Posts by Dimi84

    I preferred 2 and thought it must be the axe because it's newer technology and due to the infamous kemper high end boost . I found the harmonics of clip 1 (the axe) too pure and not authentic almost too sine like....... But as the kemper is trying to emulate the axe it's failing too reproduce this so I am confused.............. as I am as to the purpose of this test.

    The Kemper tone here (not considering further tweaking) is the result of profiling a tone consisting of 3 emulations of distortion pedals and also an active axe fx tone matching block, as far as described.


    Imo we are quite deep in experimental waters at that point. It's not so surprising the result is more innacurate compared to many other cases where profiling works at its best, without multiple distorting stages.

    First is the real mic'd amp. How close did the tone match bring the Kemper to the real amp for you guys?

    I EQ matched, but could still tell a difference (I believe caused by real sound differences, but would have to make a longer tests with repeats to know more certainly)... Yet my impression is it was even closer by that point, as usually is the case anyway in my experience after eq matching further to the source. I didn't keep the audio though to share.

    The first file sounded livelier to me too, actually. I'd have to import in daw and see if I could consistency tell them apart though. I'm skeptical of how detrimental SoundCloud streaming quality can be In this context, but perhaps it's good policy for us to provide the highest quality audio files to go along with tests.

    Believe it or not, there are people who don't really use the volume knob to any great extent. I don't, so in my case I find power chords and string picking useful because that's what I can relate to. If I couldn't relate to it and it had no significance for me, I probably wouldn't read or participate in the thread. So, if you're looking for something else, that's fine, I'm just wondering what motivates you to read and participate in threads like this if you don't find it useful or relevant?

    I use the volume pot a lot, and for this reason have tests with DI based on volume pot changes, feeding it into Kemper vs amp, axe fx 3 too. These can be interesting imo. Not that I agree with how sad and useless any other test is, as is obvious from my posts in any case. I'm glad you take the time to test things out, personally, partly because I think you may be able offer interesting EQ corrections, advice.

    Last week I spend some time with another clip trying to see if I could match it perfectly. Its funny. Once you think it is there and you listen a few more times and you hear something else. Change that little thing and it changes something else. I love the Kemper and in many ways the resulting profile is even better than the real deal in that it deals with noise much more effectively.

    Agreed, and some fixes applied often bring about another, unexpected differences. The "fixes" I posted can easily do this as well. It's just pretty hard for me to "fix" existing discrepancies there after profiling.

    But that's a testament, in a way, to how close kemper gets to begin with. You may think you've narrowed down a difference, and yet your tweak, even being small enough, can change something else by a tiny margin -- and then you hear that. If kemper wasn't as close as it is, there's some reason to think that the above wouldn't be happening.


    And I agree that kemper profile can be "better than the real deal" in a few ways. Heck, there's been quite few cases where I had bands prefer my profiles of their amps vs their amps, all re-amped, even if by a slight margin, tonally speaking. That's when put in an A/B situation.


    I've always had a preference towards the real amps tonally (more so in regards to how small tonal changes can translate to "feel") in ideal conditions, but it's easy to exaggerate one's ability to hear differences. And I wouldn't be surprised if I guessed wrong in your test -- that, after profiling god knows how many amps in the past years :)


    Cheers

    I have the profile used in this comparison along the guitar DI I recorded. I reamped the DI with these edits and it did not make up for the differences. I can post a reamp later to show.

    Uhm, ok, thanks for your reply. It's just something I often do with my own amp and kemper when I feel some "depth" may be lacking, especially in terms of "feel". Cheerios

    This is true for every single shoot out ever made..


    When ever it is about art..what else do we talk about other than sharing (or denying) "others experiences" and the skills/empathy to transport/recieving them?

    My point is that methodology in terms of test regarding "feel" poses certain challenges compared to blind audio tests. It's about putting in place methodologies that allow for some level of epistemic objectivity. Yes, some methodologies are better than others, but I do think there's things relating to "art" that can be tested out in this manner.


    In my opinion, this plays a big role in how kemper and axe fx were developed and will keep developing.


    Even not taking into account how much testing was done before product release, involving however many people, consequent updates, aliasing fix for kemper didn't come out of nowhere. Neither did previous improvement in profiling. This improvement/update changed profiling results measurably so years after kemper's release.


    "Pros using kemper" didn't stop this. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if there's more such updates in the future, either.

    In any case the idea that next year we still will have "shoot outs" hearing 80s metal/Djent chugging (allthough made by nice and friendly forum members) is somehow frustrating for me.Again..we are far beyond this

    When I've posted tests of kemper (mostly elsewhere) it's all been fine and good, as long as nobody consistently spotted the profile vs the amp. Well, other than some tube amp fanatics being quite upset they can't tell the difference, when this was so. For whatever reason, it seems to me, that it's often when differences show that we're told such tests are totally meaningless and we just shouldn't conduct them.


    I personally do have a passion for testing out A or B and seeing how A or B can be improved further. I don't necessarily see the harm in it, to be honest, even if there may be dangers, depending on methodology. Such dangers go both ways in terms of evaluating a unit anyway.

    Technology has developed,So should the ways of "testing" these new technologies.I mean you can put me behind the steering wheel of the latest ferrari for "testing" it but most likely (I know how I drive) I will not be the most suitable person to test anything with four wheels and an engine..and none of the persons who ever saw me driving will ever give a rats shit about my "opinion".. ^^:/

    I agree that methodologies should keep improving or just changing in regards to what exactly is tested and how . Not that blind audio tests don't matter anymore, btw -- I think there's a lot of value there, still.


    Now when profiling works at its best, without any confusion due to multiple distorting stages or other reasons, it's often been good enough to fool me in a blind audio test depending on methodology, what is played and a few other factors. I've been unable to consistently spot kemper in some of my own tests involving my amps, too.


    That's part of why it makes sense to develop methodologies to test "feel", as well, to the extend possible. It's not like "feel" is this entirely magically thing totally separated from sound, even if there is a meaningful distinction there nonetheless.


    Yes, the "direct" experience of feel is something that does not exist in the lack of one's mind, so to say. It's a form of "qualia". But there's still properties of the world that can causally alter this experience. When I go to the doctor because my toe hurts (say a 4x12 fell on it today), pain is a "metaphysically subjective" experience I have. That said, the doctor may be able to prescribe medicine that has a very real effect on my pain.


    That is to say that provided latency is the same, if a given profile/axe preset/helix patch gives you B when fed A, there should be no difference in feel, unless some other "bias" comes into play, which we would anyway want to eliminate.


    And then we have different sets of questions. Do A and B feel the same to a given player or a number of players, are they different -- if so, how, and which one do you prefer? These are meaningfully different questions, in my opinion. I believe the connection between "sound" and "feel" was quite clear to CK for a long time, as well, in designing the kemper and making it as good as it is.


    Surely "feel" is already tested in various ways always, too (part of why A-B kemper function is there for the user!).

    Also..For this reason we watch almost every shootout about the KPA,AF and helix..right?To get more than just "one opinion".Problem is that untill yet we dont have even one such shootout.Or I missed it.

    What kind of test would you like to see exactly? Can you offer some more details on this exactly, what steps to take to conduct such a test? It's not so clear to me -- so I'm asking just to have a better understanding of this.

    This is the reason everyone wants the Kemper.Because the "pros are using it".

    I've known plenty of pros turning down digital devices years ago, some even now, kemper or axe fx or helix or even s gear. But for sure there was more resistance 6-7 years ago.


    Was kemper just that much worse back then compared to now? No, not really, even considering updates. Now if I were to trust some "pro consensus", at which would I adopt kemper? When there's some tipping point and "more pros use it than non-pros"?


    Surely popularity or even "pros" using a particular device is a big incentive for people to buy into the platform. But I think there's better ways to test out units and adopt/not adopt them nonetheless.

    A bit off topic, but Assuming I am correct, I wonder if you'd be interested (if doing any test in future) to include a recording of kemper in the blind test with the following tweaks..


    1) Definition very slightly lower. Maybe not even a full point.


    2) Pick attack adjusted similarly, lowered a tiny bit.


    3) Post amp block studio EQ 110hz boost from a fraction of 1 dB to maybe a bit more than 1, depending on the case, per your assessment.


    Then comparing the 1) original profile 2) modified profile and 3) source tone.

    What I'm hearing is loss of depth in the first sample, while the tone is more ts-focused. You can pay attention to the mutes, for example. This observation is made using crappy smartphone speaker but it's pretty evident imo, unless it's some bias on my part. It may well be. It's easy to project what one expects, onto to a tone. I will take another listen with headphone, interface when home.

    I believe that all future shootouts should concentrate on the "last barrier" the last gen modelers maybe have or maybe have not anymore.And this cant be anything else than the question about "the feel" while playing.


    I have published some such test before.


    The problem with these is (even) more so methodology. Audio tests can help eliminate biases when it comes to the listeners taking the blind test. There's issues there too, can be -- but how do we have people partipate in such testing when it comes to feel? Never mind it's pretty easy for anyone to just deny the experience the person is having, if talking about online test where one just "shares their experience".


    What can be done is test poeple in person, using same monitoring, seeing whether they can tell the difference on some consistent level suggesting what they are hearing is due to existing tonal differences. Then we can have the guitarist play through the units. We'd be switching them around. Sure, we cannot eliminate the guirarist hearing the sound, as "feel" relates to that in analogy to the playing.


    But there can be observations to make.


    For example, I've had cases where I fail my own blind test (with Kemper not being confused , In these cases, at all). However, being tested in the manner described thereafter things changed -- and my ability to discern differences increased massively.


    In some such case, you have reason to believe tonal differences are hard to hear consistently but still discernible to the player at hand (and there's going to be variation between players, on that end; not too safe making conclusions about what one's own experience would be, depending on a number of testing variables) when it comes to so-called "feel". Yes, there's other possibilities as well -- for example maybe the blind audio test didn't include the kind of playing that revealed differences well enough.


    And then the player, in the "feel" test, heard these kind of sounds more. The point is just that there can be plenty of possibilities here, sure. But yes, I think it's do-able to test "feel" as well, at least in terms of discerning differences, on some level. Some such tests and methdologies will be better, given what the goal is, than others.


    Same with axe fx vs amp vs Kemper vs helix, pla pla. This isn't only about Kemper, yea... and surely then it shouldn't also be noted that the question of "evaluating" differences, where and if they so exist, is a meaningfully different question to ask.

    If you know the frequencies that the Kemper favors, its easy to fool people.


    I guessed wrong in this thread as most did. Granted if the OP could have been more transparent and said the Kempers settings were adjusted. Some might have 'guessed' differently. But great job man!


    Tips for less high end in profiles (when creating the profile); lower the amps presence. If there is a OD pedal, lower the tone and/or the level. When the Kemper runs its pulses during profiling, the increasing amplitude pushes your power amp. The end result is a profile with higher definition. And in some cases excess bass. The kempers profiling ability of the power amp is its weakest point. Its more evident for metal players.

    I myself, even without the tweaking OP did, would likely have thought thought first was Kempery nonetheless.


    But that's not so surprising considering this seems to be a very rare case where profiling produces quite a "darker" tone with mids tilted to opposite direction compared to say 1) a slight TS focus or more so 2) a more substantial cocked wah.


    How often does that "Dark" bonanza happen? One in 30 cases? One in 50? 1 in 200? And what exactly causes it? Hard to say.


    In this case, axe fx tone included 3 distortion pedals + tone match block, as far as I understand. We are pretty deep into experimental waters by that point.


    And that's not even factoring in that modelling Sims can at times confuse Kemper, producing the kind of substantial "cocked wah" you see in plenty of cases with dual distorting stages (say pre amp and power amp).


    Some real preamp alone I've also seen do this, probably due to some particular way they function. But as said when things work "ideally", many profiling regularly, in my cyrcles at least, are used to expect a slight TS focus and some lack at 110.


    That's why the guesses went the way they did, it seems me. Especially from people used to profiling, is my impression.


    But all these are different things: 1) profiling going wrong, for whatever reason, Kemper confused = massive cocked wah 2) slight TS focus many of us tend to experience, even with much more accurate result than case 1 and 3) The "dark" bonanza seen here , much more rare than both previous cases.


    This isn't to dismiss the test as not important. But I'm trying to put things into some perspective, provided my experience.