Oh man, the free rig selection for the Kemper just got REALLY good! If possible, Kemper should load these into all new KPA's being shipped.
It's hard to tell from the picture if the orange label has any cherry on it. The finish does look old, and is the right color cherry for that year.
@flyingheelhook, yes, use the integrated values. That is the perceived signal volume averaged over time.
I'd also suggest trying white noise (which is a flat spectrum) and filtered white noise. Put shelving EQ's on the noise signal in the guitar frequency range, say 82 to 1200Hz to filter it.
Then test your tests. See which method actually matches YOUR perception of volume when playing with your band. Take three patches for example and make identical copies of them. Level match one set by ear, one by pink noise, one by white noise, and one by filtered white noise. See which set sounds the most consistent at rehearsal and use that method moving forward.
You are are on the right track IMHO.
Here's a graphical example about my suggestion to use noise to test EQ curves. This was done on a cheapo Behringer audio interface that I use on my electronics work bench. This wasn't run through an amp or sim, but rather just a straight loopback and a hardware EQ. The noise is a free white-noise loop I downloaded, and the guitar is an open E-chord that I was bashing quickly.
I think the white noise is a better test signal for measuring the frequency spectrum of any device, be it a clean EQ or a distorted amplifier. You want to see the spectrum of the device under test, not the input signal.
Glad to be of service, 'Hookster!
Yeah mate, if you can find a meter that offers a perceived-volume option, it'd be a simple matter of settling on a level you like, running a DI loop through the Kemper and knocking yourself out.
There'd be no need to bother with fancy, schmancy filtering, white or pink noise or anything else.
I agree with Monkey 100% that a perceived volume measurement would be ideal, but I don't quite agree about the input signal (guitar versus noise). The idea of using filtered noise is to capture every note and harmonic of the guitar in one shot, not just a single chord for example. Look at Flying Heel's images, you can see the individual notes. That makes it hard to judge EQ curves IMHO.
For observing EQ curves, I'd use plain old white noise. IMHO this is the only way.
For level matching, I'd use band-pass filtered noise that represents the whole frequency range of the guitar. Regular guitar loops might work OK here, but look at Flying Heel's images again and you can see all that missing spectral content that will be there as soon as he slides up one or two frets. Might as well test with everything there that is going to be there at some point.
It definitely makes more sense to use the white/pink noise instead of just a cord. My only concern is how to accomplish it as my Scarlet 2i2 doesn't have SPDF - but I am going to assume for my purposes that is ok. I hope to be able to test this tonight or tomorrow at least dry run.
Yes, Analog reamping will be fine.
[Blocked Image: http://i1374.photobucket.com/a…650DF9247_zpsjh5zqoz4.jpg]Just picked up this late 64 early 65 Gibson ES-335. It's a player grade with a headstock repair. All of the hardware is original including the case. Sounds great! A keeper for sure.
Gorgeous! I'm a big 335 fan myself. And '64's and early '65's have perfect necks for me, not too fat, not too thin.
Is that red paint inside your F-holes? I wonder if that is from the factory. Charlie Gelber, who's an expert on the model found a '59 330 with the same thing. He might be interested to see yours too.
Now for a quick tease: Put that pick-guard back on. She looks naked!
Just curious Schreck, why would you go for pink noise? Is that to avoid having to put a band-pass filter on the white noise? The pink might be better for judging loudness by ear by favoring the lower frequencies, but for assessing the EQ response by eye, I think white noise might be better, no?
Also, you might want to band pass the white noise to guitar fundamental frequencies regardless, 82 to 1200Hz so your harmonic distortion isn't over-represented in the signal returning from the Kemper. For example if unfiltered, 2000K would be represented by both the harmonic distortion from normal guitar frequencies AND from fundamentals in the noise that aren't significantly present in a dry guitar signal.
For your EQ comparisons, I'd suggest running a white noise loop instead of some guitar chords. This will give you the EQ picture for all frequencies, not just the notes in the E-chord and their harmonics. You can download a free white noise loop, put it on a track and loop it. Reamp the noise into the Kemper as if it were a DI guitar track and monitor them in SPAN.
For level matching, it's a little more complicated due to Fletcher/Munson. Looking at the main meters won't necessarily give the apparent loudness because some sounds will have more energy in frequencies that the ear is less sensitive to, such as bass heavy sounds. It might be better to limit your level matching to 200-1000Hz where the ear is more sensitive but where some fundamentals still exist. You can do this in SPAN by either looking at the spectrum, or putting a HP and LP on the noise loop and using the main meters. I'm sure there is some AES paper somewhere that covers matching perceived levels, but this would be my guess without doing the research.
And finally, it might be easier and faster to set your levels in real time. Run your noise loop, reamped into the Kemper, and put SPAN on the return input with real time input monitoring. Then run your reference sound that you want to match levels to and note the levels. Then change sounds on the Kemper and set your patch level to match the reference and save it. This way you can scroll through your sounds without recording anything.
I could never get a jazz bass to work for me, and I've tried a bunch. I finally quit trying after buying my friend's dad's '61 Jazz that he bought as a teenager in 1963. If that didn't do it for me, no jazz ever would. "Deep and growly" is the signature P-Bass sound imho, not the JB. I could never get deep from a J, I've always found them anemic. Of course they do have that punchy funky boingy thing going on that the P doesn't do, but that's not my bag baby.
I put a pair of my DIY Thunderbird pickups in my last remaining JB (a MIJ Geddy Lee) and it's never sounded better to me.
I like Fender basses and how they sound on recordings so I gave this one a whirl: 1975 Precision modded with Jazz (Lefty)
It's torn up a piece, but it plays well and sound great (the pups are 15 years old fender p and j)
That's a work of art IMHO. It took me 35 years of futzing around to realize that there isn't a better bass on the planet for me than a regular old P-Bass. I also like the 70's P's despite the conventional wisdom that it was a bad era. I've got a '77 that my wife's uncle bought new, and it just kills.
Just ordered one of these:
[Blocked Image: http://www.prsguitars.com/imag…aimed_straight1a_2017.png]
I've never been a PRS guy, and this will be the first one I've owned. I've always hated the looks of 10-tops with analine dye combined with the stripped down aesthetic, but lately I've been digging the newer models with the pickguards and wacky pickups. When they released the Vela with 100 year-old reclaimed wood, I couldn't resist anymore. The black pickguard, F-hole, Dearmond style pickup and life-worn top wood might have me changing my tune about PRS! If only it didn't have the chicken inlays and had dots instead, I'd say it was perfect for me
Check out how it compares to my home-brew Thunder-Precision in my avatar.
And finally, I've always has a sweet spot for wacky 70's and early/mid 80's Gibsons as well:
You can see the Gibson Victory's influence on the Vela I think.
I should be getting it within the month, so I'll report back when I do. BTW, the limited run of 600 is almost gone for anyone interested in one.
I think it's the trademarked name in question, used in the context to sell something amplifier related. Nothing to do with circuitry and sounds AFAIK.
My guess about the relatively low volume has to do with the efficiency of the speaker. Some of those old ELACs could be as low as 90dB at 1W/1M. Compare that to a typical modern speaker like a Vintage 30 at 100dB and that might explain what you are hearing (hah, modern speaker, Vintage 30. Ironic). 10dB is pretty huge.
For the record, my above post was actually intended to be in the 25 page thread that prompted this test. There's some noise here too, and perhaps the rest could be designed differently, but at least the thread attempts to quantify something.
Garbage in and garbage out.
That's a good description for this thread. There's at least four different conversations happening here. Combine that with a load of dick waving and this is what you get.
This could be so simple. There are things you can measure to determine what is and isn't being reproduced. Harmonic distortion, intermodulation distortion, and frequency response would be an easy way to start and doesn't require anything more than an entry level sound-card and a free VST plug-in. These are highly distorted sounds, not audiophile levels of 0.01% THD. An Audio Precision analyzer is completely unnecessary at this level.
@schreckmusic, I like your take on this issue. PM me if you are interested in working together on some real measurements and experiments.
Were I live there isn't access to any guitar store with different brands to try so when I go to Chicago in a couple months I was going to check out guitars at the Chicago Music Exchange, including Godin's. Anyone live in Chicago who could point out any good guitar shops to check out?
You should check out https://www.makenmusic.com/
While I agree the preamp vs. power stage distortion is an obstacle for the KPA, one that we may have to accept as a limitation, it is not the main contributor to the deficiency we are discussing.
In my opinion, that's a conclusion you don't have enough information to make.