Posts by Dimi84

    Take care! You’ll be back eventually. ;)

    Possible. I'm using an fm3 now, and occasionally axe fx III. But I'm not somehow dogmatically tied to any of these units. Life is too short!


    And they all have their imperfections, for me. I just prefer using fractal currently for a number of reasons, especially tweaking and form factor, plus trying to stick to the mantra of not accumulating stuff I'm not regularly using at a given time.


    I just felt like posting this because I see people at times draw dubious conclusions about kemper. It's often not born out of sufficient testing. And I'm at times associated with claims I don't really make, just because I have criticisms of kemper (which certainly i do), however reasonable one may/may not consider them to be.


    Ps: I would be interested in seeing some kind of portable kemper unit in the future. Due to covid-19 not travelling much. But I'll be back to more frequent travels hopefully soon.

    Sold kemper after conducting comparisons to newer devices and my amps. I'd comment on the thread about cortex, but can't anymore. If mods think this doesn't belong here, feel free to delete.


    So here's a note, since such topics came up on quad cortex thread.


    I've conducted many tests with kemper. Some tests focused on the effect of multiple distorting stages on profiling accuracy. With significantly distorting multiple stages, I've illustrated how you can get a "cocked wah" effect.


    Kemper is not intended to profile such tones. This isn't controversial considering such information is in the manual. Such tests were never some kind of a "gotcha". Just interesting tests to me personally and potentially helpful to others. I've had people contact me about lowering master vol by 0.5 points and getting proper results, unaware of the limitation. Exagerated"cocked wah" issue does not happen when all goes well through profiling.


    That said, there's certain rare amps which work in a manner that result to a similar issue like multiple distorting stages can. This is so even if you aren't running preamp + power amp distortion. I've had that happen with kraken, an amp you see on Rabea's test video, per my testing diary (there's been so many different tests through the years, with different units, it's hard to remember).


    I've also seen the same with a marshall preamp. Some times this is setting dependent, others it is not. But it's not a "typical" profiling case and isn't what you normally expect from kemper. It's more rare.


    I feel that should be noted. It's arguably a limitation some would be better off without, but nonetheless.


    (Btw if you see youtube influencer tests, it makes sense not to just assume they are super proficient in testing, or even know kemper well enough, for that matter. Some times mistakes happen, some times people just aren't as experienced for a given task, but folk assume they must be; other times people are fairly proficient but happen to be unaware of a given factor; and in some cases people draw much more radical conclusions than the tests point to, confusing the methodology itself. Bad intent or even intent determined by cash is imo somewhat less common than may be assumed).


    Furthermore, kemper profiles having a more "ts" quality than my profiled amps is a separate issue I'd claim to see. It should not be confused with the former. Apparently now people use "cocked wah" to describe that as well, but I feel a distinction should be made.


    I do believe kemper is slightly more TS focused compared to source (my amps). I don't feel that any amount of testing or experimentation of mine would help settling much of such disagreement here. If you believe this hasn't been illustrated publically, with proper methodology, perfectly fine. We probably have deeper disagreements about methodology from some point on, too.


    Michael Nielsen doesn't disagree with me about the "TS" focus, btw. If anything, he's often talked about it. Sinmix doesn't disagree either. The list isn't as short as some may assume. In some circles, it's more or less what we've come to expect from kemper -- for a long time -- and has often been a reason why people preffered the profiled tones. Results of relevant tests have even helped players like Leon Todd improve their kemper tones.


    But I would not argue about some exagerated cocked wah effect through profiling working as intended. That's absolutely a much more substantial effect than what I claim to have experienced/expect from profiling my most common amps. If kemper gave you the exagerated cocked wah sound from typical profiling it would have been extremely obvious and very easy to spot for most people, either through blind tests or even blind feel + sound tests, which are also possible to conduct, and good for nuances.


    There's no way the device would be as acclaimed as it is.


    Which is to say: I don't feel it's fair to paint kemper with a broad cocked wah brush. And on my end, pls don't confuse what my own testing has/has not been, as some of you here have followed such progression elsewhere.


    Cheerios and don't be too scared of the cocked wah! Goodbye from me!


    Also: kemper doesn't go bad because of cortex coming out. Like, really. It's ok to keep using kemper. Not everything is about matching some "pro" ideal either (no, I'm not saying "pros don't use kemper", deep breath pls, deep breath, for some). And, as much of a truism this is, nothing is perfect, including fm3 and quad cortex.

    The idea to construct a super stable floor modeler with super stable buttons and no other knobs made of plastic is a great concept.But I still don't understand how this big,unprotected touchscreen fits into this concept.

    I think it'll be a god-sent for UI. This product being considerably more "modern" than most others, they want to take advantage of touch screen tech.


    I just don't know how durable it is. I do remember them at some point mentioning they've switched to some more durable material than originally, but don't know how good the end result is.

    Thing is...


    Though there are no profiles of axe/helix I like in the RE (which honestly surprises me) this is not the same with the neural profiles we have on the RE.Some of these are quite good.I like them.So..I have an eye on this quad cortex.But it has to be really,really outstanding to make me think "further"..there is only a 1% chance I could change my mind on spending over 1500€ for a floorboard.

    You could download free trials of neural dsp vsts and try them out, as well. I myself have been split recently about whether to get a cortex or an fm3, actually. Currently more on the fm3 side largely due to thinking the amp sims are quite spectacular.


    With axe fx 3 I've nailed just about any profile I've liked best. FM3 is a bit different, due to lacking tone matching, but I've had good results nonetheless (not with fm3 but using axe fx 3 as I would fm3).


    Also, I wouldn't rely too too much on what I find on RE personally. I had a helix recently and compared the friedman amp to the analog equivalent. They were quite close, closer for some settings, worse for others. I've had the same experience with axe fx amp sims over and over -- even thinking some amp sims tested were closer to the amp than my own direct profiles shot of the same rig. The profiles I had found on RE were quite lacking for me, for many reasons.


    I've seen other cases as well. I'd say my experiences vary a lot at this point. But if I wasn't convinced fm3 has great amp modelling -- like really really good -- i wouldn't consider fm3 at all, certainly... Especially with all the comedic hiccups involved with that product lunch. Even now too many people are having issues that shouldn't be there at lunch even imo.

    Don't remember what discussion in particular.


    I don't know whether the cortex has discernible gaps when flipping between captures. It's been said that to generate captures the cortex requires "more processing power than other units" (or something of that sort). It's also claimed to have advantages, due to how it works, in having no issues with multiple distorting stages.


    I guess it's possible that they also require too much processing power to run with no discernible switching gaps.. or maybe not. I haven't seen Neural Dsp clarify that.

    Also worth noting is that the last video capture video didn't include refining at all, per neural dsp guys. And they consider refining to be essential.


    Not sure why would they produce a whole video, or have one produced, after all this time, and not refine.. but oh well. Just weird considering people will flock to the video and you -- somehow -- do not include a rather basic and essential function for your capture process.. which supposedly takes the captures considerably closer to the source.

    Yes.But I guess most lads just want to change between amps.And switch fx on/off.


    Just a step on a freakin' button and this thing changes from rig A to rig B..no drama..I dont want to make a two hours movie.I just want to play a song.Or two..

    I would certainly prefer no discernible gaps at all, without having to think about other categories aimed at saving processing power. But thing is the kemper way presupposes using profiles and accomplishes no discernable gaps due to that.


    If I want profiles, that's great. I often certainly do. But if I want amp sims (I often do prefer this workflow, as well; it has saved me time in many cases where finding the right profile for a guitar or profiling amp all over again was an issue) I'm out of luck... Scenes, snapshots, ECT ECT, are a useful workaround to preset gaps.


    Would I prefer just not having to think about discernible gaps? Yes. Is this a bit of a different ballgame considering what is being accomplished? Yea, also, it seems to me... And while not necessarily "better", big numbers of users generally prefer the amp sim approach.


    That surely comes with some limitations, considering this hardware tech.

    Depending on how big your feet are, it seems that you can push all the switches at once.

    If one is a giant duck, I can see how that's possible, facing the unit up front :D (Ok, i think you meant stepping on the unit with both feet at once. Seems like these would still be some massive feet tho).

    I think it is quite interesting to realize that we today still talk about gaps between changing presets on high priced guitar modelers..this is funny at least..

    Well, they work differently than kemper, with different demands on the hardware; and many people don't use presets, but scenes, other categories, pla pla. I certainly prefer the kemper preset way.


    I wonder if switching between presets based on captures, considering they are much more "lightweight" could be quite fast on cortex too though. Don't know if they've addressed this.

    Well, fractal will have their own version of capturing source tones (other than tone matching alone) in the future. Before, they said they didn't do so "not to get sued". Apparently now they have a distinct enough method; as I believe does neural dsp anyway with machine learning.

    When the KPA was new (I picked mine up very shortly after performance mode was released), there was a lag of around 250mSec between rigs and everyone immediately jumped on this as being impossibly long. 2 Seconds is an eternity.


    FYI, the last time I measured the KPA switch time in performance mode, I believe it was around 40mSec which I feel is pretty darned close to "instant"

    2 seconds would be substantial, but I have not been able to find neural dsp giving out such info anywhere, and the poster isn't sure (it seems) about the 2 second figure anyway (to poster: feel free to post the video as can't find it). About to email them to ask about the gap time. But sure -- if this is about any perceptible gap, that's not something I didn't expect. No surprise there considering how cortex works.

    If one were to say that there is a "right or wrong" way to use a device, that's an evaluative statement. Meaning: there's an epistemic standard at play.


    This can be "what the creator of the device intended". It can also be many other things: for example what one's music requires. It can surely be said that a certain use is "wrong", given the original intention of the creator, but "right" when the evaluative standards changes.


    I don't think the poster would disagree with that. The issue with such discussions seems to typically arise from people presenting one epistemic framework as the only one that can and ought to matter compared to all the rest (possible for this to be true, but imo rare).


    Personally, I've been using the kemper drive to try and get something close to the green scream but with a bit less of a mid hump. I did compare against different "tone" green scream settings and eventually seemed to preffer the kemper drive results for the intended purpose.

    Neural cortex will supposedly allow "captures" of pedals, to be used in one's chain. The axe fx models plenty of pedals to great detail, with an expanding list... Positive grid introduced the ability to put together digital pedals years ago... And the helix has a few drive sims I much prefered to anything in the kemper.


    Which is to say: there's a lot in the digital drive realm.. Much of it imo done very well. Kemper had not really been in that conversation till now.


    But testing the new drives against other devices right here, put against a variety of analog and digital units, I definitely think they really did a great job. I wouldn't present this as an innovation out of this world -- not quite -- but results so far have been spectacular for me... And I like the unique elements in this approach.


    I have a couple of analog pedals I've been using with the kemper to drive profiles further. With the fulltone sim and kemper drive, I'm not sure I'll feel much of a need for these anymore; they'll probably be delegated to tube amps full-time.

    Yes.... all of the above. I find that MOST people who have used both consider the KPA easier to obtain a specific tone for a specific song on...... or to get a specific tone they have thought up in their head. Again, not saying the Axe doesn't let you get there, just takes more work and time.


    Just another point ......


    The Fractal editor is indeed very easy to route and use modules for those who understand routing and modules well. The KPA lends itself to people who spent a lifetime running tube amp rigs and pedal boards.

    Creating a specific tone via profiling requires having analog (or digital, ok) gear to use. Fractal includes a lot of amp sims. I'm not sure it's easier for the average user to profile an amp compared to tweaking in axe fx... Unless maybe we compare some very complex tweaks vs the most simple profiling scenario perhaps, assuming gear is present?