So, would it be possible to discuss these?
    Whatever it is that we are sometimes missing can probably be solved by a purposeful reverb algorithm (low/high decay and maybe a different modulation algorithm as the present one is slightly too 'chorus-y', IMO),
    and some rudimentary 'poweramp grit' simulation to complement the already great 'power sagging' and 'tube shape'. On this much, i agree.

    In my impression this is just theory.
    In real life the profiling process truely captures the most important aspects of the room, that is room modes, phase cancelations, frequency responce added by the room.
    The only part that is not captured is the residual tail of the room, that gets mostly masked by the direct speaker signal.

    As far as I remember we have no single report of users stating that the profile sounds more dry than the real amp in the direct A/B comparison. But that's what realy matters, at least for us.
    No A/B clips have been recorded and posted showing such a phenomenon in four years. Anyone?

    There have been reports of profiles being inaccurate, with descriptions that could be explained by lack of reverb (sharp or dry comes to mind).
    Of course, there may be other explanations, but it is an option to consider.

    I recently profiled an Ampeg SVT-4 Pro in a live room.
    The profiler sounded dry and a little un-compressed compared to the actual mic'ed signal, which could very well have been lack of low frequency reflections.
    It's a shame i haven't recorded it when i was there.