Very interesting. I was wrong twice
listened on my little work desktop speakers
Got them all right and I was listening to it through laptop speakers!
I was wrong on two of them, also (listening in my car).
Interesting that Bruce/Fluff got them all right. He attributed it to having owned a Kemper since 2012 and recognizing its weakness in the low bass department.
I don't hear it myself tho. I got two wrong.
I've had mine since 2012, too. I was listening to the attack dynamics - I apparently like the KPA version better than the original 
i just went with what I liked best and didnt try to pick the real amp. Turned out that I liked: #1 real, #2 KPA, #3 KPA. Cool video.
Overall I think the result is very impressive. If you took one of those a/b comparisons and told someone it was between two different revisions of the same amp no one would even suspect a digital amp is involved.
I was wrong on all 3. UGH!!
I wanted to take the test... but whoa, cannot listen to that type of music at all
You can guess correctly by RANDOM 7 times in a row 25% of the time.
So unless you can do 28 tests and have someone guess them ALL correctly, I'm not impressed that this is more than scientifically random.
Put another way, 7 times or less, you can guess correctly "by mistake" due to random chance!
The "law of large numbers" is typically a law of VERY large numbers. Not a few guesses. A few guesses means nothing really.
Always a spoiler in the crowd LOL
I made the test on two different days and have read the Result at the second day.
The first day I made 2 correct guesses.
The second day also - but not the same 
In fact, I was not sure in any sound. There were rather a fluke.
A case for the audiologist 
- Harry 
These tests are pointless in context of metal, since Andy Sneap and Michael Wagener started using Kemper. Not to mention a bunch of top metal bands using it live.
Might be me, but I sense a bit of scare coming out from the rant at the end - any "beginner" can get a pro level sound at home now... (no need for "years" of learning how to place a mic, years, really?)
Might be me, but I sense a bit of scare coming out from the rant at the end - any "beginner" can get a pro level sound at home now... (no need for "years" of learning how to place a mic, years, really?)
I agree with that, but in fact I' not scared.
There will be a change at music market and necessity of some skills.
This happened in any environment, where a technological development takes place.
I think even in the future on the long run only those have success, that works hard for it.
Some Hypes will flooding the market for some time and disappear. This happen all the time.
Honestly, who can still take paper and pencil and calculate square roots or potencies without a calculator?
I had to learn this almost 50 years ago, but forgotten 40 years ago. 
keep rockin' - Harry
Display MoreYou can guess correctly by RANDOM 7 times in a row 25% of the time.
So unless you can do 28 tests and have someone guess them ALL correctly, I'm not impressed that this is more than scientifically random.
Put another way, 7 times or less, you can guess correctly "by mistake" due to random chance!
The "law of large numbers" is typically a law of VERY large numbers. Not a few guesses. A few guesses means nothing really.
Huh????
I do not follow your analysis, db9091.
There is a binary decision taking place 3 times. That is, there are 3 tests (5150 vs KPA, Rec vs KPA, and REVV Gen vs KPA).
Each test involves a binary decision (True or False). That is, you either guess correctly (true), or you are wrong (false).
Therefore, there are 2^3 = 8 possible outcomes, which are the following sets:
{TTT} {FTT}
{TTF} {FFT}
{TFF} {FTF}
{FFF} {TFT}
T = True
F = False
The probability of randomly guessing all three tests correctly {TTT} is 1/8 = 12.5%
The probability of randomly guessing all three tests correctly, seven trials in row is vanishingly small = (1/8)^7 = 0.000048%
mmm, had them all wrong listening through my monitors.I liked the KPA profiles better except the Mesa. I personally think the KPA is brilliant in mid gain sounds, that's where most other options fail. High gain sounds I've heard even good ones from PODs
If you're going to get this granular discerning which is which, this video leaves out critical information in my opinion. If the special profiles where made and then hours later or may be a day later the tracks were recorded of the real amp even if using the same setting, then this video is pointless.
I'm not a professional profiler, but anyone who profiled an amp will know that the same setting on the amp will result in very different profiles from when the amp is first turned on and later when the amp becomes hot, very different feel and very different frequency spectrum.
For this to be relevant, the profile should be made right after or just before the real amp is recorded. If you take the Kemper out of the equation all together and record a tube amp that was just started after 5-10 minutes and leave the settings untouched, come back and do another take an hour to two hours later, there will be difference that you can hear.
The KPA for all intended purposes sounds identical to the amp at that point in time, not better not worse (you might sense a very little bit of a miss in the low end if you're the one profiling that can be made to disappear with refining the profile). For that reason, I decided to start using professional profiles even though there are hundreds if not thousands of 100% free useable profiles knowing that what I'm getting is the sound of a tube amp at a given point in time and that same amp might record differently on a different day with same setting but different weather or location.
For someone who spent years using real amps and microphone it's rather strange that such a person wouldn't be the first to adopt the Kemper technology that nails that sweet spot of any amp and keep it available forever only to be able to say that he's not sure that his years of experience micing an amp can be replaced. Some people completely get it wrong or don't get it. Kemper isn't replacing the micing skills, it's preserving the best or not so good moments in profiles that someone can scroll though (complete mic and preamp setups) to suit the mix in a studio setting.
At very large numbers those are true. But if you look at say, how often will you see 5 heads or 5 tails in a row in 62 "flips" or occurrences, it's like over 90% chance that you will get such a streak.
That's what I'm getting at. There is a VERY large chance of getting a streak. We call it 'luck" or "unlucky" but it's due to randomness at small numbers where you get clusters which our minds place into more than coincidence.
Here's a bit of the mathematical explanation (found on a forum):
"The generating function for the probability of ending on nn tosses for that problem is similar:
1/16^5 / 1 - (1/2x + 1/4x^2 + 1/8x^3 + 1/16x^4)
From that, we can compute the expectation and variance. Looking at the coefficients of the series for the generating function we can also find out that in 6666 tosses, we will have a 90.0761%90.0761% chance of seeing 5 heads or 5 tails in a row."
Now in repeated occurrences, it's unlikely to be reproduced, but the fact that a streak in a clump of occurrences exists with a high probability means they can happen often ENOUGH to throw doubt on the validity of the experiment "scientifically".
For example, in 10 million flips, there are 78,400 times that you can get 6 occurrences in a row, or 1% of the time. but that 1% can happen in the the first time, the 10th time. It's random and streaks can just pop up. Sometimes 2 in a very close occurrence. Because Random events aren't smooth at very small numbers. Only at very LARGE numbers do you get an overall smoothness of the results of probability.
Because of this, you get the "Gambler's Fallacy" which lures people into lotteries or the next bet on a a false assumption of probability for large numbers occurring for small numbers.
My "25%" is that a streak EXISTS, not that it MUST occur at the right time in a sequence of events.
BTW, this is all amateurish second hand. I hear and read things, I'm not a math-o-file.
Now, the GOOD news is this: Someone guessing it's a Tube Amp or a Kemper 3 times in a row is what is insignificant.
The fact that you get many outcomes, some all spot on, some all wrong, some mixed, is PROOF that you can't tell the Kemper from and a tube amp. That is how "random" looks, is my point. The ONE guy who "got it all right" is not proof that the Kemper is fallible, it's proof that statistically this can 3-in-a-row guessing can happen and does happen randomly. Next test, that person might fail to get all right. Most likely, they would, unless there is something truly not "blind" about the test.
