Posts by Wheresthedug

    Totally agree. The OPs request was about how to audition tones which are double tracked. Personally, I would just focus on getting one good tone then change the second one if necessary by reamping against the original track but they seem to want to audition a double tracked sound and make decisions from that.

    If you want to hear what two identical rigs would sound like double tracked and hard panned I would just use either


    1 - a Double Track effect as suggested above or


    2 - Record to two individual mono tracks and pan hard left and rig. On one of the tracks put a sample delay of up to 30ms as BayouTexan suggested. The advantage of using the sample delay on the channel strip (thats what its called in Logic but ProTools and other have something similar) is that you should hear the results in real time without the need to record then nudge one track forward.

    I have just tried it and managed to get pretty close to the tone all the way off on my Telecaster neck pickup with these settings. Some subtle tweaking for a LP might be required though. Pedal in full toe position.


    I don’t use either much but in side by side comparison tests with my Digitech WhammyDT I found the Kemper to be just as good. The Kemper actually sounded more natural to me whereas the Whammy has its own unique sound which many people seem to like (similar to the way some people use the preamp of an echoplex to add that special something even when the delay is turned off).

    I have no experience with it but it looks ideal based on the specs. The only slight issue is that the speaker outs are on consumer HiFi banana plugs/binding terminals so you will need to make up a special speaker cable or adapter but that should be simple enough.

    The current two parametric bands clearly mirrors the standard analog desk format (hence studio EQ). Most of the original FX seemed to be closely modelled on traditional FX. However, as the team have updated FX they seem to have applied their own vision on things to go beyond replicating what analog did (the delays, reverbs and Kemper Drive for example). Therefore, it would seem logical that they could do the same thing with EQs and create some sort of super EQ that can be made to do much more than a single traditional EQ did. Maybe the could make a Kemper Channel Strip (that could replicate different famous studio desks or rack devices (SSL, AMEK, Abbey Road REDD37 etc) and go beyond too. This could have EQ and Compressor etc as the SSL desks did for example.

    As Don said; that is a ton of reverb for a distorted sound. I would back that off a long way.


    As Hoki Toki said, rather than boosting frequencies to make it brighter or punchier start by finding where the mud is and cut that slightly. For me it is usually between 200 and 300hz.


    And as RosboneMako pointed out you often need less gain than you think. Be careful of too much compression.


    The other thing I would add is to consider your listening environment. Does it sound muddy on headphones as well as speakers? Does it sound muddy all around the room or just at your listening position? Does it change if you move the speakers further or close to the front wall or corners? If it sounds OK on headphones the problem could easily be the room itself. Some simple tweaks to speaker/listening positions and some cheap DIY treatment can often make a noticeable difference.

    Totally agree with nearly everything you said. One of the reasons the Kemper is so common on top level touring stages is almost certainly because of its ease of use and simple easy to follow signal path.


    One of the main reasons I chose it over the Helix was that it knew what it wanted to do and did it well instead of trying to be a Jack of all trades and master of none. It's simplicity and intuitive workflow/UI was more important to me than the sound difference as both Helix and Axe also sound great (yes, to my personal ears I do think the Kemper sounds better but it's a personal taste not good v bad thing).


    The team at Kemper have refused many requests in the past on the ground that it would make the unit to complex. I don't see them changing their philosophy now.

    If you search the RJM forum you wil find several threads for the Whammy DT including a few of mine. You might fond that you can do what you want with it as my issue was quite specific. Having reread one of my threads it was the way the Whammy and Drop worked individually. You might be able to get one or the other working properly. Also my issue revolved round trying to set up a page to be able to manually scroll through presets on the fly. If you are just sending simple PC numbers it might be OK.

    Not sure what Whammy you are using but ai used to use a Whammy DT with an RJM Mastermind and was never able to get it working. After several emails with Digitech support and Ron at RJM it turned out that it wasn't possible as they don't use standard midi. It was a long time ago now and I have forgotten the details but I eventually gave up.

    I'd settle for the same number of blocks but with the flexibility to place them pre or post amp. I'm often pushed for post amp bocks but I rarely use the pre amp slots.

    That is exactly how I feel. I have never had a rig where I needed more than 8 blocks. When it get to that stage it is time to switch to a different rig instead. However, I would love the ability to select how many blocks are pre the Stack and how many after.


    Taking this even further it would be great to have the ability to decide how many blocks are used in the Parallel Path rather than just the fixed 2 at present.

    Interesting. I've had the opposite experience. I have tons of good IRs from Ownhammer, 3sigma, GGD etc., and I nearly always prefer a proper profiled Kemper cab.

    that's been my experience too. I loaded my Own Hammer IRs into the Kemper and tried swapping out Cabinets for them but always went back to the Cabinet.

    Hey Alan, thanks a lot for the reply.


    So after selecting parallel path, I make A an FX block and I just connect iridium output in Return input? and then I can use B as a part of a signal chain block for the iridium only ? like adding delay /eq/ rev or others?

    correct


    If that is correct? what if I place the FX block in stomp B? can I put a drive before that in stomp A? or it doesn't't work that way?


    No, in that case the effect in Stomp A wouldn’t be receiving any signal as it would be before the guitar in the signal chain. It would be similar to having a Tube Screamer velcroed to the front of your guitar sitting between the strings and output jack but with no cables.


    How about the way I mentioned, will it work too without having to do a parallel path and just use the iridium with the physical pedals ?


    Thanks a lot!

    Actually, just reread your post. Yes your way should work perfectly. When I first thought about my reply I wasn’t thinking straight about the use of the Iridium so thought you might need at least one FX to make is sound OK but in reality the Iridium settup should be able to give you a good sound to work with via the Aux input. 👍🤘

    I'm pretty sure it's psychological. Our ears are notorious for playing tricks on our brains and this is just another example.


    On my system the L side sounds very slightly louder most of the time but the R side jumps out from time to time. This makes it sound like 2 actual guitars rather than a simple delay on the same track. However, if you stick a meter on the channel you will see that peak levels are pretty much identical. I reset the meter several times and the peak reading was the same most of the time. On a few occasions the L channel was 0.1db louder while other times the R channel was 0.1db louder (basically the same level). When taking an RMS reading the two channels averaged out at the the same level.


    The perceived level difference that some folk experience may be an EQ thing but I suspect it is a delay issue. If you play single short hits the side which we hear first always sounds loudest. However, if we play chords or notes which ring enough to overlap the delay the two sides appear even in volume as we no longer have the psycho acoustic trick of the earlier sound appearing loudest.