Posts by benvigil

I think it absolutely is important. Exactly how important, depends on the room.

If you're telling me the mic positioning is not affected by room geometry, then monitor positioning and the position of your head when you mix also would not be affected by studio acoustics. But nobody here believes that.

And before you talk about room reflections (i.e. reverb) having an affect on monitor positioning, but not a closely mic'd cabinet, (a) exactly how is the mic different from your ears; and (b) pressure buildup is what we perceive as modal problems in almost every room... and this pressure buildup doesn't go away just because the mic is close to its source. It all depends on where that mic is in relation to those nodal centers.

That said, it wouldn't affect the KPA as far as the core tone (e.g. distortion characteristics, transient response, etc.), largely just the overall EQ.

Just my opinion of course Change my mind.

Sorry! You said single stomp.

Univibe, Carcosa, Freqout.

Uhm... that's kinda the point of profiling your amp at a certain volume. It measures the amp dynamics AT THAT VOLUME level.

If you want it to be quieter, turn down the amp. It won't sound the same... but it will be quieter. Can't have it both ways.

Quote from V8guitar

But then I'll never be a great guitarist, just an enthusiastic one

[Blocked Image: https://i.ebayimg.com/images/i/291947348081-0-1/s-l1000.jpg]

Yeah... Leon Todd. LOL

He has a KPA.

We also use the Yamaha CL Series mixer with Avioms and MonitorMix on the iPads. The Avioms' 16 channels are set up with various direct channels and various mixes + Mains. That way, some people can monitor just the mains, or mains + add more of themselves (e.g. singers, certain instruments), or we let them have their own mix via their iPad which they monitor via that one channel of the Aviom.

Quote from ML Sound Lab

Here's what this comparison looks like WITHOUT CABINET MODELING:

[IMG:https://i.ibb.co/T02CwHh/justtheamps.png]

White = Recto. Green = Kemper. Blue = Fractal. Red = Helix.

So.... assuming those are accurate plots (and I assume they are), they show why a lot of people hear a certain "Kemper sound" up in the highs, especially on non-Marshall distortion profiles. You can clearly see the peaks between 5-7k and the extra high end content above 11k. I'm super interested in seeing if more plots results show the same relationships across other profiles.

It's a perfect example of why we need high- and low-cut in the cabinet block.

Honestly, in terms of the UI, it would be as simple as re-arranging the blocks on the main screen. So in the case of the image below, the "Voice Ace Thirty" block would just move left or right depending on the setting.

On the remote they would add a small chevron under the block names to indicate position, or shrink all the blocks by 1 pixel and add an indicator between the blocks in the correct spot.

VERY little UI change would be needed.

Since the core of your sound is the Bogner 4x12, I'd feel safe with these as the wets. Honestly, they might be a little overkill.

I agree with oozish that they can be a little harsh/brittle in the high end, and I eventually sold mine. As side fills I wouldn't see that being as critical.

Yup. That's why it irks me when people knock Kemper profiles for being a "snapshot" or the original amp. Sure, the farther you get from the profiled settings -- the more you gain up, the more you EQ -- the less "authentic" it sounds. Do I care? No.

Perhaps the most widely praised profile, @rmpacheco's AC30 was modified heavily post capture. But that's what makes it legendary!

One of my favorite profiles is a relatively low-gain version of the PT-20 by nll , but it just starts smoking when you gain it up. It gets even better.

So yes, a profile has limits when it comes to emulating every amp setting in a single profile, but the converse is also true... the profile can go into sonic territory that's impossible with the original amp.

What I didn't say before...

... FAT32 certainly has problems, but exFAT is a Windows concern. Actually, not even that. It's only a Windows 10 concern which only has a 40% adoption rate among Windows users.

The rest of the world doesn't care about exFAT.

Quote from lightbox

the ubiquitous exFAT

Uhm...

Quote from Burkhard

1. You find a soft button within the EQ of the stack section which allows to place the equalizer either pre or post the amplifier. And that is by Rig.

Yes, but you often need subtle EQ tweaks after the AMP stack and a GEQ is perfect for that.

Quote from Burkhard

2. The Input Noise Gate is not global. Its setting gets stored in every Rig like Input Sens and Distortion Sens. It only becomes global if you lock the Input Section either in Browser Mode or in Performance Mode or in both.

So here's what's sad... I remember reading Kemper Support #1 's post #3 above over the weekend with the tip about unlocking it. But I don't remember exactly when I forgot that I had read that.

Thank you for your patience!

Quote from Michael_dk

Good idea.

Though I would phrase it as "Ability to specify whether stomps and effects are pre- or post stack". I almost didn't open the thread because I thought it was something else

I get what you're saying, except that you wouldn't move ONLY Stomp B post-amp. Stomp C and D would have to move too since it's linear signal path. IOW, you're moving the location of the AMP stack, not any individual block.

+1

I created a separate feature request for the ability to move the amp/eq/cab stack within the signal chain.

I searched and didn't find an existing REQUEST:

Ability to move the AMP/EQ/CAB stack location in the signal path, allowing more than 4 pre- or post- blocks.

Most of us agree that 8 blocks in a given rig are sufficient, but often run into the limitation of having only 4 pre-amp stomps, or only 4 post-amp FX. This feature request would allow us to specify the location of the AMP/EQ/CAB stack to allow for more/less stomps and more/less FX. e.g. you could have 6/A/2 or 5/A/3 or 1/A/7 arrangements. This feature would have minimal impact on CPU resources.

With the upcoming changes allowing the DELAY/REVERB blocks to run in parallel, perhaps this feature would need to be limited to the first 6 blocks only, with the last 2 blocks reserved for post-amp FX.

Great discussion! And thanks for clarifying Burkhard. I think the phrase we would use is "in real life", meaning not in theory. Your reasoning is much more clear now.

Leaving aside the points Wheresthedug and I noted about the market and fighting against the common mindset, I really do think that a few adjustments would go a LONG way.

First, if you added a few parameters in the CAB (high/low cut) and AMP (pre or post amp GEQ) that would immediately free 1 or 2 blocks in every single one of my Rigs.

Second, since most of us agree that 8 FX in a given rig are sufficient, perhaps the ability to choose where the amp is placed in the signal chain is possible. You could have 4/A/4 or 7/A/1 or 3/A/5 arrangements.

And last, back to the subject of this thread, I still think it's very worthwhile to have the noise gate settings per-Rig than global. I agree that we shouldn't be moving FX into non-visible areas, but the noise gate isn't typically an effect that you turn on or off during playing. It usually stays on/off based on the rig. There have been a number of times where I wanted it super aggressive in some rigs (e.g. djent), but generally want it more subtle.

Own/d both.

I second the Kemper because the workflow would be simple. Just a USB stick away. It would be a fair amount of work getting the AX8 to sound exactly like you're accustomed to.

If you weren't already invested in the KPA I'd suggest the AX8. If you like to tinker and learn new things, by all means, get the AX8. It's certainly good enough to do what you want.