Kemper vs. Real Amp Test - Cameron CCV

    Yes, I have noticed this also when profiling. Signal volume going back to the Kemper does impact the profile results. I have never tried a weaker signal though. When staying right in the Kempers default volume zone, had better results for me.

    I think some differences are apparent, but I also think some are blown out of proportion. For example, if the difference between a profile and real amp is less than 1dB at 130Hz, acting as if it's significant is what I consider hyperbole. An example of something significant might be the shrill quality I hear in some profiles.

    Quote from ColdFrixion

    I think some differences are apparent, but I also think some are blown out of proportion. For example, if the difference between a profile and real amp is less than 1dB at 130Hz, acting as if it's significant is what I consider hyperbole. An example of something significant might be the shrill quality I hear in some profiles.

    I think there are other factors than simply EQ that could be relevant

    Quote from Michael_dk

    I think there are other factors than simply EQ that could be relevant

    There are, and I cited the shrillness inherent in some profiles as another example. The main issues that have been noted are EQ, compression, and shrillness, all of which are more noticeable with some profiles than others. I'd add what sounds like faint dithering noise on long, open chords to the list.

    In my experience certain effects tend to go together. Usually a small but noticeable EQ difference on low end will be accompanied by other issues that may not be simply due to EQ. I tend to use the low end notes as a test to know when the other, more important issues are at play or not -- usually it's a good indicator of "more" being off with my profiles. In other words: there seems to be a "sandwich" of issues that could have the same cause.

    These issues tend to create a rather different "feel" between amp and profile. It's similar to changing guitar pickups -- something fundamental in the response is "off", different, and not in a good way. That's when I care.


    However when the issue is smaller and I still feel like the profile represents the amp adequately, when playing through both, then I don't have much of an issue. EQ is never totally spot on, of course, but if there just something tiny missing somewhere then it's good enough for me anyway.


    But when this difference (it being eq or something else) is important enough to make me go: "This does not feel good to play through. I need my amp" then is when I try to find a way and make the profile better.

    Quote from Dimi84

    In my experience certain effects tend to go together. Usually a small but noticeable EQ difference on low end will be accompanied by other issues that may not be simply due to EQ. I tend to use the low end notes as a test to know when the other, more important issues are at play or not -- usually it's a good indicator of "more" being off with my profiles. In other words: there seems to be a "sandwich" of issues that could have the same cause.

    I don't know how all of the factors are interrelated.


    I do think if enough people contact Kemper support, the support team is more likely to take these issues seriously. However, if we don't put things in proper perspective, it can lead people to think we're exaggerating, and that's something that can undermine what we're trying to accomplish. It's fine to point out things that might be small or insignificant. There's nothing wrong with that. It's when those small differences are made to sound like huge discrepancies that I think it becomes counterproductive to what we're trying to accomplish.


    Let the collective evidence speak for itself. Multiple small issues can serve as evidence to demonstrate a significant problem when taken collectively. Perhaps the low-end isn't very significant when considered in isolation. Maybe the compression / gating or shrillness isn't always exceedingly obvious. However, I think there's a case to be made that all of these factors, when taken and heard collectively, could potentially be considered a significant deviation from the reference amp by most people.

    Quote from ColdFrixion

    I don't know how all of the factors are interrelated.
    I do think if enough people contact Kemper support, the support team is more likely to take these issues seriously. However, if we don't put things in proper perspective, it can lead people to think we're exaggerating, and that's something that can undermine what we're trying to accomplish. It's fine to point out things that might be small or insignificant. There's nothing wrong with that. It's when those small differences are made to sound like huge discrepancies that I think it becomes counterproductive to what we're trying to accomplish.


    Let the collective evidence speak for itself. Multiple small issues can serve as evidence to demonstrate a significant problem when taken collectively. Perhaps the low-end isn't very significant when considered in isolation. Maybe the compression / gating or shrillness isn't always exceedingly obvious. However, I think there's a case to be made that all of these factors, when taken and heard collectively, could potentially be considered a significant deviation from the reference amp by most people.

    I've backed up things said with sound clips, sent to kemper as well. I don't know what others have done. But issue is: if we are talking about sound, there's always a descriptive element to it. CK himself did not conduct a "scientific" study when designing the kemper tube screamer. When it comes to "exaggeration".. I feel that no matter what is said, it will be labeled as such by some anyway. It does not matter how specific one is. So it does not concern me so much. Issue with that is how "feel" cannot be conveyed through audio as well -- which is where words come into play. And there the difference has often been quite significant to me between profile and amp. This experience is just what it is: it is metaphysically objectively true.


    I've been in contact with kemper about everything but it does not seem to be getting us somewhere. If people are having similar issues they should open support tickets and let kemper know what is up -- it seems to be the best thing to do.

    I think I will have a few kemper dedicated videos, testing out different amps, other critical evaluations of the unit on my youtube channel and how I think profiles can get closer. I've made a few observations in the last days.


    People who are having similar issues with the unit: I know I am repeating myself too much, but open support tickets. Nothing came out of mine, but if more attention is drawn to the issue there could some firmware update that addresses these concerns.


    Cheerios

    Quote from Dimi84

    I've backed up things said with sound clips, sent to kemper as well. I don't know what others have done. But issue is: if we are talking about sound, there's always a descriptive element to it. CK himself did not conduct a "scientific" study when designing the kemper tube screamer. When it comes to "exaggeration".. I feel that no matter what is said, it will be labeled as such by some anyway. It does not matter how specific one is. So it does not concern me so much. Issue with that is how "feel" cannot be conveyed through audio as well -- which is where words come into play. And there the difference has often been quite significant to me between profile and amp. This experience is just what it is: it is metaphysically objectively true.
    I've been in contact with kemper about everything but it does not seem to be getting us somewhere. If people are having similar issues they should open support tickets and let kemper know what is up -- it seems to be the best thing to do.

    This thread is full of audio samples, so yes, I was referring to comments with samples. There will always be people who aren't satisfied with something, no matter what it is. That doesn't concern me. My criteria for determining whether an issue is significant or trivial revolves around whether most people can hear it. If the vast majority can't identify a specific issue in a blind test, why should it be considered significant rather than trivial?


    Personally, I'm far more concerned with how the KPA sounds because that's the only thing people who listen to my music will notice.


    We need as many people as possible to contact support, and to do that we need to influence people by providing appropriate (ie. not exaggerated) evaluations of the issues.

    I can use bias fx, @ColdFrixion and get pretty damn good results. Again, pretty close to "people not being able to tell the difference". Pretty much the same as your test with youtube video's audio from the studio guy.


    This doesn't tell me everything there's to this though. If that's the way you see things, ok, great. But it's not the same for everyone. If for someone what is being described and shown is not an important issue I have no problem with that.


    For me it isn't. For quite a few it is not. The whole debate whether something is "trivial or not" is really uninteresting to me tbh. It's a highly evaluative judgement. My criteria also isn't so much about a "wider audience" out there. It's more specific than that. Fine either way.


    I do not know how to phrase something without "exaggerating" if what has been said previously is seen as such either. And in regards to strategy, it can also be claimed that dismissing things as "trivial" has the effect of kemper not taking them into consideration.


    I have provided them with quite a bit of well structured info. Will continue to do so; maybe I can get in contact with CK himself about these concerns.


    Anyway, continuation of progress will be on youtube!

    Also, the vast majority of users I think have not tried to profile their own amps - and more specifically, at certain amp settings or other parameters (return volume to kemper for instance). Personally, I'm glad that some people are working to get to the bottom of any tone/sound issues. It can only serve to make the kemper better, to the benefit of all.

    For me personally , while I do hear the subtle differences in the examples only a few have given me pause. I play mostly live and In a band context I can't really hear much difference at all. But I do hope you guys keep going, because as MIchael_DK said It only help the Kemper get better

    Quote from Dimi84

    I can use bias fx, @ColdFrixion and get pretty damn good results. Again, pretty close to "people not being able to tell the difference". Pretty much the same as your test with youtube video's audio from the studio guy.

    Without Amp Match, Bias FX is subpar, in my opinion. Further, Amp Match is basically just EQ matching under another name. While EQ matching can be very effective, the difference is that the tone you're using has to sound really similar to the tone you're trying to match in order for it to work effectively. Try using Amp Match with a tone that's fairly different than the one you're trying to match and see what happens. EQ matching can require a lot more effort to get accurate results than profiling and it's not as practical for those who gig, either.


    Quote from Dimi84

    If for someone what is being described and shown is not an important issue I have no problem with that.

    There will always be someone who thinks it's either a huge issue or a small issue. I'm not worried about what the vast minority think.


    Quote from Dimi84

    For me it isn't. For quite a few it is not. The whole debate whether something is "trivial or not" is really uninteresting to me tbh. It's a highly evaluative judgement. My criteria also isn't so much about a "wider audience" out there. It's more specific than that.


    Why should the KPA team care unless it's an issue most people can hear and are reporting?


    Quote from Dimi84

    I do not know how to phrase something without "exaggerating" if what has been said previously is seen as such either.


    It's when people invoke words like 'significant', 'non-trivial' and 'obvious' to describe issues that aren't necessarily significant, non-trivial or obvious.


    Quote from Dimi84

    And in regards to strategy, it can also be claimed that dismissing things as "trivial" has the effect of kemper not taking them into consideration.


    Like I said, when taken together, collectively, they may be considered significant. For example, a cough may be trivial on its own, but when paired with other symptoms (eg. earache, congestion and fever) it can be indicative of a significant issue.

    I am not saying bias fx is as good as kemper (even though it's much better than many will assume; I even have profiles of non-tone matched bias tone). Point is just that I can pretty well replicate the test you made, but using bias FX (you can btw use tone matched tones even on your iPhone in a gig - I did it for quite a time!)... which is to say that the test itself does not say all there's to it when it comes amps, guitar tones, ect. There's more than that.


    Now, you will also have people much prefer the kemper over bias fx... not because of what appear to be "significant" differences in tone in a mix. But take one guitarist in isolation, have them play both and what you consider to be "trivial" may be rather important to him. In fact, this happens all the time with real amps too, and guitar players, doesn't it? Small tonal differences = big ones in feel, and many preferring the kemper over say the axe fx for this reason too.


    There are also many people who have dismissed the KPA partly due to similar reasons described here (not saying I agree with every reason they may pose). You just don't hear from them here much -- I don't think firm conclusions can be drawn from the forums. I am not sure what your view of "majority" is. Who? Which group? People who profile amps? People who do not? Just someone listening back to a mix or blind test? You haven't even yourself profiled a real amp, correct?


    I agree that these issues together can be indicative of something wider that can be improved. As said, for me, the issue appears when something feels genuinely lacking in the profile when compared to playing through the real amp. For me "congestion" has been one way to describe this effect, comprised by whatever "sub effects", which have been documented on some level. And I have profiled what.. 20-25 amps maybe by now, if not more? Not with just me every time doing the refining, but involving other players... other experienced players doing the evaluation between profile and real amp.


    In fact, I've done a video with different guitarists testing profile vs amp, then offering their opinions. A few amps. It's not finished yet because I want to get a few big band names/guitarists in it still here in Finland, but I think it's quite revealing about the issues I myself have been documenting.


    It also shows how close the kemper can get; how differently people react to certain differences -- it has been very interesting going through this.


    I will be sending everything back to kemper as more info comes in anyway. I agree about support tickets -- if you have an issue, even a "smaller one", it is worth it reporting to kemper. If there is something bigger going wrong with the software it could be addressed. They may be able to put the puzzle together better anyway.


    Cheerios!

    Edited 2 times, last by Dimi84 ().

    Quote from Dimi84

    I am not saying bias fx is as good as kemper (even though it's much better than many will assume; I even have profiles of non-tone matched bias tone). Point is just that I can pretty well replicate the test you made, but using bias FX (you can btw use tone matched tones even on your iPhone in a gig - I did it for quite a time!)... which is to say that the test itself does not say all there's to it when it comes amps, guitar tones, ect. There's more than that.
    Now, you will also have people much prefer the kemper over bias fx... not because of what appear to be "significant" differences in tone in a mix. But take one guitarist in isolation, have them play both and what you consider to be "trivial" may be rather important to him. In fact, this happens all the time with real amps too, and guitar players, doesn't it?

    Sure, people have preferences. That's beside the point. The topic is whether (an) issue(s) that affects sound quality pertaining to the reproduction of a given tone is identifiable to most people. If most people who participate in a blind test can't identify said issue, is it really that significant? If 2% of the population have a sensitivity to electromagnetic fields while 98% can't reliably distinguish between exposure and non-exposure, should we consider electromagnetic hypersensitivity a significant issue? That isn't to say EMF isn't potentially a health issue, but if most people aren't sensitive to it and can't identify it, should it really be considered significant?


    Quote from Dimi84

    I am not sure what your view of "majority" is. Who? Which group? People who profile amps? People who do not? Just someone listening back to a mix or blind test?

    Majority being those I observe who participate on forums, in blind tests, on YouTube, write reviews, etc.


    Quote from Dimi84

    You haven't even yourself profiled a real amp, correct?

    I've heard this a few times now and in my opinion it's irrelevant. Why? I've never built a car. Does that mean I'm in no position to evaluate issues pertaining to how a car handles or drives? Do you have to be the president of the United States to evaluate the significance of issues that affect the country?


    An Axe FX may not be a real amp, but the same issues that affect a real amp also plague the Axe FX, but that hasn't changed my stance on them.

    Quote from ColdFrixion

    Sure, people have preferences. That's beside the point. The topic is whether (an) issue(s) that affects sound quality pertaining to the reproduction of a given tone is identifiable to most people. If most people who participate in a blind test can't identify said issue, is it really that significant? If 2% of the population have a sensitivity to electromagnetic fields while 98% can't reliably distinguish between exposure and non-exposure, should we consider electromagnetic hypersensitivity a significant issue? That isn't to say EMF isn't potentially a health issue, but if most people aren't sensitive to it and can't identify it, should it really be considered significant?

    Majority being those I observe who participate on forums, in blind tests, on YouTube, write reviews, etc.

    I've heard this a few times now and in my opinion it's irrelevant. Why? I've never built a car. Does that mean I'm in no position to evaluate issues pertaining to how a car handles or drives? Do you have to be the president of the United States to evaluate the significance of issues that affect the country?
    An Axe FX may not be a real amp, but the same issues that affect a real amp also plague the Axe FX, but that hasn't changed my stance on them.

    I don't agree with your points, or about having profiled amps -- the analogies don't add up to me there; but anyway, no point to go back and forth.


    Video on youtube later on more recent kemper findings. I will probably open a new thread about it.


    Cheerios

    Dimi, thanks so much for the continued efforts. I will go ahead and open another ticket at some point soon.


    @ColdFrixion Having some first hand experience profiling DOES matter in terms of properly understanding the specific problem we are discussing because only through that will you be able to fully appreciate the A/B comparison in tone and feel. Listening to other's clips is simply not the same.


    I think another thing that adds very strong evidence as to there being tone issues is that even some well known producers (who continued to be cited) are well known for having to employ very specific, non-obvious methods to the profiling process to get the KPA to capture things the way they feel it should. That fact should not be overlooked. In one breath some people like to refer to producers in studios using the KPA as if it has some kind of relevance, and yet many of those very producers have found they need to utilize special methods to get the KPA to profile properly for them.


    This is just one example of why the whole notion of studios and producers as having some relevance to the existence of tone abnormalities coming form the KPA or not is highly irrelevant IMO.


    Sonic

    Quote from SonicExporer

    Having some first hand experience profiling DOES matter in terms of properly understanding the specific problem we are discussing because only through that will you be able to fully appreciate the A/B comparison in tone and feel.

    If the vast minority are the only ones who can appreciate the issues and the vast majority can't identify at least some of them in a blind test, how are they significant?


    The debate isn't about whether you, I or anyone else can appreciate the issues or even if they exist (they do) but whether all of them are significant. The debate also isn't about whether Kemper Amps should fix the issues. I don't think anyone would argue against improving the KPA's accuracy.


    Quote from SonicExporer

    I think another thing that adds very strong evidence as to there being tone issues is that even some well known producers (who continued to be cited) are well known for having to employ very specific, non-obvious methods to the profiling process to get the KPA to capture things the way they feel it should. That fact should not be overlooked. In one breath some people like to refer to producers in studios using the KPA as if it has some kind of relevance, and yet many of those very producers have found they need to utilize special methods to get the KPA to profile properly for them.

    The only person I can think of that you're referring to is Michael Wagener.