Posts by Radley

Thanks for taking the time to answer! Don't want to drag this on, but when you turn the depth to zero on the stereo chorus, it sounds rather hollow and doesn't add the same depth - IMHO, this would be the ideal implementation:

FILTER MATRIX Mode:
One of the unique settings that was inherited from the legendary DELUXE ELECTRIC MISTRESS is the Filter Matrix mode. The harmonic makeup remains while no frequency modulation is applied. Different tonalities can be obtained when the RATE knob is set between a totally off position to around 10 o’clock position - from there on up, the control acts as a typical rate knob.

This thread was not meant to take anything away from the KPA's amp & cab profiling abilities, as they are obviously excellent.

Couldn't find the Hemby Bad Cat - was it removed? Love Tom's tone!

Hey guys,

What is the quickest way to load Rig and Cab files into the KPA from a Mac. Do any of these get 'corrupted' if I upgrade the original OS up to 1.0.4?

Thanks!

Quote from tylerhb

Just put the files into \Shared\Cabinet on your USB stick and import.

Does this instruction work for a Mac as well?

Thanks for your efforts!

~Radbot~

Quote from ckemper

C'mon guys, it's right in front of you!

CK

What? I don't understand the anger face. We are talking about a way to fatten the sound & Image of the KPA while still retaining the Delay block for long delays, no? Is it really that hard to make the modulations totally stop at zero?

I see this especially important since we don't (yet) have a short 'ambient' delay we can use in the X slot - a stereo chorus with *zero* modulation & a bit of pre-delay can create a *huge* sound.

Quote from XpennoKPA

If people want amp in the room then it's pretty simple.

DI Profile + Flat Poweramp + Guitar = Amp in the room.

[Blocked Image: http://kemper-amps.com/library/wcf/images/smilies/biggrin.png]

I'm loving the KPA through FRFR at the moment but it sounds great through a guitar cab as well.

Display More

I'm referring to capturing that 'amp in the room' sound & feeling on a *recording*

Exactly - I think all of us would prefer the 'amp in the room' sound and feeling, but I believe that's an impossibility.

I own both pieces, and like each one a lot - the fact that neither is yet perfect is my personal observation, and I post similar things on any number of boards. Actually, having the sound of a miked Marshall is a solid start - I just believe most of the tones we hear & love are the result of substantially more than that.

Once again let's try not to make this a putdown contest. I'm simply saying that a typical tube amp 'warts and all' is usually not ideal for a modern recording 'without additional processing' and that's where the rubber meets the road. I will usually pick a preset that sounds great over one that sounds just like such and such an amp 'warts and all', whether I'm using my Kemper or my AFXII, but that's just me.

WORD.

Please do not over-react: I am simply saying that the natural sound of tube amps is usually not good enough (by itself) to make a great modern recording. PS: I've been a rather successful LA studio musician for 25+ years. The Kemper's high frequencies give it away - we are listening to numbers, not a paper cone into a mic.

Have you ever wondered why your KPA Mesa Amp model doesn't sound like the tone on your guitar hero's latest CD? You are profiling the same amp he uses, so why the difference? It is simply this: He not only used that amp, but he use both pre EQ (for tonal tightness) and post EQ (for both fatness and de-fizzing), multi-band compression (for even-ness), and an ideal miking setup. So in the end, the fact that your profile sounds like a naked miked Marshall really doesn't get you very far...

Guys - I don't mean to start an argument, but neither the Kemper nor the AFXII completely nail the sound coming out of the speaker of a tube amp. Kemper adds some extra 'digital fur' and fluctuation/wavering, and AFX sometimes adds a certain glassiness some may not prefer. In no way is there a huge difference between the two, and even if there was, the AFXII has way more tools to make a necessary correction. The fact is, most tube amps on their own don't compare to the sounds we now hear on recordings - I want more than basic amp emulation... I want great sounds at my command, and that involves more than a Marshall and a mic. I contend that the final winner of this epic battle will be the company who can deliver the kinds of sounds we hear on our favorite recordings, with the requisite pre and post EQ, post effects, etc.

That's the Idea!!!

I agree that the AFX amps can sound somewhat similar, but I do believe the basic AFX distortion is smoother and 'wider'. I'm hoping each company will learn 'tricks' from the other, and raise the overall modeling bar big-time this year!

Quote from MadH

To me it sounds with too much clarity and thinner in general. Not as warn and round. In other words less like a real tube amp.

We must simply agree to disagree on this one.

I would also add that the AFXII overdrive & distortion sounds a bit more connected and smooth, IMHO.

Quote from guitarnet70

I've uploaded 3 piezo rigs that I use. The original profiles where made by other users:
AER60, Fishmann, Schertler

All 3 rigs are saved with name starting "DP Piezo"

Do you find them effective with your piezo acoustics?