I would never get me a kpa2 just because it has more fx,a touchscreen,better UI and multiple rigs.
Nothing of all these ^^^ is of any value for recording and playing live.
More FX and dual rigs can be of value for recording. Yes, you can add plugins after the fact, but hearing the tone with effects in real-time can potentially shape how you play and/or what you play, and with the ability to reamp, there's no reason not to record with them.
In your case, you obviously have the money, so GAS isn't an issue. But ask yourself, with an Axe FX and a Kemper in your arsenal, you are going on and on about the need for an even better Profiler/modeller?
Personally, because I have both units, I don't necessarily have a dog in the fight, though it's because I have both units that I can see some of the shortcomings of the KPA. Just because I think the KPA can be improved doesn't mean I don't appreciate it for what it is. However, the entire reason the KPA exists is because someone saw an opportunity to improve on the technology that came before it.
Seriously, that is probably better gear right there than Vai or Petrucci ot The Edge had when they were writing killer albums.
Not a fan of either, so I'm not sure what they were using when writing their most popular stuff, but you can bet the engineer and studio involved in their recordings had a lot to do with the finished product.
And that's just my point. Call it simplifying your setup or whatever. But if you have top shelf gear and are then going on and on about how it could be better, you need to introspect whether your passion is about the music, or about the gear.
Envisioning areas where technology can be improved while appreciating what you currently have are not mutually exclusive positions. Improvement drives innovation. It's the reason top-tier modelers are as feature rich and sound as good as they do today. Personally, I'm all for it, but again, it doesn't mean I don't appreciate what I have.
Also, you did see the picture of Edge's rig, right? It is not feasible with any single piece of gear afaik, heck he has three Axe FXes in there, with one as a backup.
It really depends on why he needs three Axe-Fx II's. I wouldn't doubt if some of that is related to gapless switching, and in that regard, the Axe-Fx III is much more capable.
In that regard, it just seems like wishful thinking that even if there is a Kemper 2, Alienator's tone will be like The Edge's.
Maybe not, but he might be able to get closer, and if that's important to him and he has the money, well, I say more power to him.
Indeed, it seems more about having it all served on a plate (without tweaking) rather than some urgent need to construct some sound in his head.
I can only speak from my own experience. Personally, I don't really need things served to me on a plate(though I wouldn't balk); however, there are some sounds I can't duplicate in the Kemper, thus the need for the Axe-Fx III. Further, even if I could create those sounds with the KPA, there's the question of how much time and effort I'd have to spend doing it, and that's where features and flexibility can be important to efficiency and workflow. I mean, I can make a POD XT sound pretty good, but I'd have to spend a lot more time doing it vs. the Axe-Fx II or III, and it still wouldn't sound on par with the Axe-Fx III. For me, improving efficiency and workflow doesn't necessarily mean you need things handed to you on a silver platter. It just makes the process of actually getting from point A to point B easier, which, in the end, can help you focus on what's important; the music.
Not really. The right tone and the right sound can make a song better.
That's true, but if the core idea for a song sucks, tone is inconsequential, in my opinion. I mean, there are plenty of songs that I think have great guitar tone but that I have absolutely no interest in listening to because I don't like the musical ideas for the song itself. The same is true of mixing and mastering. I'll take a great song with mediocre production over a song that's perfectly mixed and mastered but that does nothing for me musically.
This debate is similar to the vst debates. I want better VST's I want more realistic VST's, more realistic string library etc. So does it matter if you can't make a good song with what you have? Guitarists should worry more about being a good guitarist, creating better, or more inspiring riffs, nail that cover song etc than worry too much about the tone. The same is true in the VST world. I mean listen to the cheesy synth sound on Led Zeppelins All my love. It works becuase it's a great song. A great song is always most important. The guitar tone doesn't matter so much as guitarists like to believe.
Great tone and sound quality can only make a great song better. If the song sucks, there's not much point in polishing a turd.
what's wrong with GAS? It makes you look for issues where there are none
Sometimes. And sometimes the gear you're using simply isn't adequate to create the tones you want. You might also crave more flexibility and/or features because it can improve efficiency and workflow. It did in my case.
it destroys finances and ruins marriages.
Not if you're single and have the money. Every situation's different. It's not G.A.S. that ruins finances. It's a lack of personal responsibility.
Listen to the tone on old records. Look into the zaniest effects you've ever heard on a commercially successful album or by a band. When were they created? What gear was used?
In my case, it's not so much a matter of when but where and with what gear.
Equally, why did it have that impact on you? Was it just the effect, or the way it was used in the context of the song.
Some of the tones on albums I held in high regard during my youth seem lacking now. I look back at some of the stuff I recorded 10 years ago that I thought sounded great and think it sounds like shit compared to the stuff I'm recording now. Of course, some of that has to do with recording and mixing technique, but some of it also has to do with gear.
He said he wants to get more accurate FX?
He mentioned more routing and FX chain possibilities, along with better drives and simulations.
Yes, calling a spade a spade will cause that response... Even when the subject matter is "on topic" within the thread it resides in.
No idea what you're referring to.
The disease is called G.A.S. (Gear Acquisition Syndrome).
Reducing the weight of a rig you have to carry around and wanting to more closely replicate the sound of a given guitarist's tone because you're in a tribute band are practical reasons for wanting to upgrade.
You already have a great setup, yet here you are whinging for a company to put out a new product that basically does what your existing gear does (in two separate pieces).
He mentioned he wanted to reproduce The Edge's tone more faithfully, so it goes without saying he expects a new product to do something his existing gear doesn't.
By the way, what's wrong with G.A.S.?
when you use ASIO from your Focusrite audio card you are disabling the internal audio driver from your laptop,you need to connect Headphones or Monitors to the Focusrite to get audio.
Pretty sure this is the root of the issue.
You need to have a DAW loaded too.
Not necessarily true. The Scarlett 4i4 (3rd gen) offers direct monitoring which can route the input signals directly to the outputs.
If I connect my guitar direct to the interface I am getting a signal on the Focusrite. However when I am connecting from the main inputs KPA into the interface I am not getting a signal.
Is this exactly what your Scarlett 4i4 looks like? I'm asking because there are three 4i4 revisions, and each look different.
I think synths can reproduce any kind of sound.
They're great at creating certain types of sounds, and not so great at emulating others. I've never heard a convincing clean guitar emulation created with a synthesizer. Even sample-based emulations generally fall short. A synthesizer can't reproduce the lush, ambient tones I've personally created in the Axe-Fx.
Specially, when it comes to "ambient orchestral" etc kind of stuff.
Are you referring to a sampler?
Because you say it yourself.
No, I didn't. Lush and ambient guitar tones aren't synonymous with synthesizers.
So if you want any kind of "lush ambient sound"..friend..I recommend just of of these countless ambient style synths out there.It will save you hours (and days?)..and cpu..
Not sure why you think "lush and ambient" is synonymous with synthesizers. It's not. There are plenty of lush and ambient guitar tones that sound nothing like a synthesizer, nor could they be duplicated with one.
I find it disturbing and annoying that you act like the forum police.
Please do cite all of the posts you're referring to.
Maybe you should just learn to accept other opinions ... in my opinion there is room for improvement. In other words, sometimes less is more.
Again, the title of this section of the forum isn't subjective. Seriously, what do you think "Other Gear" means? Does the Quad Cortex qualify as "other gear"? If so, then how is it not appropriate to discuss it here?
Do you understand "IMO"?
Of course, but there's nothing subjective about the title of this section of the forum, which makes it explicitly clear what's appropriate(ie. other gear). If you're interested in discussions pertaining exclusively to the Kemper, you're in the wrong section.
This is the wrong place for this discussion IMO. I'm sure NQC have a forum or Facebook page.
No, it's not. There's a reason this section of the forum is titled "Other Gear".
I see this very often in comments in many blogs and forums.My question is why do so many guys ask for "more fx simultaneously" to create complex,synth like ambient stuff with a dozen delays and even more complex reverbs...but never ever ask directly for a synth module??I mean..you guys look for "new sounds",right?
This one I don’t really get either. One thing is sound design. But I bet my ass «real» sound designs are alot more creative than stacking 4 delays going into three reverbs...
I mean, how does all that «soundscape» even work in a setting beside being really «ethereal» by itself? Nevermind a live setting...
Nikos, why do you assume someone is creating synth stuff of some sort if they use more than 4 post-amp effects? I can count the number of times I've used a synth block in an Axe-Fx III preset on one finger. Personally, I can easily use 5 or 6 post-amp effects involving EQ, flanger, delay, multiband compression and two different reverbs in parallel, or something like a phaser, chorus, multiband compression, reverb, and a couple of delays in parallel. For a more lush, ambient sound, I might stack a couple of choruses and put two different reverbs and a delay in parallel, along with some compression or multiband compression. Currently, I run the Kemper into the loop of an Axe-Fx III, so if I need to run 6 or more post-amp effects simultaneously, it's not a problem, but it would be great to be able to save the entire signal chain in one profile.
So just so I understand you correctly, you are saying that you can sit in a room with a Mesa MK IV and an Axe IIIFx, load up a Mesa MK IV model, run an eq matching and have the Axe III Fx sound closer to the amp than a Kemper that you just profiled the amp with? This has not been my experience, or that of others who I know that use an Axe as their primary live rig.
Have you ever compared the frequency response of a profile of a Mark IV with an EQ matched version of the source amp in the Axe-Fx III?
While you could care less about live
I never said I couldn't care less about live use. I said I couldn't care less whether a modeler has a touch screen or the latest LCD technology because I use the software editor almost exclusively.
others like me could care less about running 2 amp profiles at the same time.
And I can respect that. I've seen a number of posts inquiring about the possibility of using two profile simultaneously, though.
From its inception, the KPA has catered to tube amp users. The layout of the controls, the authentic feel and breakup, the foot controller, etc, etc, have made it an ideal tube amp users digital amp rig. I personally hope that a KPA2 keeps this DNA and doesn't in any way attempt to be a Fractal wana-be.
There are a number of features in the Axe-Fx III that I'd love to see in the KPA that wouldn't affect its DNA. For example, I'd love to be able to use more effects simultaneously. I'd also love to see more flexible effects routing options that includes parallel paths. EQ matching would be a big benefit, in my opinion. There are more, but those are some of the features I'd like to see.
I think so. It’s set up in my sound settings as Focusrite and everything else is Focusrite.
Is there anywhere specific to check if it definitely is selected as the audio device ?
Ensuring it's selected in Preferences as well as the track you're using should be sufficient, but I don't use Ableton, so I'm really flying blind here as far as setting the rest of it up. By the way, is your Focusrite 4i4 a 3rd gen?
Not sure what method you used to obtain these frequency response charts;
The method is simple. I loaded each pair of samples into Reaper and used FabFilter's EQ matching feature to compare the frequency plot of the samples at different volumes, but you can use any plugin that's able to capture and compare frequency plots, such as HOFA's IQ-Analyzer. There's nothing arcane or difficult about it.
I find it hard to imagine that an audible difference would not show up on a well done frequency response plot ..... and I am confident that there is an audible difference between a real amp, and a tone matched model on an Axe.
EQ matching has been around for decades and has proven to be extremely effective at replicating the frequency response of a source signal. Differences between the source and target are often dependent on the technique used to perform a match. For instance, EQ matching an isolated guitar that's double-tracked can produce less than accurate results. It's true that EQ matching doesn't necessarily produce an identical frequency response, but in my experience, the discrepancies are almost always smaller than the frequency response differences between a well-captured Kemper profile and the actual amp.
As far as frequency response differences due to volume changes, I've presented clear evidence (audio samples and frequency plot comparisons) that guitar volume differences don't affect the accuracy of an EQ match. But don't take my word for it. You can conduct similar experiments and verify the results for yourself.
Still, back to the original topic ......
The real reason I can see for a new KPA2 is to create a new device that isn't using obsolete parts. Any incremental tone improvement will likely be inconsequential to most guitarist. The point made above about "shiny new things" is valid though. A cool color LCD and new graphics would likely be a draw
Personally, I couldn't care less whether a modeler has a touch screen or the latest LCD technology because I use the software editor almost exclusively.
..... but the audience would not be able to hear any difference. Shoot, the audience can't hear the difference between the original tube amp and the KPA so they most certainly wouldn't hear the difference between a KPA and KPA2.
That's true in a live setting, but there are plenty of people who use the KPA in studios. Differences that are lost at a live venue may be apparent on a recording.
I am going to get some on order, since I changed to ASIO. I now get no sound through the laptop when in a Ableton. Any ideas ?
With ASIO selected as the Driver Type, is your Focusrite selected as the Audio Device?
