I think it's good if someone enjoys another product, as we all are not the same. I too tried the Helix but it was not for me. I don't use a lot of effects and just wanted the best sounding digital amp I could get, something to get as close to sounding like my tube amps. The Kemper delivers and it does it without needing a lot of editing or playing around. It just works.
I am a guitarist, not a computer scientist! Lol
I am a guitarist, not a computer scientist!
Interestingly, what all the Helix users say is that it's the easiest-to-tweak unit they've ever played...
Interestingly, what all the Helix users say is that it's the easiest-to-tweak unit they've ever played...
Probably because they have an editor, meanwhile I am hunched over my Kemper like I am about to ring the tower bell.
ROTFL
No, they ere talking about the UI. Many claim to never have opened the manual and they could get a patch they liked faster than on any other unit.
A matter of personal taste and approach I guess
Yep, this is how a close-mic'ed cab sounds like.
Well. Is the emphasis on "mic'ed" here?
Cause standing close to an amp with a nicely worn out 4x12 inch did not sound fizzy to me. (But thats LONG time ago, maybe my memory sereves me bad 
).
Were you at mic'ed distance (1')? 
Were you at mic'ed distance (1')?
Not THAT close
More seriously: I suspected kindof overload of the mic to cause that. Tha max SPL of a typical SM57 is about 156 dB, though. Which is a lot. But getting very close is rapidly increasing the SPL.
... and you got the point
Half the time fizz is due to phase cancellation through poor miking technique - bad angle of the mic causing its off-axis response to come into play too much or where it's just plain lousy and therefore best not exploited, or imperfect distance-equalisation of two or more mics from the source.
Nicky, why\how does phase cancellation generate fizzyness?
Too-big a question to answer succinctly, for me at least, GianfrancBro'.
A crude way of explaining it might be too look at a phaser. Notice how, along with all the nice, meaty low and mid-range movement (cancellation and reinforcement, actually), there's one or more high-frequency "bumps" that moves around and adds an "edge" in that region when you apply a phaser to a guitar sound? It's kinda like that, but it's fixed and doesn't move around; it adds an "edge", which can sound harsh and fizzy, to the miked-amp tone. It's not that it's actually adding it; it's more like adding a narrow-band EQ bump in the upper region, and so it's more accurate to say it's amplifying, very-selectively, something that's already there. Invariably, these bad-miking techniques can add multiple bumps, along with dips in between them (comb filtering), which to our ears sound harsh, unnatural, "phasey", and yes, the bumps and troughs in the upper regions accentuate and make harsher any fizz that was already present, even pleasant fizz. Practically any sound (not just guitar), no matter how smooth, can be made to sound harsh with a narrow-band boost of some magnitude, and this is essentially what's happening.
I suspect you already knew this, though, you smarty-pants! LOL
For me at least, this is the stuff I'm allergic to - that harsh, comb-filtery stuff that goes on in the high end when poor miking techniques are employed. Thankfully, the magical Pure Cab™ algorithm can all but eliminate it, making many Profiles I could previously not listen to for a second actually sound not-half-bad!
Come to think of it, what does Cliff call his version of it? Anti-Phase, Phase-Be-Gone, Phase-Away, or something? There you go.
It's the honky-and-harsh sounding effect that folks want to remove when such bad cab-miking techniques have been used, that's one of the reasons why we have Pure Cab™ in the first place - at least, it's a related issue. That cab-in-the-room sound many seek becomes ever-less likely the more phase cancellation is present.
I actually love the tones I get from my Helix...
Awfully easy to program.
However, my Kemper isn't going anywhere either.
ALL my Fractal stuff has gone the way of the covered wagon, though. Never could fall totally in love with them...
A crude way of explaining it might be too look at a phaser. Notice how, along with all the nice, meaty low and mid-range movement (cancellation and reinforcement, actually), there's one or more high-frequency "bumps" that moves around and adds an "edge" in that region when you apply a phaser to a guitar sound? It's kinda like that, but it's fixed and doesn't move around; it adds an "edge", which can sound harsh and fizzy, to the miked-amp tone. It's not that it's actually adding it; it's more like adding a narrow-band EQ bump in the upper region, and so it's more accurate to say it's amplifying, very-selectively, something that's already there. Invariably, these bad-miking techniques can add multiple bumps, along with dips in between them (comb filtering), which to our ears sound harsh, unnatural, "phasey", and yes, the bumps and troughs in the upper regions accentuate and make harsher any fizz that was already present, even pleasant fizz. Practically any sound (not just guitar), no matter how smooth, can be made to sound harsh with a narrow-band boost of some magnitude, and this is essentially what's happening.
This is certainly all true. And explains a lot. But IMHO it is not fully explaining the sound of that kind of fizzyness. I mean, I grew up in front of tube amps, there was just nothing else. From the old breed the Orange has always been the fuzziest for me. I call it fuzzy, because its different. More pleasant, like a fuzz face. This fizzyness crossed my way the very first time with the advent of modellers. Thats why I relate it to this kindof amps. Might still be wrong, though. And I really mean modellers. I am using snaphshot-IR-plugings to emulate analog gear for a long time and I love it. No tweaking please. Either the IR sounds the way you like it or you have to get another one.
Many of the sound demos I checked from the Kemper were not sounding to my taste. BUT: they were without that fizzyness! And that made me smile. Finally I found some demos of my preferred amps (VOX and Plexi-variants) that blew me away. I havent heared them better than on the Kemper yet. Only 2 weeks ago a chap showed up with this modern VOX combo, tube-preamp and power-amp modeller. This was sounding great, but even the modelled AC30 from VOX was worse than the Kemper. And well... with a minimal fizzyness.
What might sound strange: the original bean POD is still the best sounding modeller for me. Very restricted, but who cares. I still have it and enjoy playing it - once in a while. Anything modeller-wise I got after that had to leave. And I dont miss it.
Unbelievable. Totally agree, Spinner!
I was answering Gianfranco's question about how "phase cancellation generates fizziness", of course, but I can't explain the fizziness of modellers. The Helix seems to have greatly-reduced it compared to the HD series, which is great for L6. However, my favourite of all time is still... POD 1.0 bean! Jinx!
That was the only unit, and I owned all the PODs and Bass PODs through the years, right up to the HD500, that I barely needed to tweak at all (just drive and EQ!) in order for it to sound warm, creamy, and definitely not fizzy! In fact, I don't think I could've got it to sound fizzy if my life depended on it. If you ever want to sell yours, please, consider me.
A man of taste, you are, methinks. Others might just think we're mad.
A man of taste, you are, methinks. Others might just think we're mad.
Cudos, mate! Let them think...
Half the time fizz is due to phase cancellation through poor miking technique - bad angle of the mic causing its off-axis response to come into play too much or where it's just plain lousy and therefore best not exploited, or imperfect distance-equalisation of two or more mics from the source.
You mean to say that you can get phase cancellation when using one microphone?
That is news to me.
I never experienced this with mics with kidney or hyperkidney characteristics.
You mean to say that you can get phase cancellation when using one microphone?
That is news to me.
I never experienced this with mics with kidney or hyperkidney characteristics.
Depends very much on the room you have your speaker in; dimensions, damping etc. Condenser mics will also be more sensitive to it than dynamics, especially in the high end and low mids, my brain reckons. I remember Andy from TAF wrote a profiling essay once where he touched upon this subject. It might be why his initial profiles stood out from the crowd back when the KPA was in its infancy. @and44 ???
Depends very much on the room you have your speaker in; dimensions, damping etc. Condenser mics will also be more sensitive to it than dynamics, especially in the high end and low mids, my brain reckons. I remember Andy from TAF wrote a profiling essay once where he touched upon this subject. It might be why his initial profiles stood out from the crowd back when the KPA was in its infancy. @and44 ???
I gotcha. Let me add I was talking about close- micing with the usual suspects (SM 57 etc.) only
The off-axis response of all cardioids becomes progressively-thinner, duller, and with some mics, phasey, in the high end, as you draw nearer to 180deg from the ideal, front position. The Rode classic I once bought new and foolishly sold is a great example of this. I was so put off by the off-axis rubbish I was hearing that it blinded me as to its awesome ability to help vocals poke out of the mix (on-axis, and just fine in terms of phase coherence). I only conducted one experiment with it, but was struck by just how much leeway it afforded me in terms of its level in the mix; a couple o' dB up or down, and anything in between, was equally intelligible, which was very impressive to me. I concluded that it must've been the tube-induced harmonics that afforded it this "artificial" clarity. One of my sillier, rushed sales for sure, that one. I can't overstate how phasey-sounding the high-frequency off-axis response was 'though - easily the worst I've heard thus far.
The fact that these off-axis responses sound thin and phasey suggests to me that they involve phase cancellation, but I have no scientific proof of this; it's just what I hear, Ingy.
Half the time fizz is due to phase cancellation through poor miking technique - bad angle of the mic causing its off-axis response to come into play too much or where it's just plain lousy and therefore best not exploited, or imperfect distance-equalisation of two or more mics from the source.
By "bad angle", I mean way too much of an angle, like singing into a mic 90deg to the right or left - completely from the side - or worse, from behind, the 180deg position.
By "just plain lousy and therefore best not exploited", I obviously mean that if the off-axis sound has nothing useful or pleasing to add to the picture, it's best kept out of the equation, IMHO.
In short, yes, I assumed that the coloured, often-thin, phasey, muffled etc. sounds captured off-axis by cardioid mics (the cheaper, the worse-sounding typically, because more-pleasing off-axis responses require better capsule design and engineering), is caused by phase cancellation within the capsule itself, and therefore no room interaction or additional mics are required to "achieve" this.
This assumption, which I may well be at fault for making, is inconsequential anyway I s'pose 'cause my contention is that it's bad miking technique that contributes towards accentuated fizziness of the type we don't like. This would naturally also include the sloppy use (inaccurate distancing) of two or more mics, aiming at a bad speaker or the harshest part of one and so on.
Lastly, I really, really didn't want to get sucked into this. When Gianfranco asked me, "Nicky, why\how does phase cancellation generate fizzyness", I actually wrote a response indicating that I'll not fall for that loaded / open-ended / baiting question, 'cause it's just way too much typing, thought and time involved in order to convey my limited understanding of the subject. It's more a textbook affair IMHO, and I'm certainly not that book, but given the tragic situation poor Gianfranco finds himself in at the moment, I figured I'd try to provide some sort of distraction for the poor chap. I've got nothing more, Ingy. If I'm wrong, sorry mate; just telling' it like I hear it, bro'.
Well spoken, monkey mate!
In addition: a diameter for a "good" speaker for say 5k or 7k (our distorted guitar sound's high end) should be about 1 inch, maybe 2. Only that small it can emit the air waves "properly" and equally spread. I quoted, because this is true for PA or studio control monitor use.
The fat 10 or 12 inch speakers we use for guitar are bad boys for the high end. But that is what we like, they add sound. The problem is that at those high frequencies and that close to the membrane you get a different sound by just moving the mic ever so small. Imagine a kindof wrippled, complex radiation pattern with a tendency of a sharp beam on-axis.
Read what monkey wrote, add what I wrote and you will understand that close miking guitar cabs is an art more than a science. Recipes from a text book are nothing but a good point to start from. Results can easily be completely unexpected, for the good and for the bad. The one day it might sound great, the next day its awful - even if you measured your distances to high precision. Art and true craftsmanship comes with experience. ANd that takes time and patience.
Finally: this is one of the reasons why my first post's headline was: I hate tube amps. In other words: I am so f***ing glad that there are some people around that know how to place the mics and know how to profile the sweetest sweet spot. And after its in the Kemper its *very* consistently and reliably great sounding - at MY PLACE.
Addendum: The complex radiation of a huge membrane for high frequencies towards the microphone can only be estimated, but NOT calculated to precision. That is the reason why modellers are "guessing" here, no matter how much processing power they might offer. But if its sounds nice, it is nice, so I am not blaming anything.
