Hello,
seems like we have two camps here - one is saying that you can hear the "crappiness" of digital audio, the other says it's all B******T.
This is a documentary film (good to say it is made by Harman corp.) about how the artists give their best, they search for ultimate sound full of dynamics, details and clarity of every aspect of the given album and we stupid people just destroy their efforst by using cheapo earplugs that come with every iPhone and listen to their music using mp3...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDZcz-V29_M
The other camp says, that anything higher than 128kbps you can't tell from original CD, and that the first camp is just using misleading phrases and cliche that prooves nothing.
http://lifehacker.com/5921889/…at-mp3-bitrate-experiment
The first camp often reacts by saying that yes - if you compare the mp3 to CD, then the quality difference may not be so noticeable, but take that 128kbps and listen to it next to vinyl record through good speakers and voilà - it's night and day difference. [Edit - I forgot one of their arguments and that is that people now will sacrifice anything for convenience]
To complicate things even more there is third camp which to me seems not to be fighting the analog/digital war, bur rather well known "loudness war" and keeps saying that it's not the problem of the digital format but that is often associated with high compression for the most possible loudness.
What has all this to do with Kemper?
Well Kemper is digital device. But is capturing the analog sound of a tube amp (I know, it doesn't necessarily have to be, but mainly it is used for these applications). I wonder if the last few percent that are missing in each profile to be dead on accurate (I mean not like 96% but 100%) could be attributed to the digital format that Kemper is puting out?
Or maybe there is slight but noticebale compression and degradation in every digital format like the first camp says?
Or maybe it is not and the difference between original and the profile is down to other things like different room and how even the most expensive monitors are not absolutely accurate in their reproduction?
I wonder what you guys think! Is that cork sniffing and plain placebo? Or maybe excuses for artist to say their records does not sound as good as they maybe wanted (so they say it's because you listen to it using "crappy" sounding mp3) and the record became more/less a failure? Or it's true and when you're listening to your old vinyls and playing your old all-tube marshall along with it and you can definitely tell that it's milion times better and you are using Kemper for it's close enough convinient "I can take all my studio sounds on tour and 99% of the people won't recongize it's not the real deal and I don't need a truck full of gear" sound package?
Thanks