Also, make sure the dial on the right side of the pedal is set to full on.
Posts by benvigil
-
-
A: “the idea for the F12 is that it should be able to go into any general guitar speaker cab, without having to do any additional "design" work. ”
IOW, it's the ultimate speaker, so say we all, forever and ever, Amen. Thanks be to God.
Your safest bet is a sealed cabinet. Ported designs generally are designed tailored to the speaker driver and often ONLY work with drivers of a similar spec.
-
Where did this PDF come from?
I only ask because I don't see it on their site, and they haven't released the T/S parameters for us to design our own ported cabinets. If you dropped this in a sealed cabinet, size and volume would be much less critical.
-
I must say, I'm very convinced with nightlight 's "intended use" argument, which is much shorter route to what I was saying earlier. When you load a commercial IR into, for example, a Torpedo C.A.B. the IR is being used for its intended purpose: to simulate a speaker/guitar cabinet.
When you profile that rig and distribute it, commercially or otherwise, you are not distributing the IR, any more than you're re-distributing the amp or the cabinet or the speakers.
-
Creating a Kemper profile using an IR would be, without out a shadow of doubt- constitute derivative work.
Is that the common definition of "derivative work", or the IP law definition?
Can you create a profile using an IR for your own use? Yes. Of course. And nobody would care. This is what actually happens when you load an IR into some other modellers - For example, Atomic. I can load an IR - even a derivative IR (and I have mixed IRs to meet my tonal needs). However, I am not allowed to distribute that patch - which includes the cabinet - to anyone else.
Correct.
The OP was not talking about "loading an IR" into the Kemper and distributing the profile. He was talking about combining 1 or more commercial IRs using 3rd party tools and/or hardware, then profiling the entire signal chain. the original IR in any format (wav, kipr, cab, whatever) is never being redistributed.
-
I've seen the rmpacheco Morgan in the included factory rigs. Is it the one everybody loves or a variation on the theme?
It's not the same. I think it's the same base profile, but the factory rig version is significantly gained up.
-
Display More
benvigil ColdFrixion Yes, these are the murky areas. I work in software so I had to spend more time on these things that I would ever want. That being said, I am not an attorney, so these are only my best guesses.
The way I picture it in my head is this. The IR profile is like a library. (As opposed to say a full application, like an editor or a compiler.) For libraries the "derivative work" generally means that you linked to that library - meaning that some functionality / code of that library is now part of your work. (Let's not go even deeper into static vs dynamic linking as that would complicate things more.)
If you record with the IR, you basically are just using what it was designed to do - modifying the sound of the signal. If this is not allowed, then there is no point in having IRs as you literally cannot do anything with them
(From the license perspective this is similar to using an editor to create a document is not considered derivative work in general.)If you "compile" that IR into a new profile, that is derivative work. If you distribute that (without written permission from Celestion) you clearly violate the EULA.
Now I think that using the IR in the Kemper for yourself and only to produce sound (live or record) should be ok. If you think about it, the IR alone cannot do anything. You are basically "loading" that into a DAW too when using it that way. So while technically it may be derivative work, this derivative work is only used to make sound. Should not matter if you do this on a laptop or on a specialized computer, known as the Kemper. I think in this case the lack of actual re-distribution is the key. It is on your own Kemper(s) and you use these only to make sounds. You are not letting anyone else have this derivative work, only the finished music.
It is also likely that if you in fact want to make commercial profiles with commercial IRs, they would sell you a (much more expensive) license to do so.
I also agree, if you profile something with a mic and Kemper that is "running" one of these IRs, that should not be considered derivative work.
Building upon the software library analogy (I dev software too), the KPA would be a software program that can replicate the behavior of any Windows program by examining the behavior of the program and spitting out a completely new Linux application. I know this wouldn't fly legally, but I haven't gotten to my point yet...
Now suppose that Windows program linked to a 3rd party, licensed, and paid for, library for some functionality. During the profiling the KPA software didn't simply copy the library to Linux and relink to it. Instead, it profiled the libraries behavior right along with the program. IOW, it created a whole new program with the library's behavior baked in, never redistributing it.
That's how I see the difference between loading an IR into an existing KPA profile and selling it (i.e. illegally copying the library to Linux and redistributing it), versus using an IR in a larger signal chain, perhaps with other IRs, EQs, etc., and profiling that signal chain (baking in the library behavior in the new Linux app).
-
The problem is that the terms "derivative works" and "improvements" have VERY specific meanings and applications in the IP legal world, a world that's beyond my pay grade.
Taking a Celestion IR, converting it and importing it into a Kemper profile means you're [re]distributing the IR essentially unchanged and unaltered. The illegality seems obvious to me.
But loading the same IR into a UA OX (the OX can do that, right?) and then profiling that whole signal chain seems like a completely different beast. The new profile is a completely new creation. Sure, the IR had a role in influencing the sound of the profile, but the original IR is not included in any way shape or form.
-
-
Chris Duncan, very interested in your impressions of the DXR10 when you get it!
-
Also, I finally had a chance to listen to this on my good monitors and Senny HD600s. Roughly the same thoughts as Per on this one.
The AxeFX didn't have the same girth as the amp, and the Helix was a little stiff, but the overall "distortion character" of the AxeFX and Helix were pretty spot on. And Kemper sounded like... a Kemper. But I will say this, this sounds more like a Mesa Dual Rec than perhaps any profile I've ever heard.
-
I always tweak them. One of my favorite Marshall-ish profile is a relatively mid to low-gain PT-20 from nll , that sounds amazing gained up just a bit. In Kemperland gaining up a mid-gain profile doesn't loose all the low-end definition and punch like it usually does on the real amp.
That's one thing I like about the KPA, it can do things the real amp can't in many cases.
-
Btw this K12H is not available here .. in practice is there any video or some report of the experience of someone using them for that purpose?
Here is the Xitone cab using the Celestion K12H-200TC. It's also used in the Camper Plus kits , which would give you a good head start on what size/volume/port sizes you need to incorporate this into an already tested solution. All of the reviews on this page are stellar, English and German. I'm pretty sure it's using a Eminence APT:30 for the tweeter with a simple high-pass capacitor crossover.
The Friedman ASC-10 is using a 10" Celestion TF1020 and [probably] Celestion CDX1-1746 (or CDX1-1445) Compression Driver w/H1SC-8050 Waveguide. These are the exact same components as the B-52 Matrix 1500.
The Quilter Frontliner uses 2x 8” Celestion TF0818 -- they are only $49USD/each. And they use the 10" Celestion TF-1018 in their block dock. It goes up to 6000Hz. If you're using a HF driver, the 10" TF-1020 is a better option, like the Friedman ASC-10 uses. These are only $59 and $69USD each.
LOTS of great options.
-
This is a little beyond my expertise, but I can make some observations...
• A guitar speaker behaves differently from a driver in a studio monitor, for example.
• Theoretically, the KPA (or a modeler) is aiming to replicate this difference in behavior.
• It follows then that the goal of an FRFR solution, is to reproduce audio as faithfully as possible -- the same goal as a studio monitor.
• However, the Celestion F12-X200 is NOT designed with this goal. It's designed to behave similar to a guitar driver.
So I'm not sure why the F12-X200 would be a better solution than a quality FRFR, except for one reason: most FRFR drivers simply don't work well in a guitar cabinet, and since there are more guitarists moving from amps to modelers than moving from modelers to amps, and since those guitarists have a lot of unused cabinets sitting around, Celestion sees a market for driver that performs well in a guitar cabinet.
-
As far as the Celestion F12-X200 goes, you should probably watch this thread over on TGP if you aren't already. Post #217 has a demo that Mic from Xitone has been circulating. One thing he posted recently is that you (apparently) can access the woofer and the tweeter separately if you want, or you can use the built in crossover.
If you want to go the simpler route, he also uses the Celestion K12H-200TC in one of his cabinets, which is a single driver with a wizzer cone that has a frequency response of 50-10,000Hz, which is PLENTY for guitar. The nice thing is you don't have to worry about a crossover.
-
-
TRS and XLR cables are interchangeable and either would be superior to a regular 1/4" guitar cable. That said, if the latter works for you and you aren't experiencing any noise problems, go for it.
-
nightlight, in the case of the Butterslax profiles, IIRC he used commercial IRs in the profile directly. IOW, the commercial IR was distributed unaltered. So I could now turn around and use that commercial IR, for free, in my other profiles. That's clearly unethical.
Your other examples, using one or more IRs as a component in a larger signal chain to create a "new product" -- a Kemper Profile -- while it might make us uncomfortable, I can't see how that would differ from any other part of the signal chain that goes into the Profile. That would be like Tone Loc's Wild Thing.
However, you could take this "new product" strategy to it's logical extreme and claim that using CabMaker to create a KPA Cab from an unaltered commercial IR is the same thing., but it's not. It's like ripping a song from CD to MP3 and selling it. You can't do that.
-
The real question here is - do I deserve a cut? Could you have made your product without mine?
Could you have made the profile without the microphone? Or the console, or the mic pres, or... What if you used a DAW plug-in to tweak the EQ of the IR in your loadbox? ... or whatever... The profile is a new creation at that point.
Your example of "proprietary code" does not apply here. In this software scenario you're incorporating actual, working, 1-for-1, code. An example would be importing an Ownhammer IR into your profile, then selling that Profile CONTAINING the Ownhammer IR.
But in the OPs scenario, loading an Ownhammer IR into a UA Ox or somewhere else in the signal chain is a completely different thing.
Here's the irony... you could sell the profile "seeking to recreate the sound of an Ownhammer OH 412 Mars-CB M75+H75 OH2 impulse response."
-
So let's say you use the UA OX to load down the amp, process the signal through an IR, then line out to the Kemper to produce a KPA Profile. You're taking one product, combining it with other products and creating a new product.
That's not really any different from using a mic to create a KPA Profile -- is there an ethical quandary to profiling the sound of a microphone in the KPA? Or a particular preamp, say, a Neve preamp?
If that use case is unethical, then so is the KPA itself.
I mean, it certainly doesn't SEEM right, but the ethical argument against it would also apply to profiling an amp, to microphones, to any outboard gear in the profiling signal path.
