Posts by pbfoot

Quote from Sunshine

So you get better range even without an exposed antenna? Can I ask which Line 6 you had before?

g50 i think. yes i have played an outdoor show 4 years in a row and i have been 1/2 a block away playing with the shure and couldn't make it that far with the line 6 previous years. i also had some intereference form time to time with the line 6, i havent had any issues in 2 years with the shure. truth be told the audio quality is excellent with both, i couldn't tell them apart sonically. i just found the shure to have more range and fewer dropouts

shure glx 16 , had a line 6 g series and had some distance issues, no problem with the shure

i have found that trying to get a stereo sound field really helps with the kemper/iem. monitor out of our board (presonus) has 6 outs and there is 4 of us so i can take 2 and feed them into each channel or most times i take a xor splitter and feed that into both channels. i use an akg 4500 with some internal space settings. (that is even if running the kemper in mono and the pa in mono, to me it decompresses the kemper sound)

i would love it if kemper and eventide, strymon, etc teamed up to release official packs. be able to use actual eventide algorithms in the kemper

i agree!

there were some that had issues with 5.2 when in beta with volume fluctuations and it was suspected that it ws a volume pedal issue. i had the problem and went back to 5.1 and it fixed it. well i upgraded to the release and the problem came back. i have the volume wah combo checked. anyone else having this issue, is it still a known problem?

Quote from schreckmusic

I think if the 1st one had less gain it would sound better. IMHO over saturation is causing a lot of noise in the tone.

your correct, i didn't want to tweak them to sound the same, the clip was done for webb to give him an comparison of the profiles. as i said in the review i did of the cameron profile, it is really reactive to eq and gain so dropping the gain does clean it up.

Quote from MementoMori

Thanks for clarifying. I thought it was going to be the opposite, honestly. Could always be the Celestian IR but Webb's had a lot more clarity and less fizzy, static mutes that were all over the place in the first example. I think the last clip with Webb's Marshall has far and away the best balance of the 3 and cleaned everything up nicely. Makes sense since it was the cab he tweaked the DI with.

yes I think the last is the best also. I used all three yesterday in a 5 hour rehearsal working in a new drummer and Webb really is onto some great profiles. Very clear live. They are top quality

used the 30th profile today live for a rehearsal, that is a very mean and nasty profile and sounded great. really happy with the pack. heavy , thick, and clear without to much bottom end. a lot of fun to play with

Quote from Monkey_Man

Explanation and apology offered just 2 posts after SFG asked me this, and yet both you and he choose to ignore it.

Yes, and I acknowledged this and explained that I was saying what those differences typically mean to me. I won't rehash the post, but they concerned more openness in the top end and the minimisation of low-mid "funk"; I specifically spoke about these in the context of mixing.
Thank you for sharing those differences as you saw them, by the way, pbfoot.

I'd have appreciated it if you'd taken the time to read my clarification and apology before lumping me into the "douche" category, mate. I made a hasty mistake by not specifying that it was my interpretation, for my purposes and tastes, that I'd now-regrettably shared.
I wasn't going to bother contributing again, but as I've said on this forum before, I detest the deliberate protraction of mischaracterisations of folks, even in the light of genuine contrition, especially when the object of said action is me.

I therefore offer the apology part of the quote for your appraisal in case you somehow missed it:

Hmm... said sorry twice and edited the offending post to reflect verbatim what you said.
One couldn't wish for more from a douche, now could one?

Display More

i read and followed (and posted in both) didn't realize i had been the "one" so yeah apology or not i'm gonna respond to clarify what i said. as far as my secondary comment that isn't really directed to anyone in specific, it's more general. some of the threads take a lot of left turns, example guy posts that he wants a cheap pedal for morphing, gets 10 response on how he bought the best profiler money can buy so he should get the best pedal made etc. unneeded responses that really aren't on point and aren't helpful. i keep going back to a IR thread, someone jumped in and said that kemper cabs were the best and there is no need for other cabs. what works for me probably doesn't work for a lot of other people, i just don't need to comment on how someone else's way doesn't work for me. doesn't help them nor me

so really in this thread's about webbs DI and he asked for any comparison, i gave my comparison. If you try his DI great, give feedback cause thats what he is looking for. If you have both profiles give a comparison

Quote from MementoMori

Which is which in the clip?

oops forgot that, i think its on the clip on the soundcloud page. 1st is the mark cameron, 2nd is webbs, 3rd the webb with his cab. the DI's were a celestion gb sm 57 balanced ir 4x12 no pure cab, no eq changes. i added single delay 450ms or so with 30% feedback 40% or so mix lo cut 110 high cut around 6000

Quote from SuckerFreeGear

Who said that, I've been following both threads?

yeah who said that? Wasn't me. I was simply stating what I interpreted the difference to be. Webb has been kind enough to pre send me some of his profiles as I have owned numerous Cameron's ( not as many as some) and was interested in the differences. I did a clip which Webb can share, it really isn't great as took 5 minutes over a long lunch to do as a favor so he could hear it. I felt his was more open with a different top end and marks had a low mid to it that I tried to eq out but couldn't . I said webbs was very good. I've also said marks was very good, eq was very amp like except the low mid. All of marks amps sound different.

Kinda funny I like coming to this forum, I learned a new way to do Evh harmonizer that is much better than micropitch, figuring out uad. Connections and such. But sometimes the douche level gets a little high with the people that seem to have to comment on every thread.

the DI is great and also having mark's, i can give a little comparison. Marks has a low mid that seems to be baked in, webb's is a little more open on the top end and has more grind where Mark's has more thick. the DI really works well into a cab or i used it with various celestion ir's and it works great. (cant say enough about the celestion ir's) the studio aldrich is good but i prefer the DI with celestions, its a little more punchy and in your face. these profiles are as good as any paid for profiles out there

i drop the output way back on the profiler, use the -12db and then adjust input trim on the ua to about middle. the kemper and the us work well, once you get the levels set. the kemper is really hot output

i have an apollo and it seems the kemper outs are really hot. i do the db cut and run the output really low

very interesting, and very intrigued

the alt seems to have a little more mid bass and is a little more present i.e. in your face. i hear it the most in 3 and 3 alt. 3 alt is the best of the 6 in my opinion, very even between the highs and lows

# 6 is really cool

that is much better than the micro pitch, and really comes close. about a month ago i had a discussion with the kemper team regarding micro pitch, the top end flanging it had, and how it was no where near the evh settings. after a little back and forth i was told christoph was going to look into it so.......

love to try them