Kemper vs. Real Amp Test - Cameron CCV

  • It was a general reference. When tracks are layered even small differences can become even more noticeable. For example a quad tracked panoramic will usually exhibit more prominently any deficiencies than a single track, or even a stereo track. 1 db cut or boost in the pair of frequencies we have been discussing will absolutely be distinguishable in most scenarios. If had the time to create a parallel clip demonstrating this I would, but the KPA has already consumed way more time than I initially anticipated. Anyway, try it for yourself if you doubt, just make sure the Q isn't unrealistically narrow. If you try it and cannot hear a difference then your monitoring setup is where the problem lies. That said, we are not talking just frequencies, there's likely more going on in the gain structure itself (or other attributes) which all combined we hear as frequency differences.

    The video Michael_dk posted pretty much makes the case for the stacking myth. That said, EQ is a large part of it. I posted this earlier, but after EQ'ing the original clip posted by the OP, the differences are fairly inconsequential. I mean, there's a difference in the gating between palm mutes, but tonally they're fairly identical:


    External Content soundcloud.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

  • Luckily you don't have to - it (effect of layering) has already been demonstrated here:

    Do the actual test with quad panoramic guitar tracks, boost or cut 1 db around 600hz-800hz and another 1db around 1.5k-2k, and you'll hear a difference accentuated. You should be able to hear the difference with a single track actually as well.


    If you can't figure out why this video is not demonstrating the same paradigm there's no point in me wasting any time explaining it.

  • Do the actual test with quad panoramic guitar tracks, boost or cut 1 db around 600hz-800hz and another 1db around 1.5k-2k, and you'll hear a difference accentuated. You should be able to hear the difference with a single track actually as well.
    If you can't figure out why this video is not demonstrating the same paradigm there's no point in me wasting any time explaining it.

    If you can hear it in one track you will hear it in the master as well. All I'm saying is that if you apply an identical 1dB cut across multiple tracks, the net result is simply the same as an identical 1dB cut across a sum of those tracks. It doesn't compound.

  • I guessed wrong.


    But my experience is similar to some that while the Kemper gets very close there are usually some differences.. perhaps not just about "EQ" per se. "Body" is somehow lacking.


    Lengthy comparison I did here.. Experiences profiling my Orange and a Mesa have been similar.


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

  • yeah it would be simply great if the Kemper guys can fix this somehow ...


    I mean untli now the kemper is the only digital thing that reproduces the dynamic and "real" feeling of the amps the last thing really is just that thing ... (and maybe the cab profiling)

  • btw a real booster infront of the kemper works wonders! preferably the ocd or the dod 250 something more linear then the tubescreamer

  • If you can hear it in one track you will hear it in the master as well. All I'm saying is that if you apply an identical 1dB cut across multiple tracks, the net result is simply the same as an identical 1dB cut across a sum of those tracks. It doesn't compound.

    You are arguing something that isn't fully in alignment with the discussion. What the video presents is a signal math argument of a different scenario.


    Your ears will perceive something different in the case of a multi-tracked panoramic instrument with alterations (even minor) to it's critical frequencies. Moreso than a single track for example. As I said, do the actual test for yourself.

  • You are arguing something that isn't fully in alignment with the discussion. What the video presents is a signal math argument of a different scenario.
    Your ears will perceive something different in the case of a multi-tracked panoramic instrument with alterations (even minor) to it's critical frequencies. Moreso than a single track for example. As I said, do the actual test for yourself.

    Are you referring to a multitrack mix with different pan settings?

  • But my experience is similar to some that while the Kemper gets very close there are usually some differences.. perhaps not just about "EQ" per se. "Body" is somehow lacking.


    Lengthy comparison I did here.. Experiences profiling my Orange and a Mesa have been similar.


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Excellent example, same thing we are discussing. "Somehow lacking body" is a fair depiction. It's that same low/low-mid area and upper mid area that just isn't the same. Sometimes it waffles around in the video but is reasonably consistent. Of course the fact it is being played by hand probably explains some of the variation, but clearly it demonstrates the issue we are hearing.


    Out of curiosity, did you do any refining or was this just the initial profile pass?

  • Being rather new, does somebody else more senior to the KPA want to ping Kemper Support about this or has this already been asked before?


    There may be a reason why the KPA behaves this way. In fact I strongly suspect there is, and probably well understood by now inside Kemper. If we as users understood why, and had guidance on various methods to compensate (or refine during profiling) it would be really helpful. But sometimes this is feeling like a religious cult that doesn't want to admit any shortcoming for fear of exposing something. So I'd rather not waste my time if people have already tried getting answers on this matter, nor tweaking myself into infinity. Without some guidance there's simply too many variables and permutations to chase.


    Sonic

  • It's not the same scenario, if you guys can't figure out why and don't want to do the test for yourselves then I can't help you. This is getting off topic anyway.

    I just tested this with 4 tracks, 2 of which were panned hard right and left, the other two panned slightly off center. I added an EQ to all of the individual tracks and boosted 3.5k by 4dB and mixed those tracks down. I then performed a mixdown without any EQ on the individual tracks and added a single instance of an EQ with the same boost at the same frequency. What was the difference? Absolutely nothing. The tracks nulled perfectly.


    External Content soundcloud.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

  • I just tested this with 4 tracks, 2 of which were panned hard right and left, the other two panned slightly off center. I added an EQ to all of the individual tracks and boosted 3.5k by 4dB and mixed those tracks down. I then performed a mixdown without any EQ on the individual tracks and added a single instance of an EQ with the same boost at the same frequency. What was the difference? Absolutely nothing. The tracks nulled perfectly.

    Yay for math working!


    Just to be sure, those were four separate performances, right?

  • I agree with Sonic and Shreck about a slight difference in the fullness/low-mid, but I agree with ColdFrixion about the differences not increasing in magnitude across multiple tracks. I actually like the Kemperized versions better, they sound tighter to me and would probably work better in my mixes. But the differences are still small to me and not worth caring about in the big picture. They still sound like real amps to me, which is where modelers (even the good ones) lack.


    Here's a thought on what might be causing the issue: The KPA algorithm isn't designed to capture reverberation. Even a close miked amp isn't immune to reverberations, modes, and early reflections completely. Maybe these subtle cues are responsible for the loss of 3D and body, effectively making the Kemperized sound more like jt was miked in an anechoic chamber.

    I hate emojis, but I hate being misunderstood more. :)

  • I just tested this with 4 tracks, 2 of which were panned hard right and left, the other two panned slightly off center. I added an EQ to all of the individual tracks and boosted 3.5k by 4dB and mixed those tracks down. I then performed a mixdown without any EQ on the individual tracks and added a single instance of an EQ with the same boost at the same frequency. What was the difference? Absolutely nothing. The tracks nulled perfectly.

    External Content soundcloud.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Look, you guys are on fringe of the weeds still and are distracting from the core issue with the KPA being discussed. You either aren't getting it, or are trying to intentionally divert from the main topic. I know what I've said to be correct, when I have time at some point I'll put something together to demonstrate what I'm referring to. Furthermore a single 3.5K bump isn't in the area of guitar frequencies being discussed. You are looking at two areas simultaenously - one in the sub 1K and and one over 1K. For example 500 & 1.8K . 3.5K would be considered top end on a guitar tone (distortion harmonics aside). Sound perception is the resultant not the summing math.

  • Excellent example, same thing we are discussing. "Somehow lacking body" is a fair depiction. It's that same low/low-mid area and upper mid area that just isn't the same. Sometimes it waffles around in the video but is reasonably consistent. Of course the fact it is being played by hand probably explains some of the variation, but clearly it demonstrates the issue we are hearing.
    Out of curiosity, did you do any refining or was this just the initial profile pass?

    Yes, there is variation due to the playing, but I also agree that overall what the profile is missing is fairly consistent throughout the video (sometimes more noticable, others less, of course). I am not knowlagable enough to describe this difference in technical terms of an engineer but I do know it's there.

    I tried refining by playing the opposite of what I felt the missing frequencies were (as Wagener suggests) and also by playing riffs where I feel there issue is seen most (as CK suggests). I also tried not refining at all. I kept the profile I felt was the closest.. but there was no big difference, really -- all profiles seemed to lack what you are describing.


    I also played with the power sag, tube shape, definition parameters but did not feel these got me any closer to the amp tone.