Posts by MadH

Quote from Will_Chen

Do you not think Mr Kemper thinks the Axe is inferior to the KPA? Not defending any of Fractal's comments about the Kemper, but your post is a bit misleading. Fractal has a very long history of product refinement. The Tone Matching feature on the surface does seem inspired by the Kemper, but if you dig a bit deeper you will see folks had been EQ matching recorded tracks using Ozone and creating matching IRs to load into the AxeFX for quite some time before the KPA was released, they simply automated that process. It is very different from KPA Profiling which requires an Amp. There was the addition of something similar to the KPA pick attack which was very likely inspired by keeping up with the competition, but really that is not an exclusively unique feature of the KPA either. And you folks glossed over the other point I made that Fractal now allowsyou to choose the FW you want to run for amp modeling so you can update the unit to get other features but choose whether or not to take advantage of modeling enhancement.

To anyone new to this board, IMHO there are a handful of folks over here (not pointing at you viabcroce) with a bit of a grudge towards Fractal and TGP (more specifically to 1 or 2 members there) who use this board to voice their displeasure.

It makes sense that you try to make your product as good as possible even if you have to take ideas from some other products. I think the issue for some people is that for them it does not make sense to publicly bash the main functionality of product, calling it inferior and then try to copy it, or take as many ideas from it as you can and use them to improve yours.

Saying that the tone Matching feature on the surface does seem inspired by the Kemper is falling a bit short. Maybe you are not aware of it, but as soon as the KPA was released they announced their "own profiling feature". Tone Matching was the result of it, and they did not go further because they could not since Kemper has a patent on it. After that there has been several others "upgrades" influenced by the KPA. The latest is obviously another one. It seems to work by basically using stats (achieved by some sort of profiling) to correct modeling on the fly.

Quote from db9091

I can attest that you do NOT want high humidity around your guitar. Nor do you want an very dry environment.

You hand sweats. Alot. But you typically have a treated neck, and if you don't (like my musicman guitar) you are supposed to keep it treated with an oil which prevents excess moisture. Excess moisture will cause the wood to warp, the frets to pop up, and in extreme cases, the fretboard to come up off from the neck.

Just ASK me how I know this!

True. Excess and lack of humidity are the worst enemies for a guitar. In my case, I try as best as I can to keep the humidity between 40-50% where I keep my guitars. Anyway, nobody is talking about exposing their guitars to extreme humidity or temperature changes to make it sound better .

Btw, there is at least a couple of boutique guitar builders (Suhr and Tom Anderson) that offer maple roasted/baked necks. The process removes all the moisture from the wood. They say that adds stability while making the sound tighter and punchier.

Quote from Will_Chen

In the experiment they took a soundboard and vibrated it in a high humidity environment (80 to 90 percent). For any musical instrument, the wood must be dried in order to avoid the instrument warping. And again, we are speaking of solid body electric guitars, a very, very, very different instrument. The article is referring to the test stiffing the soundboard to lower its dampening in order to increase sustain, read my earlier post. We've already taken care of that in a solidbody as our soundboard is nearly 2 inches thick and of nearly infinite stiffness in compared to a spruce soundboard.

Also from your article:

So every few months taking the instrument and subjecting it to mechanical resonance at high humidity? My bet is that guitar will self destruct in less than 5 years.

OK, enough arguing from me, you fellas have at it.

Display More

We all guitar owners know that temperature and humidity affects wood since that's the main reason we have to keep adjusting the neck. The experiment simply proves that vibration has an effect as well on the properties of wood. In numerous occasions experiments are done in extreme conditions just because it is easier/faster to achieve results.

Anyway, I am also skeptical about this device doing what it is supposed to do but the point I am trying to make is that even the experts on the subject don't understand completely how wood works. So maybe stating a categoric NO to something that we don't fully understand is not the best thing to do. I rather wait and see the results.

Quote from db9091

Sound waves are groups of molecules exhibiting an organized pattern of high and low pressure waves. But Temperature is the average of molecule velocities. You can alter the high and low pressure of air in a room (sound waves) but still have the same temperature (same average velocity of molecules). Compression waves don't alter the average velocity in any significant way. On top of that, you aren't going to transfer from Air to Wood any change in temperature, since the wood will be the same temperature as the room. Unless what is vibrating is doing so directly on the guitar causing friction which will heat up the guitar. But you can do that with a vibrator or better yet, get a sander and get the job done fast!

Water Molecules in some areas may be trapped by the guitar's various coatings, and would be more subject to change by actual temperature and humidity.

In other words, a fat belly's heat transfer will cause more velocity and flight of water molecules than ANY sound source.

And NONE of these things will "Improve" the sound of the guitar. In fact, any alteration is just causing a change in your setup, likely requiring you to setup your guitar again (neck adjustments). Changes in humidity can cause acoustic guitar sound brackets to come loose or any guitar neck to warp, requiring a rod adjustment to keep your action the way you like it.

Display More

Another interesting read http://www.nytimes.com/1996/02…heir-violins-improve.html

"The researchers vibrated beams of spruce at 10 cycles a second for 48 hours and the damping coefficient went down by 5 percent. The changes persisted when the vibrations stopped, they said. Lower damping coefficents mean that a single note is heard longer, which is considered a beneficial attribute."

"When the wood was vibrated in a chamber where the humidity was taken up to 80 to 90 percent, the damping coefficient went up fast before drifting downward, they reported. This resulted in a decrease in damping and increase in stiffness during vibrations that persisted when the vibrations were turned off, they said."

The first thing that popped in my head (and it is not the 1st time) was the beginning of this ad. The 2nd guy (headphones) in the ad even reminds me to someone from somewhere else.

Quote from Will_Chen

In other words, any guitar which has ever sat on the wall at a music store or on a stand in a studio is corrupted from the start. In order for wood to change its resonating character it would have to be excited enough to change its structure in some physically measurable way. Seriously, you would be able to take a sample under a microscope and examine its structure before and after and measure the difference. With the thin top on an acoustic instrument (especially unfinished), I can see that happening over time. But with a piece of solid wood nearly 2 inches think? Doubtful IMHO unless we're talking some very violent activity taking place or literally decades of playing at auditorium levels. Guess I'm a skeptic, if Jimi Hendrix (and countless others) bought guitars off music store walls and was able to do what he did, who am I to argue...

Vibration can alter the temperature of wood (up and down). When temperature change occurs this causes the wood to absorb or release moisture and we all know that this affects how a guitar sounds. Whether this device works or not I have no clue but vibration over time has a direct or indirect effect on wood acoustic properties.

Here is an interesting read http://www.acousticguitar.com/gear/advice/vibration.shtml

Quote from Rescator

Hi Myramyd ,
Thanks for understanding from where I am coming from .
Nothing wrong with any of effects, I want them all , as well as anyone else ...but ..amp sound ...
I am sorry if my post sounds a little bit exaggerated .
My first post had actually more disappointing than exaggerated feelings, since 99% of forum members waste their time looking for librarian and effects , instead to require even better amp sound ....
And there are axe and tgp guys laughing on aliasing , etc and messing around , resulting with CK sorting out the wrong things, just to show them he can fix everything (and yes he can do that !)
But, for what price ?? Instead to fix what is not broken and less important (and not the the strongest part of KPA portfolio) I thought its better if he might work on improving profiling/ amp tone( which is the crucial part of his portfolio) - that was all about my humble post .....

But, that's only me, I do not expect any member to have my opinion , to each its own ....

If one read my previous posts , he will find about my friend, professional producer who is using 2 Virus Synthesizers in a last 15 years or so .
He told me not to worry , if KPA is going like a Virus, in a few years time we will have everything - effects to dream about it , decent librarian, fantastic Foot Controller , even more better Profiler and amp sound , and maybe few more things only CK knows about ...
Satisfied and happy, I asked him -do you have a Russian Girl Finder on your Virys synts ???
He told me to f..ck off !

Display More

There is little to improve in the KPA profiling results and even less in the amp sound area. If you believe it really needs to be improved, you should invest some of your time in trying to create good profiles and then do A/B comparisons. You will see that you should not be concerned about it.

Personally at this point I prefer like many other to have more features like a librarian/editor, foot controller and more FX.

Quote from uweoverdrive

Thanks for your kind words and your constructive contribution

Don't take it seriously. I guess he was just making a joke based on your thread title. LOL

Btw, I do believe this thing could do something but I don't know about changing the dynamic response of a guitar. Most of the times I notice that just after a few months of playing with a new guitar the resonance changes. I have no clue if the reason is the vibrations running through it, humidity changes or whatever, ... but it usually changes for the better.

Quote from Froschn

To me the response is mainly an interactive thing that happens between the player and the gear. By listening to clips you could only scratch the surface. You got to have the gear in your hands, there is no way around that IMHO.

If there would be differences in pick response (you said the Axe FX II was far more real) and dynamics like the ones you mention and most of all guitars sounding different depending on which device you run it through vs the amp that is easily noticed in a comparison clip.

Quote from Froschn

Sorry, no time left for complicated clips. You could at least listen to the hum of single-coils, how it's getting translated by the kpa. Turn the NG off, to do so, and listen. Or you turn your vol pot down and see how the curve is, the kpa's reaction is different somehow, like if the was a comp before the amp.

The are differences in the noise level and hum in both the Axe FX II and the KPA vs the real amps but that cannot be used to measure differences on pick response or dynamics. (As for the vol pot down) If I am sure of something is that the KPA dynamics and response are by far more accurate in the KPA than in the Axe Fx II as of today. There has been many changes in the Axe Fx II in this area since the KPA was released and that's for a reason.

I am not saying that you are wrong. Maybe you do experience that with your KPA but so far I didn't with mine and I have not heard any clips from anybody where I could notice that either.

Quote from Froschn

Yes, of course I did, otherwise I wouldn't say it, our minds are that crazy, we tend to hear what we want to hear. I used a Patchmate Loop8 to compare both units. Somehow the KPA has the ability to turn the crappy sound of some models of my JTV Variax into good sounds...and that should not be. For a good real amp the formula crap in = crap out is valid. So how then can that thing let my variaxs models let sound good, even the ones that sound crappy with my real amps and with the AxeII? You could say, be happy it always turns anything into a good sound, but what I want is something different, an honest return of what I do with the guitar, even when that can end in a bad sound when I play sloppy.

Could you post any clips comparing the amp vs Axe Fx vs KPA that demonstrate what you say? I have not noticed the KPA making my guitars to sound any different than what my amps do.

Quote from Froschn

The pick response of the AxeII is far more real to me than the KPAs.

That's interesting. Have you done A/B comparisons with the real amps modeled/profiled? I found the KPA to be much more accurate when comparing it to my KPA to my Axe Fx II (already sold). I found the KPA pick response to be pretty much identical to the amps I compared it to while the Axe Fx II was far from identical.

Quote from mullassiff

He used to yes. But not on his last tour.

Simply not true.

This is a shot from his rig on the last tour.

[Blocked Image: http://i953.photobucket.com/albums/ae17/sukh_ryatt/Vai%20gig/photo-2.jpg]

He uses 2 Axe Fx II on tour (one as backup) exclusively for FX. Btw, this was shared by a guy that spent one show with his guitar tech Thomas Nordegg.

Quote from mullassiff

Was pretty funny yes.
Nope Steve Vai goes live with the axe only. Oh and his guitar

You know that is not true . Steve Vai uses live his Carvin Legacy with the Axe Fx only for effects.

Quote from mullassiff

Ok
Ramstein
Steve Vai
Periphery
Rush
Madonna and Monte Pitt
Dweezil
and the list just goes on and on.
I am sorry for you if you really see this as trolling.
I just find it hard to imagine that all these are wrong.
But hey that is just me...

Display More

LOL. I thought you said top selling artists....

Btw, Steve Vai does not use it for its amp tones. Just effects.

Quote from mullassiff

Well so sorry if I offended you by asking.
It was a simple question, don't see what that have to do with trolling.
But Ill keep that in mind and ask somewhere ells i guess.

LOL, don't worry. You did not offend anybody but still you have not answered with any example of top selling artist using the Axe Fx for its amp sounds.

Quote from mullassiff

As I said, I also don't really care, but comparing the artist list IMO the axe wins by 100000 miles.
I am deff not a pro so i often look to an "expert" rewiewing a product.
I just don't see any experts on the Kemper side.
With experts i mean top selling artists.
And i really wouldn't count Muse in, since they also own and use the Axe.

LOL. Maybe I am wrong but I smell certain scent of trolling....

What would be for you a top selling artist or producer that is using the Axe for its amp sounds?

If you want to know what artists are using the KPA you should check here or here.

There is a good amount of big names already considering that the KPA is only one year old.

Quote from ckemper

MadH,
You were one of those that claimed to have identified a difference.
I assume that you cannot hear a difference between your tracks.
That is the best proof.

I mentioned in previous posts that I was able to hear differences in my clips from before and after the reset but those were more subtle in comparison to when I was playing and that maybe a part of it could be due to the latency changes like you mentioned. I understand that you do not notice any difference and that's ok with me.

Quote from ckemper

Now about the technical background:
A digital recording consists of 44100 (or more) separate numbers per second. The space inbetween is not sampled, and it doesn't need to. That's the Nyquist Theorem.
If you do that same recording again, those numbers are sampled (sic!) at different locations. This will create a different picture but sounds the same.

There are ways to make the visual representation equal, but there is no need for that in music software. They are not necessarly made for comparing tracks visually.
This is what I meant when I said we have to qualify our tools.
Same story for the matching EQs.

Thanks a lot for taking your time with this. I understand that when you are doing analog to digital conversion the samples can be taken at different points in time so the resulting waves from the same source could be displayed slightly differently while still sounding the same.

Is your explanation still valid considering that I reamped all the tracks using only spdif? When I was comparing the tracks I discarded that as the possible reason because I thought that this could not happen when using a digital signal as source.

Quote from ckemper

We tried hard to recreate these results, but no success.
With such minor differences in an optical representation and often contradicting result, we all had to qualify the tools for those tests at first place.
I am aware of many reasons why an optical representation of waveforms or spectrums could vary, while the sound is the same. I could go into detail, if you are interested.

What counts is that all clips do not reveal a perceptual sonic difference.

I would really appreciate if you could explain in detail since my knowledge on the subject is limited. I am only referring to the visual representations since I understood that you cannot hear any differences on any of the tracks.

When I compared the reamps for "1.5.4" vs "1.6.0 after the reset", I could easily see differences in the visual representation but I assumed those were normal and probably due to the antialiasing changes. What I don't understand is why we can see differences when comparing the reamps done with "1.6 before the reset" and "1.6 after the reset" specially when 2 reamps done with "1.6 after the reset" were visually identical.