Posts by lbieber

    I haven't tried to replicate your experience, but what I hear in the video is most likely technique. A pretty wide range of muting techniques are possible with the back of the fingers, nails and finger tips when using this kind of muting. Knopfler and Cooder are both pretty heavy users of this type of muting and the results can very a lot. The video sounds like right hand muting in combination with a well timed left hand mute. Perhaps that is what you are hearing? It sounds like a punch followed by a very fast left hand mute.

    I'm not getting into that "I am right and you are wrong" mode of discussions.

    All I'm saying is that a recording of a mic'ed amp (and that's what a Kemper profiles are to some extent) sounds different that what you hear in the room (normal listening position). An amp that sounds great to you at your listening position may actually sound horrible, with over-the-top high-frequency content (sic!) if you stuck your ear where your microphone is.

    There are different ways of dealing with this - choosing the right mic and position is part of the solution, post-mic equalization another.

    I was not making a right or wrong comment. I was simply saying that we could put our ear or a mic in a lot of bad listening positions. Further, I would never tweak a guitar tone for any of these bad listening positions.

    I think those of us with even limited experience know that the sound changes on and off axis and with distance. Back to my original comment, I can't think of any playing situation for which I want to retain unpleasant, high frequency content.

    I could stick a tweater into my earhole and get a horrible result, but that would be stupid. I am speaking about a normal listening position which may be hard to define and would merit discussion, but what happens at the micro level is not what I would call normal.

    The variation in tone from the dust cover to the edge of the cone of a guitar speaker is immense. Which is why guitar micing techniques are important. Distance is also a big factor.

    The best recorderd guitar tones are not close mic'd on the dust cover IMO. And no profile should be made with the mic close and at the center of the cone. So, sure we can imagine dumb places to locate our ear/mic and then say it is unpleasant.

    what does this mean, so you don't do any mixing of the kemper signal at all? just all micing ?

    It actually means he is not recording an acoustic guitar at all. He is trying to approximate a real acoustic guitar by using an electric guitar plugged into the Kemper to simlulate what you are trying to do with an actual acoustic. We are all free to try what we want, but his comments have almost nothing to do with your question.

    okay gotcha, yeah I am stereo mic'ing the guitar between the soundhole and the 12th fret. I just thought adding the kemper into the equation, with the levels way down, so its not that artifcial pickup sound, would give it an even fatter or "bigger" studio sound.

    What you are doing is worth a try. It's always hard to describe sound with words, but a fatter sound can come from several places. Mic more of the body or soundhole. Change playing technique. Find another instrument - a lot of variation here. Double the track if the track lends itself to that. Not a fan of cloning, but YMMV. Use some light compression to provide a more consistent sound foundation.

    is that in isolation, or in mix context?
    a lot of unpleasant high frequency content, that even tube amps generate, is masked by cymbals, but carry important transients that make the up most of the note attacks.

    In every context.

    I don't agree that there is any unpleasant, high frequency content that contains important transients. I can't think of any playing situation for which I want to retain unpleasant, high frequency content that needs to be masked by anything. To each his own I suppose. Thinking about it, maybe some metal or other specialized sounds might need that, but that's not what I play.

    I have designed and built many tube amps over the decades. I also own(ed) many tube amps. Never dialed up a tone that needed unpleasant, high frequency content to get a good a sound. Sure, some amps are capable of putting that out. Many Marshall's in particular went the way of horrible, bright tones. As did many other amps. Those are the amps to stay away from or modify IMO. Also, I have never agreed that I should use additive EQ (i.e. add treble) to a guitar sound to sit in a mix properly. If it isn't sitting in the mix it is usually because of frequency congestion for which subtractive EQ (of one or several instruments) will solve the problem. All of my tube amp experiences are with guitar cabs with limited frequency response. Connect a full range speaker and you have the opportunity for even more high frequency trash.

    My approach with the Kemper is to use a PA, full range type of speaker as a monitor. The Kemper is ulitmately connect to the FOH PA anyway. This gives me the possibility for a matched tone between the two. This leads to the problem of getting rid of unpleasant, high frequencies. Pure cab, hi cut, presence cut, treble cut all are necessary for me to get the sound right.

    Sorry, this got way off topic from the OP.

    Depends on the type of sound you are after, but I would not rely on any pickup system to record an acoustic. We are talking about strictly recording, correct? I would use a pickup system live but not to record. My goal is to capture the acoustic nature of the instrument and pickup systems get in the way of that.

    For me it is about mic placement. I tend to place a mic somewhere in the area between the soundhole and the 12th fret. Small changes make a big difference. I have had success with dynamic, condensor and ribbon mics.

    I see no reason to involve the Kemper in the recording of a tradiional acoustic guitar.

    Paul I know it has the fast and slow foot switch but the thing it is missing is the ramp up and down speed. A Leslie is a mechanical beast and you actually play it like an instrument.

    The Kemper rotary has a ramp up and down speed. You want it to be controllable, correct? Different Leslie models ramp up and down at different speeds, such as a 147, 122, 125, etc... Those can only be slightly adjusted and mostly via belt tension on the lower rotor only. I think Kemper has stated that the ramp up and down works just like a real Leslie. But I have wondered which real Leslie does is mimic? It can't mimic more than one model as it is currently implemented.

    In the end, I am in favor separate, adjustable controls for the upper and lower frequencies. This is what Kemper should implement if they want the rotary effect to match real rotary speakers.

    Welcome and best of luck with yours. There is a lot of debate about speakers. Some swear by the Kab. I find a quality, but run of the mill, PA monitor allows for the most consistent tone considering all the possible scenarios. To be clear, I am not referring to 'specialized' FRFR monitors.

    numbers like this really mean nothing.

    Simply copying numbers will honestly get you nowhere I'm afraid - trust your ears.

    Huh? I don't see the logic here. If one looks at the attached plot the -3dB points are approximately 75 and 5kHz. Setting the cuts to those values will absolutely get you more than nowhere. Yes, I agree that one would want to use their ears. But if I were deaf (thankfully I'm not, yet ;)) these settings would be a relatively good approximation and would be much better than nothing. The cuts are simple hi and lo cut, so none of the frequency response detail (comb-like response) is accounted for with the cut filters, but that's the nature of filter approximation.

    IME, the cabinet model never properly accounts for the high frequency issues that the Kemper commonly reproduces through FRFR speakers. This might be due to micing techniques and could be why some profiles are better in this respect than others. I never like the result of a mic placed near the center of the cone. The highs are never pleasant for me in that case.

    There is a lot of nuance in this discussion regarding harmonics and overtones. There are also undertones as well as sum and difference fequencies which I don't think have been mentioned. Or I missed it? Some of the signal processing theory in this discussion is based on linear system theory, but much of what is implemented in guitar amps is nonlinear.

    I think it is safe to assume that Kemper uses the words harmonics and overtones in a loose way. The manual states 'Vintage amps distort the lower harmonics in the guitar signal which gives them their bluesy sound' This wording is potentially misleading and certainly non-specific. As such, I don't think it merits much technical discussion. So, what is left is purely pontification. The statement in the manual is almost useless, which is why I think the post was started. What does it mean to distort the lower harmonics? Does it mean to change relative amplitude, phase, frequency? And what does bluesy mean? Does it mean that it retains even order harmonics rather than resulting in odd order(more square wave) behavior? Defintely maybe. ;)

    One can discuss and dive into the details that Helmholtz originally formulated. It is certainly interesting, but I don't think the wording in the manual warrants a discussion at that level. The wording in the manual is 'flowery' and pretty much devoid of any useful technical merit.

    The original question will not be resolved until Kemper describes definition in a meaningful, technical way. My $0.02.

    There is a digital board with bad sounding effects? I can say that I haven't experienced that one yet. They are all basically software plugins. There are usually multiple types of reverb in them as well as multiple versions of the other effects in them.

    Yes there are bad sounding effects. The fact that they are implemented in software and that there might be multiple types doesn't mean any of them are high quality. I don't get the logic?

    Reverb, especially, is an effect that is sensitive to the way it is implemented. This is why many of the big companies have their own algorithms. This is essentially why Eventide, Strymon, TC, Lexicon, etc... all claim to be the best and why users prefer one over the other. Companies making digital mixers Mackie, Behringer, Presonus, etc... are generally focused on the product as a digital mixer with added effect options. They are not focused on implementing the best effects and the proof is in the sound. I thought this was common knowledge.

    Turned up in Texas 8)

    External Content
    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.

    That takes me waaaay back. Started playing that one at 15 yrs old. Fun stuff