5.5.0.13341 Public Beta discussion

Quote from ckemper

Thanks everyone that you like our feature update!
Now that we talk digital audio rates again, it‘s time for resolving some digital myths.

If you have any device or software that sounds better at 48 than at 44.1, then it is very bad made.
Especially if a reverb would improve its sound at 48 kHz, it would be a hell of bad code. Can you name one?

There's so many myths about sampling rates that I was unaware of that I did learn while using the Kemper that when I compared the SPDIF at 44K with the analog outs (in 48K Project ) into my audio card that the difference I was hearing was due to the converters of my audio interface. Now Spdif at 44 and 48 and all other rates from the Kemper sound the same which is great and it makes sense.

However there was some projects that included software synths from Native Instruments (Absynth) and in the same project there was Trilogy by Spectrasonic. in Cubase. where as soon as I change the project sample rate from 48k to 44.1K the wow effect, the detail and some clarity in the reverbs for the overall project sounded less detailed. I also had external synths from Roland. again into cubase they sound better and more detailed at 48k using the same audio interface and same mixer. I know these Roland synths specs were 48khz so could it be that the software is optimized to sound best at the sample rate?

I read somewhere that higher sample rates even though the added frequencies they included can't be heard by human ears, their presence in the signal with other frequencies can result in added harmonics that can be heard by human ears.and those harmonics won't be in the signal unless the higher sample rate is used.

Quote from Dean_R

There's so many myths about sampling rates that I was unaware of that I did learn while using the Kemper that when I compared the SPDIF at 44K with the analog outs (in 48K Project ) into my audio card that the difference I was hearing was due to the converters of my audio interface. Now Spdif at 44 and 48 and all other rates from the Kemper sound the same which is great and it makes sense.
However there was some projects that included software synths from Native Instruments (Absynth) and in the same project there was Trilogy by Spectrasonic. in Cubase. where as soon as I change the project sample rate from 48k to 44.1K the wow effect, the detail and some clarity in the reverbs for the overall project sounded less detailed. I also had external synths from Roland. again into cubase they sound better and more detailed at 48k using the same audio interface and same mixer. I know these Roland synths specs were 48khz so could it be that the software is optimized to sound best at the sample rate?

I read somewhere that higher sample rates even though the added frequencies they included can't be heard by human ears, their presence in the signal with other frequencies can result in added harmonics that can be heard by human ears.and those harmonics won't be in the signal unless the higher sample rate is used.

Don’t rule out confirmation bias. The brain does strange things when it expects a difference. Just sayin’...

Quote from dahla

Don’t rule out confirmation bias. The brain does strange things when it expects a difference. Just sayin’...

You could be right for sure, I don't think that I have any exceptional hearing and I can be just imagining things due to the confirmation Bias. However this is a a small part of a project that I'm currently working on. It includes my custom patches from ABSYNTH and trilogy for bass. Ignore the drums and the fact there's no mastering or final mixing involved in either of the files (and this is still in the sketching stage). There identical except that I changed the project sample rate from 44 to 48 and removed the guitar parts. Can you hear any difference? Is one more clearer and more detailed than the other?

. I might be splitting hairs but I like the 48KHZ better. I'm not disclosing which one it is so that there would be no confirmation bias but I would really like to get to the bottom of this and if no one can hear a difference or have a preference, I will seriously go get my hearing checked (maybe it's about time ). So I'm listening through Studio Monitors in the proper location of the triangle so maybe there would be no detectable difference in less accurate mediums, I'm not sure yet. Please chime in

Quote from Dean_R

last night I used the Transpose and wow, I couldn't detect any latency. It seemed different than when I tried it a couple of years ago, not sure if latency was updated in this most recent update or before, but this is very playable.

I see nobody's answered you and you've been patient, Deano.

IIRC, the Transpose algorithm was optimised last year whereby its accuracy (smoothness?) and latency were improved. My guess is that if it's not the same algorithm, it'd be based on that one, perhaps developed even further, but either way, it's superior to the pre-2017-tweak one that produced noticeable latency.

I remember our discussing it here on the board, and we all agreed that it was something that we'd just have to live with, the nature of the beast, as it were, what with the minimum number of waveform cycles required to detect pitch and so on.

Thankfully the K-Team™ took the time to further optimise it last year, and who knows, possibly even once again for this FW update.

Quote from Dean_R

External Content soundcloud.com

Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.

Display all external content

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.

External Content soundcloud.com

Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.

Display all external content

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 listened using a Sennheiser Game 1 PC headset - non USB. I took a first impression, and then tried again twice:
Sample 1 sounded more clinical - somewhat flat in affect.
Sample 2 sounded warmer to me, had more character, instead of dry precision.

Not sure how I scored there, but that's what I heard.

Might as well add again that I like high sample-rate clocks while working in a DAW, if I'm only fooling myself that higher sample rates sound better - to me, that's fine, I'm enjoying the process of coming to my own conclusions. 96KHz rocks, now over S/PDIF! I'll sizzle the heat grease on my i7 CPU, while trying to put a dent in a 10Tb drive.

Thanks again to the KPA team for the new clock settings, very happy with the new cabling options.

Quote from Monkey_Man

I remember our discussing it here on the board, and we all agreed that it was something that we'd just have to live with, the nature of the beast, as it were, what with the minimum number of waveform cycles required to detect pitch and so on.

I would assume the detect pitch part is not needed for a transpose function though. Just a thought. For sure for the harmonizer but not a simple transpose function.

Quote from sambrox

Listening on Nuraphones, I don’t hear a difference. Soundcloud would surely compress the file format, though no? In that case, you may as well convert one or the other to the other’s sample rate and invert the phase on one, to see if they null. Theoretically, all you’d possibly hear would be any kind of dither noise.

Thank you very much for listening Sam. What I personally hear is some better stereo separation and it's actually not just subtle and I can the difference in clarity hear i evident for instant, in second 2 when the pad Kicks in. If I'm not paying attention they're very close. I will follow your suggestion, to see if they null, but I will also ask my trusted friend (my wife) if she can hear any difference. She has amazing hearing. Just to clarify, those two files are the same incidental format, the difference was in the sample rate of the multi track project for each which makes the test relevant fo the purpose of the issue at hand..

Quote from JSB

I listened using a Sennheiser Game 1 PC headset - non USB. I took a first impression, and then tried again twice:Sample 1 sounded more clinical - somewhat flat in affect.
Sample 2 sounded warmer to me, had more character, instead of dry precision.

Not sure how I scored there, but that's what I heard.

Might as well add again that I like high sample-rate clocks while working in a DAW, if I'm only fooling myself that higher sample rates sound better - to me, that's fine, I'm enjoying the process of coming to my own conclusions. 96KHz rocks, now over S/PDIF! I'll sizzle the heat grease on my i7 CPU, while trying to put a dent in a 10Tb drive.

Thanks again to the KPA team for the new clock settings, very happy with the new cabling options.

Display More

Thank you very much for listening, You certainly make some very valid observation as sample 2 was a result of the higher sample rate in the project setting , 48k instead of 44/1 everything else was equal including the mix down. as both files were converted to same MP3 format.

Quote from ckemper

Thanks everyone that you like our feature update!
Now that we talk digital audio rates again, it‘s time for resolving some digital myths.

If you have any device or software that sounds better at 48 than at 44.1, then it is very bad made.
Especially if a reverb would improve its sound at 48 kHz, it would be a hell of bad code. Can you name one?

Quote from ckemper

Not true. There is no means for improving the sound quality for a digital device by outputting a higher sample rate on the digital output.

Nice to hear from the great man himself, commeth down from the mountain every once in a while! Thanks, Mr CK!

I'm really happy with the stereo solution for the direct and monitor output. Now everyone with a stereo power amp can run two cabinets.

Hi guys!

SQL LITE ERROR with the new beta - Recovery needed and great ! I lost my stuff

Yikes!

You did of course save a backup using the KPA's Backup / Restore function like a good little Kemperite before attempting the upgrade, so no protection film off your LCD... I mean, skin off your nose, right?

Quote from Monkey_Man

Yikes!

You did of course save a backup using the KPA's Backup / Restore function like a good little Kemperite before attempting the upgrade, so no protection film off your LCD... I mean, skin off your nose, right?

Not in the World Backup Day Some have and some new stuff don't as an IT dude I do always backup after promove something to production, today I've broke that basic rule so ... Murphy Laws

D'Oh!

Happens so often in life ~ that one time you don't do what you do religiously, something happens...

Thank you, Mr. Murphy.

Strobo Tuner percentage is still wrong.
Anyone else noticed ?

if it isn't backed up,, 3 times,, it does not exist,,,
I have 3 USB sticks, one is velcroed to the front of the kemper,,
Every time I make any change, I do a backup on the stick, if something ever hiccups on a gig or session, in goes the stick,Hit restore, I am back in the game in under 5 min,

Quote from Peromustejn

Strobo Tuner percentage is still wrong.
Anyone else noticed ?

Yes, this seems unfortunately true
@Burkhard is this already reported?

Quote from Dean_R

I think what CK said was the the converters latency is less than 600 Nano Second which means basically no latency. One nano second is one thousand-millionth of a second or one billionth of a second, but you never know some folks can very well claim than they can sense one nano second latency

Sorry, I was not accurate. The added latency is about 600 microseconds. This is equal to 0.6 milliseconds.

Quote from ckemper

Sorry, I was not accurate. The added latency is about 600 microseconds. This is equal to 0.6 milliseconds.

No easter holiday?

Awesome. Thank you very much!

Does the overall latency (input to output) change with higher sample rates?