Posts by RDM

  • Rigbusters: Liquid Profiles & Profiler Player Packs

    Hi Federico,


    Thanks for the clarification - much appreciated.


    I think I'll take advantage of your Black Friday discount.


    Richard.

  • Rigbusters: Liquid Profiles & Profiler Player Packs

    Hi Fero,


    I clicked on a few LP packs and noticed they had the same number of profiles as the original standard packs. You did reply to my original query confirming that the LP profiles are new, but for absolute clarity - do you mean:


    1. The amps were profiled from scratch again, but this time using the LP process; or
    2. The existing profiles (where you know the original settings) were converted to LPs?

    It's just that I want to buy LPs going forward, but my preference is to only buy ones produced by method 1. I particularly don't want to buy packs where I've previously bought the standard profiles and they've been converted.


    I'm not questioning your honesty or quality of work, I'm just seeking absolute clarity for the reason given.


    Cheers,


    Richard.

  • [dillrigs by Thomas Dill] PLAYER Editions out now!

    Theoretically, Liquid Profiles should be pickup agnostic, especially if the profiling amp setting is:


    Gain = max; and

    The tone controls are all set to 12 o' clock


    i.e. a sweet spot wasn't selected based on a specific guitar, which might have been SC or HB.


    It should then just be a case of taking a Liquid Profile and tweaking the gain and tone to suit the guitar you are using - like you would for the real amp itself.


    Whereas, non Liquid Profiles are snapshots of specific amp settings that the person profiling dialled in (and probably also refined) with a specific guitar. A Strat sounds different to an ES355, so these profiles will be aligned better to the guitar type that was used to set the amp gain and tone. Liquid Profiling (as I understand it) helps remove this link.


    If I've misunderstood, it would be useful to hear from the Kemper team with any clarification.

  • Classic Profiles vs. Liquid Profiles

    I prefer profile packs to be small with details for each profile provided - I don't want to have to sift through 30+ profiles to find 2 or 3 that are useable.


    I think to some degree, profilers include a high number of profiles to help them justify the price the pack is sold for - even though a lot of them won't get used by buyers. I think swapping cabs and changing mics and placements also helps to increase the pack size, but for me I don't need that variety, or at least I think I don't.


    Just use one cabinet that sounds good and using the mics in the traditional spot and using a classic single mic or dual mic combo should suffice. I agree with Armin that the guitar type used is important for Classic profiles (I raised this a few months ago in a separate thread), as the amp setting chosen can be influenced by the guitar being used to dial in the tone before profiling.


    For Classic profiles I therefore would like to see the following with any effects included specifically dialled in for each profile:


    • Strat clean / Strat crunch / Strat High Gain
    • Tele clean /Tele crunch / Tele High Gain
    • LP clean / LP crunch / LP High Gain
    • ES clean / ES crunch / LP High Gain

    If two profiles were done per option above - that's a pack of 24 profiles without mixing cabs / mics / placements.


    LP Profiles can be made in three ways:

    1. At the point of profiling; or
    2. By converting an existing Classic profile where the original profile settings known
    3. By converting an existing Classic profile where the original profile settings are not known

    Now method 3 is sub optimal and I would argue is not a true LP. Also, as there is a recommended way of setting the amp when using method 1, I think LP profiles produced using this method are better than those created by method 2 (although I don't think this has been confirmed by Kemper).


    Using method 1 to create LP profiles removes the variable of what guitar was plugged in, as the profile settings are (I think) gain at max and tone controls at noon. You also don't need to profile at different settings (i.e. clean, crunch and High Gain), as the Kemper controls are now more authentic- allowing the focus on variety in the pack being different Cabs, mics, placement (if merited).


    For LP profiles I therefore would like to see vendors clearly indicate which method (1, 2 or 3) they used to create the LP profile.


    Going forward, I think vendors will use LP for amps they are newly profiling; however, established vendors have quite large back catalogues of Classic profiles that they will no doubt seek to convert using method 2. I'm hoping no vendor opts for method 3.

  • Query re: LP profile packs included with the public beta release of OS 10

    Please see the thread I opened in the Commercial Rigs section where I go into this issue more.


    But in summary:


    If the method of producing an LP from scratch at the point of profiling is better than converting an existing LP (even if the vendor knows the original profile settings), then I want to know what I'm buying.


    Additionally, whilst not casting aspersions, I do not want to buy specific profiles that I have already bought that are now badged as LP because they have been converted, as there is a risk that the vendor didn't have all the original settings noted.


    Vendors will possibly be tempted to convert all their existing profiles to LP, as the market in general is likely to move away from non-LP profiles going forward and re-profiling everything from scratch will be a pain and they might not even have some of the amps anymore.


    All I've asked for in this thread is confirmation re: how the three new LP rig packs have been produced, so when I do move onto OS10, I know what type of LP I'm playing.


    In the Commercial Rigs section I've asked that vendors clearly state how any LP's they sell have been produced. I did ask one vendor directly on this forum, but as of yesterday I had not received a reply.

  • Commercial LP Profiles - making it clear how they have been produced

    My understanding is that there are two ways to produce an LP profile:


    1. From scratch when creating a new profile; or
    2. By converting an existing profile where the original settings for the profile are known.

    As vendors begin selling LP packs, I think it would be useful (and fair) if they clearly stated which of the two methods was used. If the purpose of this upgrade from Kemper is for the profiles to react more authentically to changes in the tone/gain section, then I wouldn't want to end up buying any profiles produced by method 2 where the vendors didn't keep a full record of original settings, but bolted on LP nevertheless.


    There is the argument - if it sounds good, it is good; however, I don't want to buy the same profiles I have bought previously from a vendor that they have revamped to be LP, but not completely accurately.


    Whilst not trying to cast aspersions, there could be a temptation for a vendor to revamp all their existing profiles to LP (without having to re-profile any amps) as the market moves to wanting LP profiles only, but fudging things a bit as the full original settings are not known.


    Furthermore, if there is now a new preferred way to profile (I've seen people mention 'at max gain'), then even if the full settings were known (enabling method 2 to be used properly), if the amp wasn't profiled at full gain originally, the resulting LP profile will be sub optimal compared to an LP profile produced correctly under method 1.

  • Query re: LP profile packs included with the public beta release of OS 10

    I'm waiting for the release version of OS 10, so not had chance to try out the new LP profiles included in the beta release, but grateful if Kemper or those that produced the profiles would confirm whether the profiles are new and purposely produced as LP profiles, or existing profiles where a record of the original settings was kept and used to convert them to LP profiles.


    Thanks.

  • OS 10 beta is out! Let's get Liquid!

    Quote from Edward Dixon

    I see Liquid profiles being intended more for those of us who actually profile our own amps.

    I think LP profiles will benefit us all:


    Use Case 1: Profiling your own amp

    • No need to profile at numerous gain and tone positions; although you might still have a number of profiles using different cabs, mics and mic positions
    • Adjusting tone and gain of the LP profile is more authentic

    Use Case 2: Commercial profiles

    • Same benefits as Use Case 1, but everyone who buys the profile benefits not just the person who made the profile

    Use Case 3: Converting a standard profile to LP - knowing the original settings of the profile

    • Adjusting the tone and gain of the newly made profile is more authentic and you don't need to try so many profiles before finding the sound you need

    Use Case 4: Bolting LP onto a standard profile - i.e. not knowing the original settings of the profile

    • Not something I intend to do, but people seem to be experimenting

    Of course, OS10 does not force anyone to use LP profiles, so if you're happy with the standard Studio and Merged profiles and sifting through packs of 20+ profiles to find the one or two that sound good to you instead of having just a few LP profiles in a pack (to cover different cabs/mics/mic positions) and using the tone and gain controls like you would on the amp itself, then no one's going to stop you.


    Edit: mickrich beat me to it.

  • OS 10 beta is out! Let's get Liquid!

    I thought that for existing non-LP profiles, you are meant to enter the positions of the tone control and gain at the point the profile was made into Kemper so that when you add one of the new LP tone stacks it knows how to interact correctly with the profile; whereas for LP profiles you don't need to do this.


    Some profile sellers include that type of info, so people can dig it out and enter into the Kemper, but are people just selecting a LP tone stack and adding it to an existing profile without inputting the starting positions and then just turning the knobs?


    If they are, they still appear to be enjoying the results; however, it would be good to hear feedback from someone who has calibrated the tone stack to the non-LP profile.


    Perhaps people are doing this, but just not making it clear in their comments, or I've not read the ones where it is clear the process has been followed.


    Anyhow, I was looking forward to the release of LP and based on the comments for the beta it seems I won't be disappointed.

  • Liquid Profiles

    I only watched the TJ/CK clip once, but I thought the new Tone and Gain control only needs to be applied to a single profile, i.e. not interpolating between a number of profiles, which I believe a few people have suggested. This will be done either:

    (1) By taking an existing profile and letting the new Tone/Gain control know what the settings of the amp were for the profile (no details were given as to how yet), so that the controls accurately change the amp sound from the baseline position; or

    (2) Can be baked in when making new profiles.


    I could be wrong though of course, but if I've understood correctly I'm looking forward to having a single profile which captures a baseline of the amp and then having the Tone and Gain Control to make changes as you would with a standard amp. This should also cut out the issue* where someone profiles sweet spots on an amp by dialling in tones with a Strat in pick up position 1, but you the buyer are going to use an archtop style guitar to play the profiles. It shouldn't matter anymore with Liquid Profiling, whether the baseline profile was set to tame an ice pick sounding Strat, as you can tweak the Gain and Tone to suit the guitar you are using just like you would with a standard amp.


    *I don't think this issue has been discussed much over the years and whilst I believe it was @waraba(?) who produced SC and HB specific packs, a lot of profiles state suitable for both SC and HB. However, I always think, "well surely the amp setting suits the guitar type you used to find the sweet spot when profiling, so they're not always going to be multi-purpose". I'd be interested to know if I'm wrong about this being an issue, albeit one that I think is resolved by the new Tone and Gain control functionality.


    Thanks Kemper and whilst lbieber would prefer we wait until we've tasted the pudding Kemper has cooked for us, I can't help but smell it and feel a little excited.

  • [BM Profiles] Bert's Mace-DR rigpack, available now!!!

    Quote from Roeffel

    You formulated it better ... I struggled being Belgian to find the right words ;)

    Hey Raf, as an Englishman with just O' Level French and German and next to no use of them after then, I always admire other people's bilinguality - as evidenced on this forum. I might not get involved much in discussions; however, I do read what people are posting to keep up to date , or when things get a little heated, just to open up the popcorn and see how things evolve, and I fully appreciate the use of English by non-native speakers. Salut!

  • [BM Profiles] Bert's Mace-DR rigpack, available now!!!

    Bert has given us notice that he will soon be releasing an IR Pack.


    Notorst, having I assume being impressed with previous stuff Bert has put out, responds simply with a picture of a broken F5 key.


    The F5 function key is used to refresh a web page. What Notorst is saying with a picture instead of a thousand words is:


    "Great to hear Bert! I'll be checking your website regularly so I can order as soon as they are available."


    And in doing so, he will no doubt break his F5 key due to his eagerness to get his hands on the new IRs from Bert, i.e. now Bert's informed us, Notorist will just be sat at his computer on Bert's website constantly refreshing using F5 until he see that the IRs are available and he will immediately buy . . . or his F5 key breaks.

  • Focusrite 8i6 SPDIF, Pro tools, Monitoring ability is gone

    Hi, If you just want to hear through Pro Tools, then:


    • Close the two SPDIF inputs in Focusrite Control
    • Ensure the guitar track in Pro Tools has SPDIF set as its input and then click on either the green or red button to monitor.

    If you want to play and listen without having to open a DAW, you can open the SPDIF inputs in Focusrite Control and you'll then be monitoring via Focusrite.

  • KPA, SPDIF, and Interface

    Hi,


    Yes, that's the set up I have. I use the interface and monitor speakers to play sound via my PC (iTunes, YouTube etc) and also for using the Kemper. I use the interface software to choose whether I play through my DAW or not.