I Intend to start a study about commercial profiles

Maybe my mind / ears plays tricks? I have little time today and will listen more closely this evening. But it totally sounded like a mic in the room was used for guitars too. This is what you get when you mic (an already miced sound again) over studio monitors. Could be, that I am wrong, but it would explain everything.

Hold the speculation - let me post an comparison with my Tele in a second.

Here it is. Same Michael Britt 9 - 3 profile:

https://drive.google.com/file/…1Aoxdp67/view?usp=sharing

Ruben, me, Ruben, me

Again: No effects locked in Kemper, opened the profile directly from RM, recorded into Apollo Twin analog ins, no effects in Cubase (insert or master).

Same conclusion as the last one for me: Obviously same profile but my 59' Tele sounds a bit different - not woolly at all though. I do prefer old strings - so that is part of it.

Conclusion #2: Frank this is a good a reason as ever to add a T-Style to your arsenal. You obviously dig the sound!

Quote from musicmad

Here it is. Same Michael Britt 9 - 3 profile:

https://drive.google.com/file/…1Aoxdp67/view?usp=sharing

Ruben, me, Ruben, me

Again: No effects locked in Kemper, opened the profile directly from RM, recorded into Apollo Twin analog ins, no effects in Cubase (insert or master).

Same conclusion as the last one for me: Obviously same profile but my 59' Tele sounds a bit different - not woolly at all though. I do prefer old strings - so that is part of it.

Conclusion #2: Frank this is a good a reason as ever to add a T-Style to your arsenal. You obviously dig the sound!

Display More

Thanks for your recording. I wonder why my first snap of the rubensound is so much clearer on my tune than your recording of rubens sound? Did you noticed that? My signal chain is kemper main out left and right to UR 242, from Steinberg UR242 direct into cubase, monitors are rokit rp6 g3 and for the punch I run a rcf 10 sma frfr slighly in the back. No eq between that. Is the apollo so diffrent to the steinberg ur242?

Man I like this samples and this analysis. This is so interesting. Hope I have a wow effect at least.

When you hear my first sample of this Mars profile the diffrence from Rubens sound to my sounds are very very big for me. Again , it sounds like there is a woolplate over my monitors.

Compared to your sample ( my ears):

Rubens part isn't so transparant than in mine recording. Your part is clearer than Rubens. That is crazy for me. Totally diffrent results here. I whish we could sit in one room with our equipment and test.......

Next whish was that Christoph Kemper or Burkhard would chime in and I would like to hear their thoughts about that.

Cheers
Frank

I just noticed, that in the description of the video I was listening, Ruben said: "at min. 10:00 the mic signal is not dimmed enough - sorry for that!!!"

So, I watched the video quickley from the middle on and what I was hearing was the mic signal mixed in

Yeah I do notice on your SC recording Rubens sound is more open. How do you obtain it? I use a YouTube downloader. Put it in Cubase, trim to the section, and record my guitar afterwards.

I'd like to think the Apollo is worth the money, however the difference shouldn't be that big. We could use SPDIF though from now on to compare. That would rule out the Apollo pres making a difference.

Quote from Ibot39

I just noticed, that in the description of the video I was listening, Ruben said: "at min. 10:00 the mic signal is not dimmed enough - sorry for that!!!"

So, I watched the video quickley from the middle on and what I was hearing was the mic signal mixed in

Actually it's also present in the part we are discussing. You can hear the acoustic pick attack in the video. Sounds like we are hearing both recorded and a bit of (albeit dimmed) microphone input from Ruben.

Still I'm able to get close enough to the sound.

Quote from musicmad

Yeah I do notice on your SC recording Rubens sound is more open. How do you obtain it? I use a YouTube downloader. Put it in Cubase, trim to the section, and record my guitar afterwards.

I'd like to think the Apollo is worth the money, however the difference shouldn't be that big. We could use SPDIF though from now on to compare. That would rule out the Apollo pres making a difference.

No spdif in the ur242. But I think it's not a sdif thing. I didn't download the file from youtube. I used my inputs 3 and 4 to record directly from the vid into cubase when vid is playing. No download between that. When rordind like this way I hear exactly the same out of cube what I've heard before over my monitors and I wonder where the highst are in your recording of Rubens part.

If you listen to a demo of a Marshall sound, and it is open and punchy, but, you get much more gain when you try it, have you tried turning down the volume on your guitar?

Many people set their amp Sounds for a solo tone with the guitar volume turned up, and lesser shades of gain as the guitar is turned down. The lower amounts of pickup output can open up the sound, too, depending on the guitar.

This thread is very interesting. Very grateful to Frank (Eltzejupp) for those examples. It's really not about "the volume knob being rolled a bit" or "action/attack/humidity level of the room is different" as we are talking about significant tonal differences. That might be a weird perspective but listen up. Professional musicians are in a business that is sometimes dirty. Making a living is hard and sometimes the ethics are put aside in order to advance ourselves career wise. There is no doubt that there is often if not always post processing on a lot of the demos from either the makers or the guys who try them (because they got them for free or some other perk?) deception is often part of the game. I've been in similar situations where some low tier company offer a big perk in exchange for vouching for their sub-par product... the rent is due, what do you do? I am obviously not talking about all these profilers but you get the point. I know which ones are more trustworthy.

First advice is to use critical thinking. I think it's relatively easy to see the profilers more concerned about trying to push their business than making good product. Then, see how you can perfect your own taste so that you can tweak this random Marshall profile from XX into something golden. Even the legendary Mpacheo Morgan AC20 seems to have pretty heavy tweaks with volume boost and EQ curve.

Quote from paults

If you listen to a demo of a Marshall sound, and it is open and punchy, but, you get much more gain when you try it, have you tried turning down the volume on your guitar?

Many people set their amp Sounds for a solo tone with the guitar volume turned up, and lesser shades of gain as the guitar is turned down. The lower amounts of pickup output can open up the sound, too, depending on the guitar.

Yes Paul, That was the first thing I have done, but I recorded with an fullmopen volume pod.

Quote from JedMckenna

This thread is very interesting. Very grateful to Frank (Eltzejupp) for those examples. It's really not about "the volume knob being rolled a bit" or "action/attack/humidity level of the room is different" as we are talking about significant tonal differences. That might be a weird perspective but listen up. Professional musicians are in a business that is sometimes dirty. Making a living is hard and sometimes the ethics are put aside in order to advance ourselves career wise. There is no doubt that there is often if not always post processing on a lot of the demos from either the makers or the guys who try them (because they got them for free or some other perk?) deception is often part of the game. I've been in similar situations where some low tier company offer a big perk in exchange for vouching for their sub-par product... the rent is due, what do you do? I am obviously not talking about all these profilers but you get the point. I know which ones are more trustworthy.

First advice is to use critical thinking. I think it's relatively easy to see the profilers more concerned about trying to push their business than making good product. Then, see how you can perfect your own taste so that you can tweak this random Marshall profile from XX into something golden. Even the legendary Mpacheo Morgan AC20 seems to have pretty heavy tweaks with volume boost and EQ curve.

Did you check my examples too? I get pretty much the same sound as in the video with the same style guitar.

Quote from Eltzejupp

No spdif in the ur242. But I think it's not a sdif thing. I didn't download the file from youtube. I used my inputs 3 and 4 to record directly from the vid into cubase when vid is playing. No download between that. When rordind like this way I hear exactly the same out of cube what I've heard before over my monitors and I wonder where the highst are in your recording of Rubens part.

Hm could you double check that? If I listen to your SC file next to the YouTube vid:

Timestamp 3:30

...your recording of Rubens sound has _much_ more high-end.

Nikolaj

Where do I find this Rubens video? Never mind-it was posted right before I asked the question.

It's linked right above. I have shared the audio from the video here as well:

https://drive.google.com/file/…qZdy3z6X/view?usp=sharing

The 9 3 Marshall example is approx. 3:30 in.

Nikolaj

After watching the video that guy is a heavy picker. If you're a light picker it will not even come close and sound dull. He picks hard and has awesome technique. Soft picking = dull soft tone. Heavy picking sound sharper and more bright. As usual just my opinion and not fact.

Quote from musicmad

It's linked right above. I have shared the audio from the video here as well:

https://drive.google.com/file/…qZdy3z6X/view?usp=sharing

The 9 3 Marshall example is approx. 3:30 in.

Nikolaj

Display More

Thanks!

The comparison clip with the 59 Tele shows that a similar guitar gives similar results.

That’s to be expected, with similar guitars. It would not be expected with less similar guitars. But, even two similar guitars, through the same amplifier will sound different.

Quote from schreckmusic

After watching the video that guy is a heavy picker. If you're a light picker it will not even come close and sound dull. He picks hard and has awesome technique. Soft picking = dull soft tone. Heavy picking sound sharper and more bright. As usual just my opinion and not fact.

And, he uses a combination of fingers and pick, as well as specifically mentioning in the video how important his use of the volume knob is to his style.

Quote from Eltzejupp

So here is the next test:

M Britt Kemper free pack

Profile 69 Mars 50 9 3

First you hear Ruben presenting the profile. A clear and open tone with punch. Love it.

Next in a row

-Luke II
-Jem with evolution pu
-Jem with paf pu
-Strat american standard
-Gibson Les Paul
-EVH Wolfgang

Crazy eh?! None reach this sound. It's like a woolplate over my monitors.

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.

Display More

Both of your examples are strikingly different from the original recording, I mean, it's not even close.

I can't simply attribute it to technique, but I suppose that may have something to do with it....?

I am wondering if has something to do with the KPA's extreme (IMO) oversensitivity to different guitars/pickups. But that doesn't make a whole lot of sense unless we consider this sensitivity to be so extreme that it is a legitimate issue (not a feature, but a bug) because you have several very high-quality guitars there.

Not sure what to make of it.

Do we know if Rubens Kemper had Pure Cabinet on (Kemper default setting is Pure Cabinet at 3)?