Posts by Crispy Panther

He’s sadly no longer with us.

But I knew a recording engineer who when he was about to mix a recording, would set up eight separate channels of reverb from the chamber.

Each channel would have double the amount of reverb than the one before it, and they would range from an absolutely minimal amount detectable to the maximum that might be required.

Every voice or instrument in the mix would have the relevant amount of reverb to induce a natural acoustic sound suited to it, and with eight different levels already pre-set he could quickly build a live sounding mix that was very well balanced.

With every element featuring some degree of the same natural effect, (Reverb is by tradition the most commonly used effect in recording studios), it would create a homogenous sense of all the voices and players being simultaneously present in the same room.

Though, to be honest, some parts were recorded in one continent and other sections in another continent in studios thousands of miles apart. The point is, this method created a kind of natural sounding “sonic glue” that enabled all the disparate elements of the mix, to combine in a way that recreated the sense of a live session.

For sure there are different approaches to production and I have lived through periods of differing fashions in sound production.

When recordings were flooded with reverb, to dead sounding, totally isolated sounds were there was no mic bleed, reverb or sense of the room at all, and back to reverb again, like a revolving circle.

Whilst most engineers today would desperately try to eliminate all mic bleed from their recordings, my friend would actively use mic bleed in a positive manner, especially in situations when it might be hard to completely eliminate it. Again, using a little of it, like the reverb to create a type of “glue” that helped the various parts involved, stick together sonically.

His recordings were the most natural sounding, I personally have ever heard and very experienced artists that worked with him, would be amazed entering the control room, after the first take.

“It sounds like a finished recording already” would be a typical comment!

Whilst many engineers are doing all they can to eliminate the room sound, deaden the sound and totally prevent any mic bleed whatever.

And to be honest there were specific elements he would definitely do all he could to prevent spill into the mic from other sources (lead vocal for instance), but he would largely do the opposite, and with the reverbs already set up before a session started, could work very quickly and create a very naturally sounding acoustic setting.

A large diamond wouldn’t look half as good as it does if it wasn’t for the setting in which it was framed.

He created a setting, in which musical jewels, could dazzle at their scintillating brightest.

Quote: “All Guitars Matter. Please support! ”

Indeed!

Perhaps far more than we ever realised.

Buying guitar extends life – :>)azZTechs# (jaazz.me)

Quote: “what is the purpose of a 335 besides looks?”

It is an instrument that signals and facilitates a point of transition.

Most players of that era used large, hollow bodied, cello guitars, and solid body guitars were the new kid on the block.

After a short while Gibson stopped making Les Pauls completely, because no one wanted them and very few of any musical significance, were playing them.

The thinline 335 was more sculpted to fit the human body than a traditional cello guitar and more comfortable to hold. Its neck set angle superior, whereas early Les Pauls had their neck set completely incorrectly and it took a while to sort that out. With its interior solid block, the 335 eliminated typical feed-back problems associated with earlier cello designs.

People tend to buy the type of guitar played by the artists they most admire, (which is quite the wrong way to chose a guitar), but that’s what they do and probably everybody here is guilty of that phenomenon. So at a time when large and deep bodied cellos were the main electric instrument performed with, the 335 combines the luthier skills required of a hollow body, retaining skilled workers, and had all the advantages of a solid body instrument, but that was easier and more comfortable to hold. It was a better evolved but traditional design, and one of the few very best ever conceived.

If you will forgive some history, a good way to think about this is to reflect on big bands and popular orchestras during the first half of the last century.

Guitars were not used at all. They couldn’t compete acoustically. Banjos were the rhythms instrument of choice because their sharp tone was able to cut through the orchestra.

Certain instruments have tonal characteristics that belie their size and are able to cut through a full orchestra playing “Tutti”. A tambourine is one, a triangle another, and the banjo has a little of that edge.

When larger bodied cello guitars with improved acoustics were finally introduced into big bands and popular orchestras, the two bottom strings were omitted, because those pitches still couldn’t cut through and be heard.

This made them easy to play for banjo players used to only four strings, and the necks on guitars were set into the instruments body was moved, usually to the 14^th fret from the traditional 12^th fret, as banjo players were used to a longer neck with easier facility higher up the scale.

So, the cello guitars of that period were four stringed instruments, and Gibson a leading maker of them. Later, exceptionally large cello guitars with superior acoustic projection were developed and six stringed instruments were used in small bands and orchestras just as P.A. systems developed used mainly for singers.

Eventually, the electric guitar pickup was developed, which when coupled with an amplifier was capable of boosting the instruments tonal projection, enabling it to compete with trumpets etc.

So above is described an era of musical transition for banjo-guitar like instruments.

But the 335 sits as a perfect example of the culmination and combination of instrument building skills and a pinnacle of evolutionary design in a later era of transition beyond the world of banjos, four stringed cello guitars and immensely large bodied instruments made for additional acoustic projection.

Lots more could be written about this, but I have a busy day today.

Quote: "The tube in it adds a little something cool"

That is most unusual.

All my tubes heat up!

Brilliant!

Many Thanks

Quote: “This can also effect the tone.”

You are absolutely correct.

I first learnt that from bassist Carol Kaye many years ago.

But even so, thought it worth trying if it could deliver a possible solution to the problem.

Even if it does alter the tone, it’s not at all beyond the realms of possibility that he might prefer the way it subsequently sounds.

In classic studies in musical form and performance years ago, we used a technical term speaking of an instrument’s “volume of tone.”

In other words, there is a living, symbiotic relationship that musical instruments possess that enables and projects emotive expression in regard to volume and tonality

Whereas most audio engineers and people with Hi-Fi’s one meets, tend to think to “volume” and “tone” as entirely separate entities. After all, designers give them entirely separate knobs.

But you are right and I congratulate you for making this important distinction. Whenever one alters an instruments volume simply by touch or by some other method, the tonality produced thereby, will differ to a lesser or greater degree.

Also, when the human beings hear sound at differing levels. Due to the manner in which our ears and brain perceive sound, and an inadequacy of the human ear the balance of its tonality can be apperceived to have altered in quality or intensity. *

So, for sure that can happen, but usually that effect with electric guitars its most noticeable with older instruments or those utilising audio taper pots a particular feature of vintage instruments.

Modern instrument’s mainly with linear taper pots, generally don’t seem so prone to the effect. I don’t know what type of instrument the thread originator is using. But to my mind at least thought it worth a try!

If it did provide a solution, he is good to go.

Whereas with all possible respect, it should be self-evident that the wish list of work-flow, additional control knobs and dedicated DI level controls helpfully suggested, are unlikely to be implemented quickly, if ever at all.

*Because of this phenomenon, it’s worth considering that when mixing sound, to monitor at high or excessive volume levels will sway one’s assessment of the balance of sound.

Typically, as volume increases, our perception of the level of bass is most significantly increased along with some perception of treble. However, the majority of typical consumers usually listen at more modestly moderate levels, for obvious reasons.

In doing so, the balance of any mix created at excessive volume levels can subsequently be out of kilter from that actually sought and desired as a direct consequence, simply of monitoring level.

Therefore, it’s usually far better to mix at a lower level than a high level. Typically mixes monitored at moderate levels, (so one can speak to someone without raising one’s voice) work well, holding together as the level is raised.

Whereas, a mix monitored at an excessive level, when listened to by consumers at a more moderate level will typically be found to be lacking most significantly in bass, although the treble end is also affected. Again, this should be self-evident.

Health and Safety regulations in regard to audio engineering differ somewhat in Europe and the United States.

But in more recent years, have been revised downward. We only get one set of ears to last a lifetime.

Thank you for your thought provoking comment!

Quote: “The cables you linked are the right ones. I own and use the RME UFX+ and that's exactly how I have (digitally) connected one of my Profilers.

PS: And I almost forgot to mention that in my studio in Kathmandu, we use the RME UFX II and Profiler exactly the same way as well. So I have basically double proof that it's correct, haha.”

Thank you so much for the confirmation.

I know it will probably seem a redundant question to many, but I prefer to ask people that are experienced with the kit than to make assumptions.

Assumption is the mother of all mess ups I understand!

The cables should be here tomorrow.

Thanks again!

Use the volume controls on your Guitar.

Many thanks for your helpful thoughts and comments.

In regard to my question at the bottom of post 1, I wonder whether someone from Kemper could confirm the type of cable linked above are correct for the purpose of recording from the Kemper digitally?

I was informed that “best practise” is to use a digital convertor, but that scenario was not needed in many cases. I respect the source the information came from and usually try to follow “best practice” but am hoping this is one such case. That using these cables is ok for the stated purpose?

To connect the Kemper to my UFX II RME recording interface digitally, I understand I need two 110 Ohm 2 metre cables, Spdif to AES XLR male and Spdif to XLR female for in and out.

I believe both in and out cables are necessary, for the two devices to fully sync correctly with the interface. Please educate me if I am incorrect, or if there is a more optimal method of direct connection between the two devices.

Custom Lynx 110 Ohm AES/EBU Female XLR to RCA Phono Cable – Custom Lynx (custom-lynx.co.uk)

Custom Lynx 110 Ohm AES/EBU Male XLR to RCA Phono Cable – Custom Lynx (custom-lynx.co.uk)

The cables above are what I am thinking of getting. will they be ok?

Many Thanks!

Watch Jeff Beck geek out over his favourite guitars - YouTube

Quote: “Wow. Looks like they had Pete Townshend cut that hole! It's a Frankenstein.” for sure.

Quote: “I'm becoming more and more convinced that the guitar was originally built without electronics.

The electronics could have been upgraded in the late 50's or early 60's.

Your last picture in particular brings me to this conviction.”

It’s entirely outside all realms of probability that any guitar manufacturer would so savagely create such a travesty.

In any case, such major hole cutting would have been processed long before the finish was applied, not afterward, as is the clear case in this instance.

To be frank. To me at least, it confirms earlier views expressed, along with comments from Marcus Aurelius. That the best way to determine who originally manufactured this instrument, is to discount and ignore all the hardware completely.

To exclusively use the body, neck, finish and their concomitant accoutrements (bindings etc.) alone, directly comparing them by experience to other contemporaneous instrument examples from the period. A task only someone with acquaintance of such instruments, practical experience of them is likely to be able to accomplish, ideally by handling them.

However, it confirms the notion that the instrument is fabricated from disparate parts sourced from a number of various manufacturers. There seems no doubt of that.

I would like to thank everyone who has contributed with such excellence and politeness to this interesting voyage of discovery.

Quote: “I don't know how to adjust my crossovers on my sub or my monitors to work together.”

Bob's a nice man and a great mastering engineer, the author of Mastering Audio the Art and the Science.

His blog is designed to help you set up your sub and monitors without specialised equipment.

Subwoofers - Digido.com

Many Framus models used identical electronics .

https://www.framus-vintage.de/en/Guitars/Thinline/

5/114-52 Fret Jet (framus-vintage.de)

5/116-52 New Sound (framus-vintage.de)

5/116-52 New Sound (framus-vintage.de)

Thank you for the great pictures above.

For sure the metal plate holding the electronics, is reminiscent of a Hoyer.

Faravelle, New Sound and Fret Jet were all Framus models sporting the identical electronic layout on a chrome metal plate.

But the Framus models utilised an oval shaped plate and the Hoyer the slightly angular plate. So, it is indeed probable that the electronics were from Hoyer.

The problem lies in the body and neck. Hoyer during this period utilised a rather larger headstock than on the poster’s model in question. This was because Hoyer branded his headstocks with the logo “Arnold Hoyer” in large letters.

The full makers name displayed in this manner, being large enough to observe from a distance, demanded the oversized headstock to accommodate it, which is characteristic of the period. Later models such as one of those helpfully pictured above by Kahuna59 featured the brand “Arnold Hoyer” but with Arnold in small lettering and Hoyer in large lettering along with what appears to be a variant of Gibson’s split diamond.

All this still required a larger headstock, but somewhat smaller than the earlier headstock. Some later Hoyer models were built without any branding whatever on the headstock. Unfortunately, before getting excited about the possibilities afforded by that fact its worth considering that Hoyer placed the brand name Hoyer on a logo in gold lettering on the instrument body on the lower rear bout so it would not be obstructed by the player’s arm. So there should be logo somewhere if its a Hoyer or a Framus.

It may be recalled that Hofner also did the same, with particular models, using a logo with the brand name on the body in addition to the brand logo on the headstock. I believe the motive for this this was that TV cameramen would focus in close up upon the player, including their instruments body but exclude the headstock in doing so. Therefore they responded by adding an additional body logo to benefit from the free advertising when players were filmed.

Happily, thanks to the excellent Hoyer pictures Kahuna59 posted above, we can see as in the earlier case, a determinative factor.

The Hoya name and logo is printed in gold on the lower bout of the instrument. Its situated right between the control plate and the tailpiece.

The essential salient point to consider, the remaining question requiring an answer is, given that Hoyer (along with other well regarded German brands) so proudly displayed their makers logo on their instruments.

If it was a Hoyer, why does no such logo exist on the instrument?

Clearly it has not been refinished, the finish is original, so why isn’t there a logo at all?

Framus also used a brand name logo on the upper front bout of the instrument in addition to the brand name logo on the headstock on some models. So again we can equally ask, why does no such logo Framus exist on the instrument?

As far as I can tell the pickups were designed by guitar builder and pickup designed Bill Lawrence, whose real name was Willi Lorenz Stich and started out as a jazz guitarist. He worked for Framus before going on to work for Fender, Gibson, Peavey and starting his own company.

All the above leads me to conclude that the instrument was fabricated as outlined in an earlier post. It appears to be made from parts derived from different sources.

The best we could probably determine is what actual factory the instrument came from, but demands tremendous familiarity with those old models to do so.

What the body and neck is in and off itself is perhaps a matter for Marcus Aurelius.

“This thing, what is it in itself, in its own constitution?

What is its substance and material?”

― Marcus Aurelius

Quote: “At first I thought it was a Framus. The body spoke for it. But not the headstock.”

I understand this point well, as I immediately thought precisely the same.

The headstock differs from that headstock most commonly seen on Framus instruments. So, a very sensible conclusion to draw.

The problem is that as stated earlier, Framus actually used at least nine different headstock shapes during this era, before settling on the most commonly experienced headstock.

Additionally, the headstock in question here is absolutely identical to those used on a number of German manufactured instruments, from completely different brands during that specific period.

This leads me to the view that the necks were supplied to different manufacturers by a third-party supplier for reasons of economic viability and also due to the lack of availability of skilled Luthiers and tooling at that time.

If I had to hazard a well-informed guess, I would not be at all surprised if the identical necks that graced so many different German manufacturers instruments actually originated from an industrial region in northern Italy.

The region concerned was a Mecca for instrument manufacture and later the supply of parts for export. They fabricated accordions, electronic accordions, electric organs, guitars etc. et al. Lots of pearloid was always a feature.

I have a lot of links to manufacturing industries that go back many, many decades, and its common for makers involved in a number of related fields to find synergy between them, wherever its possible.

Looking at headstocks and fingerboards on instruments from Germany during that era there’s an awful lot of pearloid utilised that is identical to that found on many Italian instruments of different types emanating from that region.

It could be argued that Germany had its own fine accordion and bandoneon manufacturers at the time such as Hohner, and sourced pearloid within its boundaries. However, anyone familiar with the different instruments of that period will be aware of the differences in quality and colour that often distinguished them.

By the way, if anyone has ever wondered why early Fender amplifiers had the controls at the back of the amp, it was because at that time accordions and electronic accordions were more popular than electric guitars and the amps were placed in front rather than behind the player. They accessed the controls from the rear. Later, electric guitar players also placed them out in front due to their low output as well as access to the controls.

Back on topic, many Hofner instrument designs that featured lots of pearloid often had an identical Italian manufactured instrument equivalent to it in every way but brand name. That to my mind is too much of a coincidence to be accidental, and persuades me to the view that there was in all probability a fair deal of third-party sourcing activity from Italy was going on, during a period of economic recovery for Germany where retooling was necessary.

In reference to my earlier comments about worker being allowed to take obsolete and B standard parts by various manufacturers during that era, the proviso they had to agree to was to make sure that there were no brand identification labelling that could mean a warrantee claim could be made. Martin for example offered a lifetime warrantee. But they also wanted to distance themselves from any quirky builds.

There is one more factor I neglected to mention last night, that leads me to conclude the instrument to be a Framus and that is its finish and colouring.

If we consider a Hofner finish such as brown sunburst, and examine it properly it absolutely distinguishes the brand from any other. Its colouring and quality of finish are part of the brands identity.

Hofner Presidents available in natural finish are similar in colour to Hoyas in natural finish it is true, but they had almost no colouring whatever. During that era the available colours and finishes were rather limited.

That was true even for Fenders in their early years. By and large then the colour and quality of a finish is and important indicator of who fabricated the instrument If the necks were supplied by a third party, then co-operation would be required regarding that.

But it is far more likely the necks were supplied unfinished and the headstock plate and fingerboard masked prior to finish in the brands colouring in Germany at the same time as the body. Colour matching, and batch colouring is an extremely complex matter from a manufacturing point of view, this approach would avoid that and ensure the parts were supplied as economically as possible.

If you have any doubt about this, consider when car bumpers started to be manufactured in plastic. Manufacturers used black bumpers, as the parts came from third party suppliers and there were difficulties involved in providing an exact colour match to the factory finish.

Framus had its own brown sunburst but also had a special black and red sunburst. Generally, the essential thing to consider is that these instruments had their sunburst sprayed on by hand, and that is a unique type of fingerprint providing a clue to the actual plant that fabricated the instrument.

The instruments quality, features and appointments (like bindings) can be similarly indicative, but these are best tested, being viewed in person.

Quote: “I suspect that the pickups were installed later.”

Another good point.

I wondered if a lot of the actual hardware were post manufacture addons?

Following your comments, I enlarged the photo, something I should have done, and it certainly looks to be the case.

Probably more evidence to support the previous notion above that some aftermarket modification has been undertaken by a previous owner.

That might explain the tailpiece and bridge assembly too as vibrato arms came gradually more into vogue for guitarists around the world and plenty of instruments were retro fitted, usually with Bigsbys. But they were rarely seen as a retailed aftermarket part and expensive in European countries in that era, and for many years later.

It the lack of branding and probable modifications that make this instrument difficult to identify. Under such circumstances, the body neck, headstock and fingerboard with their in bedded appointments, give the best possible leads to identifying who actually manufactured it. Once one strips away everything that could be fitted later and look at the instrument and ask what is it, in and of itself? This I feel gives the best path to the most reliable and trustworthy answer.

Its an early 50’s German jazz model.

The control panel is identical to that found on a Framus acoustic electric series titled faraelle in their catalogue. (Not the later caravelle).

The fretboard and body are identical to that of other Framus Models. The pickups are I believe are from Framus, but stripped of their covers.

Curiously, the headstock shape is absolutely identical to that found on at least three other German models of the period, a couple of them far lesser-known.

Hoya, Astro Meistergitarre and Migma Meister come to mind, but a great many Framus models also featured precisely that same headstock shape too.

Framus had at least nine different headstock shapes, so perhaps the necks and fretboards were actually made by a third-party supplier.

Until it was economically viable, to make their own. Hoya is a good guess. If I had to hazard a guess it would be Framus.

My hunch is that it was built by a Luthier who over a period of several years worked for three or four different German manufacturers. It was not uncommon for itinerant workers in a particular field to move from factory to factory in an era of difficult economic circumstance.

Also, for manufacturers to have left over parts that remain unused, long after a model has been discontinued. They would outsource certain parts which required specialised tooling to fabricate, from third party suppliers. So many different brands models were actually fitted with particular parts that were identical. If a model did not sell well, some parts would become obsolete.

Its natural to presume that Guitar factories made X number of instruments per day. In fact, many of the better manufacturers would plan thus: This week we are going to make X number of bodies, next week we are going to make X number of necks. All that would be required to fulfil the orders that were on the build schedule. When they had all the major parts required, they could assemble them and add the parts peculiar to specific models in a given production model series.

Even Gibson worked like that when they were a limited number of skilled workers available in that era. If the necks were made by an outside supplier, then that made things easy. Lots of necks from that period on different brands appear to have been made by the same maker.

For example, what today we would consider to be typical Hofner tailpieces, are to found on a large number of different manufacturers instruments of that era.

If someone has access to surplus or the necessary parts, they could be assembled by someone with the necessary skills at their own home.

Most major manufacturers would at times allow favoured workers limited access to surplus material. Gibson and Martin did that.

My hunch is that the instrument was fabricated by worker who moved around, utilising unused or parts available to him, to sell on the side to make a better living, which is why there is no branding or makers identification on the instrument.

You will note that the truss rod cover is completely missing. Certain small German manufacturers of the period would put their brand name on the truss rod cover. An easy way to brand a third party supplied neck. But it is missing.

It might be that the truss rod was adjusted and simply not put back in place, but it may be more that a coincidence that the one thing that could identify the brand, has been removed. Is that indicative?

The bridge is reminiscent of a singular Framus model, but it and the vibrato unit appear rather utilitarian compared to other models. They made me wonder if those instrument parts were actually fabricated somewhere in eastern Germany?

Quote: “Acoustic guitars will transmit the sound to your bones more than an electric guitar.”

This is an interesting comment.

Most people think that we hear sound with our ears alone.

In point of fact, our bodies absorb and our senses detected vibration and we hear sound better at differing frequencies with particular parts of our bodies.

Hearing Essay | Evelyn Glennie

My approach to the problem the original poster raised would be to keep an additional instrument tuned to a lower pitch. Using a sound hole cover to seal it completely.

There’s a great number of reasons why I feel such an approach is preferable. Many of them have to do with specialising the set up on the instrument to maximise its tonal projection at that voicing, along with the particularly singular, additional flexibilities in technique doing so, affords the player.

Perhaps the best exponent and exemplar of that approach is Tommy Emmanuel.

TONE TECHNIQUE: Tommy Emmanuel On Getting That Maton Guitar Tone - YouTube

Tommy Emmanuel - Somewhere Over The Rainbow (live 2006 Leverkusen) - YouTube

Explore the technical possibilities available for sure, but be open to the notion that there may be other methods to achieve the same aim that may provide rather more satisfactory results.

Then tweak that with your Kemper!

Quote: “I have a problem with the Kemper, it sounds radically different if I plug the headphones directly into the Kemper than if I connect them to the audio interface, it sounds much worse on the interface. “

It appears your problem is the difference you hear on your headphones switching between the Kemper and the interface.

Knowing nothing regarding your interface I checked its specification. Its headphone output is designed with a low/medium impedance of 60 Ohms.

Checking the specification of the headphone output of the Kemper its designed to operate headphones from 32 Ohms to 600 Ohms. Higher quality, superior in every respect.

Most studio headphones are rated at 250 Ohms for safety reasons to protect your ears, but the Kemper will basically operate any headphone you choose to use up to the very high-end audiophile equipment.

As a general rule of thumb, you can divide headphone impedance into several broad categories. If you read through the included link and scroll down to watch the video, it will illuminate your comprehension of the issues.

Impedance Guide | beyerdynamic

It may be that a set of headphones closer in impedance to your interface will deliver a better sound than you are currently experiencing. Whether it is desirable to keep changing headphones is another matter.

Quite regardless, the superiority of the Kemper’s professional design will always mean it will sound far better than your recording interface, unless you upgrade from a prosumer interface to professional level equipment.

The good news is I don’t believe anything is wrong, it’s probably just that one piece of equipment is vastly superior to the other. They are designed and manufactured for entirely different price points so this shouldn’t come as a great surprise.

If your headphones are high impedance and your interface is designed to drive far lower impedance equipment your interface maybe struggling to drive them properly; whereas your Kemper with its wide-ranging compatibility can make everything sound great, this to my mind may explain the difference you are experiencing.

Why not simply use the equipment you have for now, and let your ears and brain have time to learn to adjust to the differences, as perhaps you can adapt yourself to what you are experiencing.

With respect, ultimately, you will need to pay close attention to the specification of future equipment purchases and ensure there is qualitative matching consistency throughout your signal chain.

Its only as good as the weakest link. Perhaps you can eventually save towards a more professionally specified interface?

In the meantime enjoy the great sound of your find Kemper equipment!

Quote: “far more than I have the patience to undertake”

I completely understand.

With respect, recovering from a serious illness, often takes rather longer than we ever anticipate.

For sure we may seem to be completely well on the outside, but our inner resources, reserves of patience and willingness to deal with devices that obligate us to a demanding learning curve, are probably somewhat depleted.

In short, we are not yet up to the task.

How I know this, is because I was carried off by paramedics and after a head to toe medical had a life-saving emergency operation. Afterward, I bought the Kemper as it seemed a logical alterative to dealing with fifteen very heavy amplifiers.

I soon realised that rather than being the simple straightforward device I could quickly master. That it was far better conceptualised, carefully thought through and by virtue of imaginative design, capable of a great deal more than any other product.

At that point, I felt completely out of my depth, I guess pretty much as you do now. So, I accepted the fact that for an older analogue man in a digital world it would take time and effort. That a gradual familiarisation would be the best way to inwardly absorb the capabilities of this device.

Each time I use it I feel a bit out of my depth, but am finding I can replicate better sounds, more ideal and to my liking as familiarity develops. I also note things I do not grasp at all, but then refer to the instruction manual and find the answer as well as asking questions of the brilliantly helpful people that inhabit this forum.

Anyone that has experience of music fora knows that this is one of the best moderated and helpful forums out there!

In short, I am giving myself time, not pushing things too quickly, not demanding too much of myself and that seems to be working ok for me.

My latest dilemma was when changing profiles with the remote the device would skip lots of them instead of moving to the next in the browser.

Reading the manual soon explained that the remote could be adjusted to work in a variety of ways, and thus a simple selection in “settings” could enable it to work in my preferred manner.

So rather than simply reading the entire manual which I did do at the start and being a little overwhelmed. I’m playing about familiarising myself, gradually questioning this and that and discovering in the manual the answers I seek.

In certain respects, the Kemper reminds me of the Reaper Sequencer.

Because different professionals have varying approaches and workflow systems, rather than there being a singular way to achieve a particular result.

There might a number of different alternatives available, and much more individual adjustment possible, so the product can be set to meet the demands of the user.

Rather than the user make do with limited options available.

There is a cost to this approach, and it simply means there is more to learn than we at first, ever anticipate.

But it means that if we persevere, the eventual rewards proffered more than outweigh the cost.

The main thing is to take one’s time, not expect too much or place too many demands.

Especially where blood pressure levels require calmness.

The photograph above was taken during the recording session, referred to in my earlier post.