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.