Well, this looks fun. I'm perfectly willing to let the braver souls do the beta testing, but looking forward to when it's in the next production release.
Also, a shout out to whichever Kemperite is playing the intro riff in the video. Found myself listening to it a few times just because it was a cool riff.
For a moment there I thought you'd visited my neighborhood and had written a song about the Metro Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority. 
You're probably correct, but even a pair of FRFR speakers isn't going to guarantee that the audience is getting what you hear on stage. In fact I don't think anything can do that. There are so many factors involved. Being on stage in your perfect dialed in comfort zone and out front will always be drastically different and give you aural vertigo. I just strive to get as close as I can and let the sound engineer do his job. People will let me know if it sucks.
Yeah, that makes sense. It's worth mentioning that I also believe in the Easter Bunny, so chasing the grand unified theory of stage / PA convergence isn't terribly surprising.
Problem with that is, If I switched between a V30 cab and a Greenback cab it doesn't change for me, but can severely change what the board is getting
With the preface that this is probably a dumb question, isn't this scenario the reason that FRFRs exist?
One of the reasons I went with the DXR-10 was the desire to hear, as closely as possible, what the board gets. My thinking was that if I like what I hear coming out of the FRFR then I can be confident that the mix will get the same sound since both are full range speaker systems (and in fact the DXR-10 is really just a small PA speaker pressed into service for a guitar application).
If you use a different cab on stage, e.g. my Marshall 4x10 / V30s,, and that's the sound you love, that's great. However, you're now juggling two sets of speakers, your personal monitor and the mains, which of course is what this problem is all about.
Is it not possible to get the tone you enjoy on stage via an FRFR? And if that's the case, wouldn't that mean that you would be unhappy with what comes out of the mains for that very reason?
My perspective was to start with what sounds good in the mains since that's what people will hear, and then work my way back to my personal monitor due to the expectation that they'd be the same. However, you've been at this a lot longer than me so I'm sure I'm missing something in this equation. Could you help me understand so that I can get better at this?
With RM you can fast and easily test a profile and if you don't like you just move on to the next without any hassle so I can't understand why some of you see the rating system as a problem nowadays. No why you make it a problem that don't exist. If it was in the past when you had to download profiles to the pc and over to a memory stick and upload the profiles in the kemper, only to find you didn't like none of the those profiles and had to start over again. That was so funny, oh yes indeed.
My initial experience was with looking for Marshall profiles. There are approximately 1.21 gazillion Marshall profiles, and I'd guess that easily 75% of them or more are for metal rather than classic rock.
I only have so much time on this Earth.
As the collection grew i made the rack taller each year.
Eventually you're going to hit FAA regulations and have to put a flashing light on top of the tower.
That's why many believe also competitors / trolls are voting.
Human nature being what it is, I don't doubt that this takes place.
Perhaps an additional feature suggestion would be to handle ratings in a similar fashion to the "likes" on forum posts, where you can see who voted and how. Then people with a history of abuse could be flagged for moderation and that practice would become less frequent.
please point me to where both manufacturers and other voiced that they stopped uploading caused by the star rating.
I would like to offer an additional option for consideration that I believe would significantly improve the relevance of the crowd rating, and also make it easier for people to find what they're looking for in general.
The point that people listen to a profile and downvote it because it's not the style they're looking for is not without merit. I almost sold the Kemper the first week I had it because I'm a classic rock guy and I listened to Marshall after Marshall. I was absolutely stunned by how bad they sounded, after hearing so many positive things about the Kemper. They were simply the worst Marshall emulations I had ever heard.
Only later did I realize that since a profile is merely a snapshot of one specific tone, context is everything. All those absolutely horrific Marshalls I listened to were in all likelihood exceptionally good quality profiles for people who were playing metal. But obviously, what's good for metal and classic rock can be very, very different things. Nonetheless, if I'd been voting, I would have flamed each and every one of them, giving zero stars if possible, due to my lack of understanding.
While it's true that we can dial in an amp tone that's good for a variety of scenarios, we more often dial them in to get a specific sound, and that usually means a specific genre of music. Rig Manager / Exchange doesn't really support the concept of specifying genre(s) for a profile. That means if I'm looking for a classic rock Marshall on 11, I have to wade through all the Marshalls because I don't know which are metal, which are classic rock, and which are other things. I have no context whatsoever for the sound that the person making the profile had in mind. This leads to downvoting and, at least in my case, a very real possibility of ditching the Kemper entirely (man, am I glad I didn't).
I know there are only so many developer hours in a day, and effort / features have to be prioritized. That said, adding an additional set of attributes for intended genre to RM / RE doesn't seem like rocket science. There are constant updates to both the Kemper and RM, for which I'm grateful. I truly believe having attributes to identify the intent of a profile, i.e., "best for / works well for / etc.," would be a welcome feature for a great many people, and would also significantly diminish the downvoting.
Forum users’ experiences and discussions can be found here:
Thanks for the link, man.
Strange forum software. They reeeally don't want you searching the forum, as the search feature includes an image captcha as well as a question. Not for posting - just to search.
After filling in the captcha requirements, there were zero results on searches for both lag and latency. You'd think, positive or negative, that these would be somewhat common topics of discussion.
Of course, this is all just idle curiosity in my part. I have Strats and a PRS with tremelo arms and rarely do alternate or dropped tunings. Mostly just window shopping because I'm a geek guitarist and it's fun to look at shiny objects.
I watched a review on this today and the main question I had about it was latency. He enthused several times that there was zero lag, but it was a sponsored review so credibility is suspect.
He was connected via Bluetooth, and the unit is doing transposition, pitch bends, etc. In the Kemper, whose technology I have much respect for, I can't transpose down lower than a semitone without a latency that is uncomfortable for me, and that's pure signal processing, let alone any wireless latency. So, while anything is possible, I'm wondering how this unit could have "zero lag."
Has anyone actually played one? Technology always advances, anything's possible, so I'm curious as to whether the absence of latency is fact or marketing.
Of course, that aside, this is a very cool looking gizmo.
I need more volume on stage.
I think I am missing the boost power of my tube amps in the past.
When doing rehearsal with band, I feel to have not enough headroom and very compressed sound.
I've included both quotes because I think it might be helpful to better understand what you're missing in rehearsal. In particular, your comment about not enough headroom and compressed sound makes me think the problem you're trying to solve isn't necessarily just the raw volume db measurement.
First, a little context. I have a powered toaster and prior to buying an FRFR, I ran into a sealed cab with a single Celestian V30 speaker. I could hit 105 db without breaking a sweat, and that's just where I stopped turning it up because even as a rock guy, that's starting to get a bit hard on the ears. So, I know the power amp will deliver the volume, but that may not be the entire story...
I play classic rock, so more often than not the tones I'm going for are your typical Marshall on 11 kind of thing. When I'm pushing the speaker with higher volume, if there's some compression that's not a bad thing for my tone. Your user name is Chicken Picker, which would lead me to believe you play in a country band and thus have more need for clean and snappy tones with distinct attacks / transients.
If you start getting compression with those kinds of tones, you're obviously going to feel it. A clean, high headroom sound at loud volumes will pierce your ears (if they're not pierced already) and can at times be painful because of the uncompressed transients. A rock distortion tone at the same db level isn't going to feel as loud as a completely clean tone at the same volume because of this.
I mention all of this to offer another possibility for you to look into. It sounds to me like at rehearsal volume you're not hearing the kind of clean, twanky / spiky / sharp transients that you want in your tone, and you instinctively interpret that compressed sound as "not loud enough." Even if you fire up a db meter and it says it's X dbs and that's mega-loud, it doesn't really matter. All that matters is that you're not feeling the tone you want to feel.
With that in mind, and because I'm pretty confident that the power amp in the Kemper is capable of delivering the raw db levels, you might try skinning this cat from a different direction. If you start with the working hypothesis that the power amp is capable of delivering the volume, that will then lead you to investigate other solutions. Consequently, the next step would be to search for profiles that deliver what you're looking for at volume.
So, while not invalidating the question you've asked here, you might start another thread mentioning the kinds of bands / songs you play to give people a common point of reference, include the fact that a lot of profiles feel compressed at volume, and ask the guys what profiles they use to get the kind of tone you're looking for at rehearsal / gig level. These are a great bunch of guys and I think you'll get a lot of worthwhile suggestions that may, in fact, be the actual solution to the problem you're experiencing. At the risk of overstating the obvious, with a Kemper the profile is everything.
For the record, I couldn't pick a chicken out of a police lineup, so I'm personally pretty useless to you in this regard. However, there are a lot of guys here and I'm confident that many of them need high headroom, uncompressed tones at high volume, so they can recommend some profiles that might get you closer to what you're wanting to hear.
Hope this helps!
The opening is a great hook in its own right.
Kinda feels like it should be its own song rather than just a side note in an otherwise very different tune.
usually made up of all males. That's not the audience I am looking for.
Your wife may have something to say about that.
Whilst I've had her for a number of weeks now, this was her first outing...very happy!
I'm not sure what's more impressive, the guitar or the fact that it appears to be at a gig.
Go listen to some AC/DC, then go listen to some Gojira and the difference bill be pretty clear. ?
AC/DC has been playing the same music since the 70s, so I see comparisons to Gojira as less of a "hard rock / heavy metal" thing than "classic rock / newer rock."
and then kids got lazy and just did metal.
Are you kidding me??? (I suspect the wagging tongue answers that).
Even a six year old kid playing metal has chops that can run circles around most of the classic rock guitar heroes of the 70s. It's not a style that I care for, but holy crap can these guys play.
Thinking of Heavy Metal, great singing is characteristic!!
And Geoff Tate, Michael Kiske, Rob Halford, Simone Simons, Harry Coklin, Devon Graves, Stu Block, Todd La Torre, Floor Jansen, thousand others... can sing Wheresthedug ?
And Sammy Hagar!
"Headbangers in leather..."
(Classic )Heavy Metal is the next level on the "heavy" scale. See the career of Judas Priest as an example of leaving "rock" behind and define the heavy metal genre.
This may be what it's interpreted as now, but Priest was a contemporary of Deep Purple and Led Zepellin. I recall them all being referred to as rock and roll, hard rock, and heavy metal depending on which radio station / DJ / drunk at a bar you were listening to.
I think people want them to mean different things because they like labels, and so they can say, "X sucks! Y rules!" as humans are prone to doing. However, while these labels may have accurate meanings relative to current bands, trying to retroactively apply it like this is largely revisionist history.
I used to dj on an internet station, i once played 12 bands, random that i just grabbed off the net, and they listeners thought it was the same band, that stuff is not metal, but rather metalcore. Massive difference.
Man, if you want to talk labels, Metal is the place to be. There are, like, 900 different subgenres of Metal, and I'm sure everyone argues about which is the correct definition. The only thing they can all agree on is that "I'm more metal than thou."
Since this was from 1955 I'm assuming the jungle thing was the stereotypical racist mentality since rock was derived in part from "race music." So far the conversation has been hard rock vs heavy metal, and that's obviously a pretty vague thing to try to pin down. However, rock 'n' roll was a label erroneously applied to pretty much all rock through the 60s, 70s and a lot of the 80s when in fact there's an easy way to find the cutoff point on that one.
Rock 'n' roll had a swing beat. When that was replaced with the straight eighth note beats it became just "rock." But record labels, radio stations and anyone who made a buck selling music (meaning everyone except the actual musicians) needed subgenres for marketing purposes. No matter what kind of widgets you're selling, you can't target a demographic of "everyone," so standard marketing education includes finding your niche audience and targeting them. Don't have a niche? No problem. Make one up. Just ask the Metal guys.
I love labels. Back in the 70s these two terms were used interchangeably. It was applied to any kind of rock with a Marshall on 11 and a loud drummer. Time goes on and people ascribe all sorts of new meanings to them. I guess that's just the evolution of language, but it still strikes me as a bit silly.
It's similar to R&B, which originally meant Rhythm & Blues but now apparently just means, "Black music." In the 90s I had an ad looking for a band and said I played rock and R&B. People thought that was a really strange combination and I didn't understand why since I wasn't aware that the label now meant Rap / Hip Hop / Urban / etc. Fast forward a couple of decades and now I'm sure it means yet another thing.
As for the listed definitions, whiskey, tangos and foxtrots come to mind.
Google, whatever it is you're smoking, it's time to share.
I do like playing over clicking though -even if my playing is not so great.
Another option might be to pick up a little two octave MIDI keyboard if you don't already have keys. You get all the benefits of MIDI editability and VST / EZ Bass sounds, but you can play the bass part and get the feel you want rather than clicking.
I have a $115 Akai https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IJ6QAO2 but I'm sure you can find cheaper varieties.
I agree with Joe wholeheartedly.
If you actually want to become a bassist, that is of course a different conversation.
However, if you just want to quickly get a good sounding bass part and then spend your time on guitar, give EZ Bass a try. It gives you a bass that's already been optimized for the mix so that you don't have to. Listen to Joe's mixes. As he pointed out, the combination of their drums and bass gives him a great sounding mix, and from previous conversations I know that he doesn't spend any time tweaking the rhythm section. It just works right out of the box.
Also, don't think you have to learn how to use all the articulations, bells and whistles before you can use it. If you just draw in the bass line you want and do no tweaking whatsoever I think you'll be surprised at how good your bass sounds. That gets your rhythm section sorted, allowing you to then spend your time focusing on other stuff.
The rhythm section is much, much better in balance than previous mixes, both between the bass / drums and between them and the rest of the song. Great progress, man.
Are you still using a guitar pitched down an octave for your bass parts?
The only tweak I'm really hearing a need for is on the bass, and even then only in one section of the song. In the lower registers the bass sounds pretty authentic, kind of a no frills P bass tone. However, when the bass line moves to the upper registers it begins to disappear, blurring into the same frequency real estate as the guitar. It's only for those few notes (eighth notes on B / Db / Eb at the end of the section).
You might try putting a compressor on the bass track to help give it a little more focus. This would also let you dig in just a bit more on the attack to give it some definition without the transients that would take away from the legato feel of the part (if you're of a mind to re-track it). I'd start with a ratio of around 4:1, medium attack / release, and then dial in the threshold until it's just starting to bite into the compressor. At that point close your eyes and adjust to taste for the amount of punch / focus you want. A longer release time will also give you a more legato feel, and shorter can help move you towards a bit more focus.
On those upper register portions where the bass starts to get lost, take a look at the real time frequency display for the bass in that part of the song, then compare it to the guitar part. For the overlapping frequencies, see if you can cut the guitar and boost the bass a tiny bit each, enough for the bass to poke through but without stomping on the guitar. Set the width of your Q to be no wider than the range of the overlapping frequencies (use your ears to hear the portion of the bass that's being confused with the guitar) and use the same frequency / Q for both tracks. I'd then boost / cut by the same amount as a starting point, maybe 1 to 2 db.
Again, once you get in the ball park with the dials start using your ears to listen for when the bass starts poking through and to make sure the guitar doesn't get hidden by the bass. it's a bit of a balancing act since they're both in the same frequency range at that point, but you may find that the upper frequencies on the guitar are more what you care about and are thus able to let the bass have a little of the lower turf. It's also okay to automate the EQ so that you're only cutting the guitar in that one section if you find the EQ takes away from the guitar tone elsewhere.
Really cool to see your constant improvements.
If you stay in the same tuning that would certainly make it easier.
What happens in Eb stays in Eb...
