I still think that there's a bug in there somewhere - I have had the same issue - and when I tried to check the Aux-Volume-thing, the Kemper went totally silent - after rebooting, the volume was back to what I think was normal, but then somehow the Noisegate was set to 10.0 - which was playable, but resulted in a very very strange feeling while playing. So there needs to be someone to look into that and fix it, I guess.
Posts by joerch
-
-
You have to push the "master" button first to take you to that menu, them go to page 5 of that menu.
You are on FW 1.6 beta? If not, it won't work. There's a thread here: Beware of aliasing or something like that. With the download of FW 1.6 there was a folder with manuals - I am not sure if this feature is documented or not. I seem to remember that it was not documented deliberately - so only experts who really need this feature (very rare) can use it.
-
@WillChen: As you said, this is getting far away from the thread. There's a "Thank you CK and crew" thread (didn't you start it?) where users can say thank you. What profit they make with releasing the 1.6? Well, hard to calculate - but as you've said: These people have a vision, they are convinced of their product and they like to make sure that it's a success (apart from making sure that the people working for the product can earn the money for themselves and their families). Very much comparable to having composed a good song for which you will do everything to make sure it gets listeners, buyers at best. Well, you know how these products work nowadays: If microsoft had stopped at Windows ME, the company would be an entry on wikipedia and that would have been it. So back to your question: If they stopped developing their product (with further products, firmware updates, ...) it would very soon be replaced by some other company who is stealing their know how or come up with their own approach which might be even better / more attractive. Honestly, no offence, but I feel it's a bit naiv to think that offering updates is just a "present" to the hearty community.
-
@ WillChen: I wish you'd realise that Christian Kemper and the people on his team aren't working for nice "Thank yous" on a forum, but to make a profit. Sure, they could stop publishing firmware updates - at the same time they could stop producing the Kemper at all. But definitely not, because some people on an internet forum don't know how to behave.
-
I would suggest when the inventor of a device who's offering enhancements of the device for free states that its his saddest moment in 15 years of being on forums, the he might opt to take some time off rather than burn the midnight oil working on another firmware only to be dragged through the coals. In fact, if I were him I might simply stop offering updates entirely. Why put forth all the effort only to be badgered and my qualifications questioned? CK is under no obligation to do anything other than fix critical bugs and provide warranty service. We should remember that. CK owes none of us anything, the updated features are gifts. If you don't like the sound/feel/taste/smell of 1.6, roll back and be happy and let the rest of us move on.
Yawn - best intentions, but I can guarantee you that you won't be able to educate via the internet. And frankly, Christian Kemper to me is neither a messias nor a rascal. He is somebody who offers a product, who wants to make a profit, who wants to promote it, who has definitely a marketing strategy, professionals who develop an image for the product, and so forth. He definitely knows that entertaining a forum like this with his personal presence is also part of what you have to offer with a product like his. ... I am sure he has enough support and when it comes to a situation in which he feels personally attacked, I am sure he knows how to defend himself.
-
I don't understand: As far as I know the latency switch when active increases the latency, but stays at a constant level. Why would it give back the "older" feel? The KPA operates with a variable latency since a long time.
I guess what is meant is this: If people should think they could feel a difference in latency of let's say 0.5 milliseconds, they should engage and disengage the constant / variable latency, since some of the Kemper staff wrote in the "Constant Latency Thread" that constant latency can now be achieved - however the latency will increase a bit, if set to "constant" - thus by switching between constant and variable latency you can test out whether you can feel any difference.
...
One interesting side note: Watch the Anderton-Kemper-Video on youtube. There Chappers says that he probably can't hear any difference, but he can probably feel the difference between the real and the profiled amp because of the (minimally) higher latency from the profiler. I doubt that I would be able to feel that. What I am also not sure of when it comes to Chappers' statement is that "logically" there must be some sort of minimal latency because in the video he wasn't listening to the real amp, but to the real amp, miced up, sent throught the mixing desk, send to the kemper, out from the kemper, back into the mixing desk and into the studio monitors.Well, for those interested in testing how much of a latency difference you can feel - do the test!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAuY9OyMsdg
Interestingly there's one more quote from this video that expresses exactly how I felt when I did the FW comparisons with my reamped recordings. Lee Anderton says in the video at 13:47: "I think I could hear that we were switching between two different sounds, but I wouldn't have been able to sit there and go "That's the amp and that's the Kemper". I think I could hear a slight difference between my wet 1.5.4 and 1.6 - but I would never have been able to say which was which.
One more note (while I am at it): Peter Weihe has commented on the Kemper and says that although it's close to perfection, the A/B listening option of the Kemper isn't really a 100% fair A/B comparison, because the miced amp is signalled through the Kemper for the A/B comparison switch which might result in a coloring that could confuse a real A/B comparison. Yet, I guess everyone sould be aware that he's talking about nuances here that probably only 1 out of 1000 people could hear these slight nuances.
-
If this is the way the discussion is going to be directed, I will have to send an email to the moderator and tell him that I am afraid of posting on the forum ...
-
1) I have never said that the value of the product is in danger of getting lost. It was more like a challenge: I hear a difference and I was ready to prove my point. The more people said it wasn't possible the more I felt driven to prove my point - not because of the vast change, but to defend my ears and perception.
2) I don't understand why I was asked to send an email to the support ASAP (2 minutes after the post) and now nothing came out of it. I was and still am ready to take the test - even if the result would have meant that I would have to admit that my ears were deceited / psyched.
3) If I had taken 2 or more hours of intense testing, I would have made sure to be able to provide something that can be shown in public (although I am aware of the fact that probably people (including me) would still have been suspicious).
4) Still I haven't read anything about whether something about the effects (stomps, reverbs, delays, eqs) might have been changed which could result in a different perception of sounds.
5) Apart from feeling driven to look for a proof, I will live happily with 1.6 and if I feel that there's some need for an adjustment in the effects - I will gladly adjust. After 3 months of getting to know the KPA, I am 100% sure that I will keep on tweaking and tweaking and tweaking - that's what we do, isn't it? I am certain, however, that the profiles itself aren't different from any other FW and thus I don't see a problem.
-
One thought: At first sight it seems as if the people who don't hear a difference btw. 1.5.4 and 1.6 are in the majority (32) and the ones who think that 1.6 is worse (19) are a minority. However, the official statement ist that there is no change at all and therefore the ones who think that 1.6 sounds better also think they hear a difference (27). You do the maths: 32 don't hear a difference. 46 hear a difference (for better or worse). ...
-
It must be noted that I was completely nude, only wearing totes galoshes and a head band (lower) when I did this comparison....
This is for ckemper (in case he reads it): What do you say about making fun of people who feel that there's no difference and too scared of posting on the forum? What do you make of these remarks then? I am too scared that someone is going to mock me, so I no longer dare post my opinion on this forum ...
-
As for me, I am now back on 1.6 - the new features are too good to be missed. I still feel that the whole difference thing in my case comes from the effects - probably the reverb and delay - the plain stacks are not different at all. I am still up for a test and have supplied my email to support. It does sure sound interesting to do that - although in my case it would have to be a comparison of different rigs rather than stacks.
-
support line ASAP.
I have just sent them my mail address. What's in it for the winner? A power-head?
-
Maybe you are right. Those users have explained to me the reasons to have not posted, but that might have been an excuse.
I will also not take your perfect match into account any more, since it is only a match of the stack section.
I understand that MatH's A/B comparison is done with stomps and effects.Nun mal ehrlich - hier haben in der letzten Stunde bestimmt 7 Leute gepostet, dass sie keinen Unterschied hören und niemand hat sie deswegen bedrängt. Es gibt auch Beispiele, dass diejenigen, die meinen, etwas (was auch immer) habe sich am Klang geändert, lächerlich gemacht wurden. ... Da muss man durch.
Ich fand's einfach ungeschickt, dass du gerade ein Beispiel als Beweis dafür heranziehst, dass es keinen Klangunterschied gibt, wenn das Beispiel gerade ein Beweis dafür ist, dass es einen Unterschied gibt. Das mag ja viele Gründe haben, die nicht im Kemper liegen, sondern an der Aufnahmetechnik, ... Ich habe hier mehrfach gepostet, dass ich die 1.6 Version gerne mag, weil meine gezerrten Sounds (vermutlich wegen der neuen Effekte) besser klingen, mit dem neuen Hall besser wirken etc.
Zu MadHs Vergleich kann ich nicht sagen, ob er mit Effekten oder ohne gearbeitet hat. Was sollte das auch beweisen? Ich habe eine Gitarrenspur einmal durch die 1.5.4 laufen lassen und dann durch die 1.6 - ich höre (mit Stomps und Effekten) einen Unterschied, ich sehe ihn im Analyser und vermute, dass es an den Effekten liegt. Das wird vielen so gehen, weil die Effekte den Sound natürlich beeinflussen. Die reinen Profile (und das war ja die Angst einiger in diesem Thread) sind aber unverändert. ... Und nun ist doch gut? Ich bin mal gespannt, was Don nun herausbekommt, der ja fragte, ob ich ihm das von mir im Test benutzte Rig schicken könne.
-
Of course I can hear that the Phaser Vibe is a Uni-Vibe approach and as I have posted here I have no doubt that I will finally be able to get the tone I am looking for. The thing is that the Kemper Parameters for the Phaser Vibe are - for a guitarist and not a synthesizer expert - a bit unusual. With a Uni Vibe or one of its clone it's a matter of seconds and with the Kemper (and all of its possibilities) it takes some tweaking because for me the preset (vintage) lacks some of the smooth warmth and juicyness that I am looking for in a Uni Vibe clone. If there's anyone with a nice setting / rig, let me know!
-
Is this a match?
Yes, this is what I would call a perfect match. However, since I am the one who did the recording, I may point out that the match was only possible when I compared the "dry" (only stack active) versions of 1.6 and 1.5.4. If you have a look at the comparison of the "wet" (stomps and effects active) version, that's not a perfect match. (You can find the snapshot in an older post).
-
Thanks for that perfect prove!
You see the green line below the purple line just because the volume of the second track might have been a fraction of a decibel lower.
If not we wouldn't have seen the green line at all. A perfect match.With all respect, ckemper, but here I am pretty sure that you misunderstand the graph. MadH is in matching mode of the Ozone 5 EQ - that means, that the red line indicates, what the EQ has to do in order to match one EQ to the other one. The fact that the red line shows ups and downs is a proof that it is NOT a perfect match.
Yet, there might be reasons and the change in sound might be more subtle and almost inaudible and so forth .- but taking MadH's Ozone 5 snapshot as a proof for a perfect match is wrong.
One more thing: When you mention the two users who were "afraid of posting that they don't hear a difference" you seem to imply that their ears and listening environments are "correct" - it might also be the other way round.
-
I wonder the lunch box owners will be given the chance to get the power amp option as well?! Any ideas? Have I missed anything about that? I need something in my hole (just kidding - the kemper's hole in the back, I mean).
-
guitarnet70: No, ... no Green Scream - just the treble booster
MadH: well, when two snapshots match completely, you can see just one of the lines and that is exactly what I find in the screenshot in which I compared the snapshots of the "dry" versions.
-
Matching is just the process of matching one EQ curve to another. I took snapshots ot with the Ozone analyser and I played each track in its entirety with the snapshot time set to infinite. This cannot be my mistake - yet there might be something else which went wrong - on the other hand I can clearly hear differences when I switch between the wet 1.5.4 and 1.6 recordings in my DAW - yet I hear no difference at all when I do this with the dry recordings.
-
I compared a slightly tweaked version of the Morgan AC 20 in both firmwares (1.6 and 1.5.4) in both versions: "wet" (the complete rig) and "dry" (just the stack, stomps and effects disabled). For the comparison I recorded the DI out via SPDIF. My DAW: Samplitude Pro X; my interface: RME Fireface UCX.
My interpretation of the results: As the Ozone 5 analyser clearly shows, there's a prominent difference between the "wet" versions. There is absolutely no difference between the "dry" versions. This is still puzzling me a bit - and I guess it might be an error on my side, but maybe others can reproduce my findings. If the result is correct, however, it would show that the plain profiles (and thus the rigs) are not different. Yet, I assume that many users throw in a reverb, delay, chorus, stomp, whatsoever ... and this could explain that we hear different sounds.
For those who want to listen to the wav-files, here they are:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/h6c4…020%201.5.4%20dry.wav</a> (FW 1.5.4 dry)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/nym9…%2020%201.6%20dry.wav</a> (FW 1.6 dry)https://www.dropbox.com/s/1va3…AC%2020%201.5.4%20wet.wav (FW 1.5.4 wet)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/l5ga…%2020%201.6%20wet.wav</a> (FW 1.6 wet)and here are the screenshots of the Ozone 5 snapshots:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/te9j…20%20dry%20comparison.PNG
https://www.dropbox.com/s/su72…20%20wet%20comparison.PNG
(I hope the dropbox-thing works - I had to create an account there - have never posted any files on the net before)
