Posts by Locrain

    I really didn't think I needed this pack, I already had about 250 BE-100 profiles, some which I really love (George Alayon, also Kris Crummet and David Bendeth from STL), but I read through this thread, listened to some clips, saw the price, and couldn't resist. I haven't a chance to go through everything, but there are some great, great profiles here.

    Professional profilers take note: This is how you combat piracy. Updates like this build goodwill, and erase almost every incentive to pirate the pack. Plus the price is extremely fair for what you're getting.

    Looking forward to spending some quality time with this pack today.

    While I'm only a mere scholar in mixing (compared to true masters like @wwittman) I've always practiced LCR panning since I learned about it years ago. It works, period. 'Space' in a stereo field is not so important in itself, it’s the space an instrument occupies in the frequency range that's much more important.That's why the Beatles in mono sound awesome and powerful.
    Concerning filling the gaps: Listening on headphones I find pseudo stereo recordings of the Beatles with the backing on one side and voices etc. on the other a bit annoying when listening to it for a longer period of time.
    That’s why when EMI re-released the Beatles material on CD in 2009, I bought the stereo edition, but then I put the stereo files into Studio One and narrowed the stereo field by 20%. It's still stereo but not with 100% separation, and it’s certainly more glorious than mono.
    I wonder to this day why Sir George Martin didn’t come up with that before.

    Thank you for your input. I'm convinced, and excited to try it. It makes so much sense to focus on the frequency "space" instead of the stereo image "space". I knew that carving out EQ was more important than panning, but EQ makes sense to me in a mechanical sense (not that I have it mastered at all, but I think I 'get' the concept fairly well), whereas panning was always confusing and nebulous, it never really "clicked" while recording. Makes sense that I was going about things the wrong way.

    Honestly, this is kind of a relief. As long as I get my gain staging right, track well and LCR pan, it'll make it so much easier to focus on EQ/compression/etc. Because something that was always in the back of my head was that maybe my mixes didn't sound as good as they could because I wasn't getting the panning right. Beyond a few basics (rhythm guitar hard l+r, bass/kick/vox/ down the middle), I really didn't know what to do, and I wasn't getting anywhere with making tweaks and listening. So now I'm told I don't even have to sweat it...I'm good with that. :D

    I get what you guys are saying about headphones, the Beatles in stereo vs mono, and all that. Headphone listening is not that important to me. I have a pair of HD650s that I switch to to check levels, and as a reference, since my monitors (KRK) are pretty hyped. But I don't plan on mixing on them much. And as I think about it, LCR panning might make it easier to mix on 'phones...?

    I was listening to a Big Wreck (who's production I really admire) song the other day on headphones, and the extremeness of the panning did mess with me a little, until the band came in. I was wondering why they didn't spread it out a little more. Now I guess I know. :)

    It's a little confusing to me too, it's just very different from how I "thought" it should work. But even though the author says he will sometimes still use internal positions, it certainly seems to be the exception, not the rule. So normally he's panning hard, even on dense productions, at least that's how it reads to me.

    What I have always been told is that you need to give everything it's own "space" in the stereo field, and to pan things somewhat as they would be on stage. But it was never something I was very good at. So I am excited to try panning everything hard or leaving it in the center. I can already tell it's going to be a hard habit to break, I am so used to using internal positions on things like lead guitar parts, or vocal harmonies.

    I would have the exact same concerns you do about your more dense productions. The idea of having all those tracks and not using the full stereo field through internal panning is like nails on a chalkboard, haha. But from that article, and from Will's posts, it really looks like the way to go. I'm excited to remove one more variable from my mixing at least. :D

    Really great advice !! BUT what about high/low gain advice there any ? all good if not thanks for posting all this :)


    Exactly what I was wondering. I usually pan lower-gain guitars a little softer, but I'm going to guess that won't be recommended here...

    Super interesting thread!

    When I was looking for a toaster, I couldn't believe the prices. It actually gave me quite a bit of faith in the unit, I've never ever seen resale like that from a digital amp. I paid $1300 and felt like I stole it, they were regular selling for $1500-$1600 at the time...crazy.

    It is a real treasure having you on this forum wwittman. Your perspective on panning makes an awful lot of sense to me, I will definitely be trying that approach going forward for a while.

    You have mixed some truly great, classic songs. I look forward to any post by you, but especially production oriented ones.

    Thanks again.

    I’ve many times listened to some of those extreme placement Beatles records on earbuds or headphones and still had to actually remove one ear and CHECK to be sure that the backing vocals (for example) are entirely on the left. The balances and perspectives are so well done (mostly because they were designed to all work in mono) that you really don’t feel that the widely spread elements are disconnected. They just have that clarity, but it still feels like a unified whole.

    I mixed this with the guitar entirely on one side and the Vox organ entirely on the other but I don’t think most people PERCEIVE it that way unless they are only hearing one channel.

    That's very cool! I listened to it, panning back and forth to hear what you're talking about. And you of course absolutely right, I have never ever noticed that before. And even now knowing it, I don't really "hear" it unless I pan to one side or the other.

    This is correct, the 1-5 ms trick is generally used when you are wanting to duplicate a guitar track, but you want it to sound as if it was double-tracked instead. Actually works very well. But I have never before heard of doing it to actual double-tracked guitars. That doesn't makes any sense to me at all...unless you're a robot. :D

    No I don't think he has, I was just trying to think of something that might give me a similar tone to what I hear on some of songs. The David Bendeth STL pack has quite a few really good VH4 profiles, and Soundside has a really good VH4 pack with tons of profiles (like they always do, haha). Many of the heavier songs have a ton of fuzz, and I have not found the built-in fuzz to be even close to adequate.

    Would love to know this as well. I was thinking maybe the BE-100 profiles in the STL Crummet pack. Kind dry but still saturated, aggressive without being too heavy on the gain. But that seems to be a good description, to my ears, to many of the BE-100 profiles out there. There's a lot of really good stuff in that Crumett pack though. Probably my favorite STL pack, and I think I have most of them. I think if you like Muse, you'd like the pack. And I love Muse! :D

    What would I need to send to you to show you which profiles I have already purchased? I don't think I have 8 of them, but it might be worth buying a couple more for the discount. Lot of money, but you guys include a TON of profiles in your packs. So it's a lot of value.

    Side note: Do you have any idea what the total number of profiles included is?

    Unlike any other computer based system in existence today, there does not seem to be any way to prevent unauthorized (or unlawful) sharing of licensed digital media (rig packs).

    You start with a faulty premise. Give me some examples of successful ways to "prevent unauthorized (or unlawful) sharing of licensed digital media (rig packs)". There really aren't any. And any that work any period of time are usually the exception that proves the rule. The likelihood of Kemper even being capable of creating such a system that works in conjunction with the network of commercial profilers is not something I'd put money on.

    And why would Kemper care? It's good that the pro profilers exist, they do bring attention to the KPA, but why would Kemper care if the profiles were bought or stolen? Makes no real difference to them. The usual response to this is that piracy will force profilers out of business. Some probably, yes. But theft is built into any good business model, full stop. So they'll be ok. The should be thanking their lucky stars that sharing seems to be mostly limited to private means. I know there's some stuff on eBay (not sure why they don't take them down, they've been up for a while), but you can find any VST you want on torrent sites. Profiles? Practically nothing. So things could be a lot worse for the Commercial profilers.

    And by the way, anyone who thinks it is wrong to sell used profiles is on a different planet. And don't give me the "you made an agreement" excuse. It is no more acceptable for profilers to insert unreasonable restrictions on the profile license than it is for Apple to do the same in it's TOS. Prohibiting transfer (not sharing) of profiles that you will no longer keep in any manner is absolutely unreasonable. There is nothing less ethical about this than selling a used CD.

    I think the problem that people (rightfully so, IMO), have with this type of transaction being publicly allowed, is that not everyone...has the same ethical values. And many would keep the profiles even though they promised not to. So I do get that angle. Just don't frame it as unethical to sell them. It isn't.

    I second the suggestion above, but honestly, I think the compressors are easily the strongest of the KPA's (mostly good but not amazing) FX.

    I've got the Northlane pack and honestly don't use it a whole lot, I've found so many better profiles in other packs. The Will Putney pack for instance I use more than anything at the moment. I also really enjoy the Andy James bundle. I've heard good things about the Atrium bundle so I'm sure I'll add that one eventually as well along with the Kris Crummet and David Bendeth.
    I just saw War Of Ages the other night and Their guitar player Jack was using profiles from his signature pack from King Sound (…-jdr-signature-collection) and it sounded pretty bad ass. Think that's gonna be the next one I pick up.
    Just as a reference I'm currently playing in 2 bands, both metal, one in D Standard and Drop C, the other with a 7 string in Drop A.

    Yeah, I agree, especially after more time with them. The Putney pack is really excellent. I think the Crumett and Bendeth ones are just as good. I have the MBritt Modern pack for using with a poweramp and cab (they really shine there), the Putney/Crumett/Bendeth/Sky Dreams packs from STL, and nothing else stored on the Kemper right now. Plenty of tones.

    Northlane is a very good pack. I play around the drop Ab area. I have almost all the STL Producer/Artist packs, and I think the best of them for looow tunings is (in order) Will Putney, then Kris Crummet, then David Bendeth. If you're strictly metal, Northlane/Atrium/Putney are all very good. Please keep in mind I've had the Kemper for less than a week, but I know what I like.

    Sorry for the dead thread bump.