Profiling with Firmware 2.6 vs 2.42

    Hey guys!



    I hope it's ok that I do this in an own thread instead of the FW 2.6 one.
    I did some testing before updating during the last profiling session.


    2.42 because I hadn't updated to 2.5, but I think this shouldn't matter too much for this cause.


    So for all the people interesting in how the profiling sounds compared to earlier versions, here you go.


    Kemper Firmware 2.6 vs 2.42 profiling test


    You'll get 6 mono wav files (3 stereo pairs).
    If you don't want to listen to it in stereo in your DAW then just compare the Left (L) tracks, they have more playing at the beginning.


    I did the following:


    -Profile the rig with 2.42
    -Reamp through that profile (2.42)
    -Reamp through the reference amp (reference amp)
    -Update to 2.6
    -Profile with 2.6
    -Reamp through the 2.6 profile.


    I didn't change the settings or mic position on the amp.
    For refining I used the same method on both profiles (the one Sam Pura showed during his creative live class).


    Normally I would have recorded reamp through the microphone into the preamps of my interface, for the original sound of the setup.
    But the preamps seem have taken a hit lately and act weird.
    That's why I had to record through the reference amp on the kemper.
    So it's not as scientific as it could be, sorry! :P


    IMO 2.6 sounds closer to the amp and gets the lows and low mids closer. The mids seem to work a bit different as well, less squishy and less forward.
    Overall also closer to the amp.


    I'll have to get used to not dial in more lows than I normally would for profiling though hehe



    EDIT/UPDATE:


    I found the issue I was having. Seems that not my micpres wheren't faulty, but for some reason the Kemper brightened up all audio passing through for the reamps at the profling session.
    I have still no idea what went wrong, especially since I didn't change anything to booting it up again at home. No EQ was engaged (also not the output EQ), but it sounds like some sort of hi-shelf was on.


    So heres the updated test, now with the real MIC track instead of the reference amp.
    Kemper 2.6 Firmwaretest UPDATE


    Due to me monitoring through the Kemper at that session the tone is REALLY dull and lo end heavy (compensated the brighter tone in the kemper with duller amp settings and mic placement it seems).
    Well, at least that way you can hear even more what the update does to the lo end ^ ^


    Sorry for the inconvenience.
    I'm especially puzzled as of why the same profiles sounded like the mic track after I came home, without me changing anything about the settings on the kemper.

    Quote from paults

    Thanks for the example :)


    It sounds to me like 2.6 profile has "on stage" low end, and the Kemper previously had "more than enough than would be needed in a recorded mix" low end.


    I agree there is way too much low thump for a mix, but the refernce amp has it to , so its the way its miked and 2.6 sounds closer tot he reference amp


    I think all that low end gets in the way in a mix and you have to high pass filter it out though to leave room for the bass and kick

    Thanks mago!
    2.6. actually sounds pretty much like the amp while the 2.4 version sounds a tad thinner. As said before this probably doesn´t make a difference in a recording situation because you cut out the low end anyway but thats great for on-stage use I guess!

    Thanks for this test.


    This test exactly reflects the change that we have applied to the profiling.
    We did not really "tweak" the profiling algorithm, instead we simply took away an internal parameter, that was a bit "tweaked too much" at first place. The profiling is "purer" now.


    I could not hear a difference between the reference amp and the 2.6 result. It would pass every blind test, I guess.
    If you think you hear a difference, compare more often.
    If the difference you perceive at first place is really there, you will start to hear it clearer and clearer.
    If the difference was just in your brain, it will disappear after a time.
    I had the latter experience.

    Quote from ckemper

    Thanks for this test.


    This test exactly reflects the change that we have applied to the profiling.
    We did not really "tweak" the profiling algorithm, instead we simply took away an internal parameter, that was a bit "tweaked too much" at first place. The profiling is "purer" now.


    That's for the new profiling algorythm.
    How was made the low frequency correction? I found all my profiles sounding quite muddy with 2.6.

    Quote from mba


    That's for the new profiling algorythm.
    How was made the low frequency correction? I found all my profiles sounding quite muddy with 2.6.


    Read the document coming with the update. In fact, they reduced the lows below 60 Hz and not increased them and you can switch off this correction.


    As always, a reamped clip will help you to know if you are right.

    Edited once, last by pacocito ().

    Quote from pacocito

    Read the document coming with the update. In fact, they reduced the lows below 60 Hz and not increased it and you can switch off this correction.


    As always, a reamped clip will help you to know if you are right.


    I know for the lfc that's what surprised me, less low end but muddy middle now (with old profiles) though i've not made reamp tests.(just by ear so i can be wrong)


    I've made tests with the new profile algorythm this morning, comparing profile record to the mic record but it's difficult due to the reverb of my music room.


    By the way do you find that 2.6 = reference amp on this example, because here they all 3 sound different, probably always due to the room reverb for the reference amp record. (same issue here for me when i try to compare)