Posts by pippopluto

Quote from CapnDan81

Sure, some of these “can be done” but it’s pretty annoying to setup all the morphs for it.

- Different delay stack for different parts

- Mixed dual channels that have more dry and compressed sounds behind them, similar to dual track but actually different paths for effects

- Special effects (like clean synth or hold pedals) in the effects loop

- Dual amp routing in same 2.0 patch for switching.

There are many many examples in other systems and modelers, which I don’t want to name because I am a kemper user, but easy routing is certainly a missing piece for me. It routes everything like using a virus synth, which is robust (I have owned 3), but not modern or easy and requires significant time and attention to get right. An A/B routing switch allows it to run much more like an A/B signal on a pedal board and lets me route what I want where. Meaning more sound design options.

The ability to have 2 paths and switch between them? Very easy. Easy for morphing, easy for special effects, easy for delays especially (which I get already have some options but it’s pretty arcane).

Lastly, as a regular gigging musician, I have 5 patches I use on stage in performance switching. I got a kemper to avoid tap dancing.

Clean, grit, tough, heavy, lead

Sometimes I want my clean to have more delay, sometimes I want grit to have fuzz and a slightly different profile but very similar. Sometimes I want lead to have dual delays with a powerful clean signal, I want to morph these easily using a signal change as a user. All of it can be done with having many rigs, but making patches able to do this would expand that significantly. I would recommend it as a Profiler MKII only feature as well - since it’s a lot of work, give people reasons to buy it over the older version.

Display More

To clarify, I am not thinking of any morphing

If your goal is to have the possibility to freely control the amount of any effect/parameter on a per-situation basis, I'd agree that Kemper's approach is definitely not the best possible one. IME, different rigs per song/part with different morphings is still the procedure of election on this platform.

The reason why I am insisting on this is that I believe the amount of re-work required in order to implement what you are asking, and the entity of deviation from the House's native philosophy are two elements that make this not going to happen. Unless, of course, a Kemper 2 (not Mk III!) is going to represent a total discontinuity with the current approach.

Quote from CapnDan81

Similar but different. Really the idea is to have 2 separate effects chains running at the same time. Similar to dual routing on other systems.

For example chain:

Guitar-> fixed mk2 effects -> amp block -> splitter - > top section is slow delay into reverb, bottom section is EQ into COMP -> mixer -> fixed effects block -> output.

Basically just non linear signal routing.

I may be missing the point too, but considering the amount of development it would take I can't see the advantage with respect to simply switching between two rigs.
Would you mind describing a meaningful scenario where the latter would not give the same results?

I can' answer your question directly. Distortion Sens is just a global Gain assignment (for the distorted portion of a given sound) tho, so changing a distorted profile's gain will take you there.

HTH

Quote from sailor

I’m sure that would be effective, but with all due respect, there shouldn’t be any need to do all that simply to install an update. That would be an extremely unfriendly experience for the user. People expect, and quite rightfully so, that installers just work, without any need for manual steps or removal tools.

As I mentioned above, the problem could be solved IMHO if Kemper switched to using an installer tool that is better suited to their needs.

Fair enough. I explained it as a way to make things work, meanwhile. Never had an issue till now. I'd also point out that only maybe twice in about 10 years I have had the need to totally uninstall a previous version of RM in order to get a successful update.

AFAIUI, this is a fault in W uninstaller, anyway. My point is that there's no need for third-part tools in order to solve the issue. Also, pretty sure that understanding a bit better the way W works may prove useful in many (other) circumstances.

HTC

IME, there's no need for third-part tools in order to totally remove things in W.

After running the uninstall, I

• manually remove leftover folders I am aware of
• search for folders with meaningful terms such as Kemper, RigManager or the like and remove them
• quickly check the Install/Uninstall programs page just to have a visual representation of the situation
• open the Registry editor and perform the same search as above, deleting everything related
• restart W.

After doing this - again, IME - there can't be anything left that can interfere with a fresh installation.

Side notes:

• I perform a System reset on the Profiler about once a year, typically after an update
• you can run W installer, recursively, from within W itself: it will fix a number of small and not-so-small issues by fixing missing libraries or corrupted system files w/o affecting your settings; also, the process doesn't take long, since the installer skips all the (good) files that are already there.
• of course, when you freshly install W it's always a good idea to save a backup/snapshot of your installation once you have tweaked it to your taste (and installed your basic programs, so to always have the possibility to restart with a solid, slim, uncorrupted environment in minutes.

HTH

Quote from nwmusic32

When you had an OS that worked (and OS13 continues to work), made changes to your next OS, and now some of those same features do not work - that's a you problem, not a Windows problem.

My comment is - of course? - addressed to those who find reinstalling W fixes some issues

I'd agree that the whole Profiling concept has been developed more with originality in mind than with compatibility (from a workflow standpoint): this is its strength and its weakness at the same time.

I am certainly not going to "defend" (if need be) the implementation. For Windows users, tho, there are a couple of things that might be useful (for several other perspective issues as well): when you install a fresh W system, make a system backup once you have set things the way you like, removed modules and functions you don't want, installed fundamental apps and services: you'll be able to revert to the best status in a few minutes if needed.

Another option many (most?) seem to be unaware of is that you can run W installer from within W itself: this will fix a number of things, reinstall corrupted system files etc. w/o affecting your current setup and apps. In the decades, I've solved a number of issues by doing so.
One good thing about this option is that the installer will just skip existing files, so the whole process takes a lot less than a fresh installation.

HTH

Versatility (specially when it comers at a low cost, let's hope this is one of the cases LOL) is always appreciated

Quote from StefanErtle

Only one use case. Ducking itself is already implemented for many fx

In the post I pasted the advantage of sidechain compression over ducking is mentioned

On TGP, someone has posted the following. I wonder whether it might be an option now that some of the logistic has been implemented...

I asked Gemini for a description of the perspective scenarios in case of a single-input situation.

Quote

The introduction of the "Compressor Sidechain" (released in the recent KAOS OS 14.2.0 beta) is a feature inherited from the recording studio world. Even without a second instrument (e.g., kick drum or bass) connected to an alternative input acting as a trigger, using the sidechain with just the guitar signal opens up extremely advanced sound design and dynamic control scenarios.

In the guitar realm (often referred to as internal sidechain or self-ducking), this approach is primarily used in four ways, depending on the routing or filters applied to the trigger:

1. Selective Control of Palm Mutes (Multiband Dynamics)

• How it works: If the compressor allows you to apply EQ to the sidechain circuit, you can use a Low Pass filter (or boost the lows) on the trigger signal. The compressor will only "listen" to the low frequencies but will act on the overall volume of the instrument.
• The effect: When playing open chords or solos on the higher strings, the compressor doesn't engage. However, when you execute heavy palm mutes (chugs) on the lower strings, the compressor detects the excess low frequencies and instantly "squashes" the signal. This gives you a massive, super-tight low-end without sacrificing the sustain and dynamics of the higher strings.

2. Extreme Ducking of Ambient Effects (Blooming)

• How it works: By placing the compressor after reverbs, modulations, or delays (or in a Parallel Path), the clean, direct guitar signal (DI) is used as a trigger to compress the effect tails.
• The effect: While fast picking or playing tight rhythm parts, the effects are pushed into the background (ducking), keeping the mix defined and intelligible. As soon as you stop or let a long note ring out, the compressor disengages, and the reverb and delay tails "bloom," filling the sonic space. Note: Kemper already has a "Ducking" parameter on delays, but a dedicated sidechain compressor allows you to manipulate entire wet chains (e.g., Chorus + Delay + Shimmer) with pinpoint control over attack and release.

3. De-Esser to Tame Harsh Frequencies ("Ice-Pick")

• How it works: This is the exact opposite of point 1. The sidechain is filtered so that the compressor only "listens" to the high frequencies.
• The effect: If you have a very bright profile or use a particularly piercing bridge pickup, you can trigger the compression only when hitting the high strings too aggressively. The compressor steps in for a fraction of a second, reducing the harsh transients that cause ear fatigue, while leaving the low and mid frequencies completely untouched.

4. Groove Recovery on High-Gain Sounds

• How it works: An ultra-distorted tone (after the Amp block) is inherently a compressed wall of sound where touch dynamics are nearly zeroed out. A standard compressor placed after the amp wouldn't "pump." But if you use the original input signal (the clean pick attack on the string) as a trigger for the compressor placed after the amplifier...
• The effect: ...the compressor will reduce the volume of the distorted sound, tracking the actual dynamics of your clean playing. This restores a rhythmic breathing, a "bounce" (pumping) to saturated rhythm parts that would otherwise sound flat and two-dimensional in the mix.

Check for the selected output to include all the stomps and fx.
HTH

You have the possibility to switch cabinet off for Monitor Out only... check the Main manual

Quote from BayouTexan

I do not like paying for upgrades. That is one of the main reasons I chose a Kemper Profiler over the Fractal in the first place. I personally have never seen a pedal being sold before without it's full potential included from the start. That's a big turn off for me.

You do not. You do have the possibility to save money for functions you don't need, or to defer full payment and still be able to use the unit. Or you buy the whole thing from the beginning, if that'0s what you want/need.
Either way, there's no possible way for it to be wrong as I see it.

The thing I hate most about synths is that I'd have to add a whole new block of hw to my otherwise slim, practical, powerful rig.

The addition of a synth module in the Kemper would be extremely welcome by me. In fact it's the thing I miss the most. I'd be happily willing to switch to a "synth mode", where not all the other functions are available in case there were CPU/DSP limitations.

In my best wet dream the Profiler would be gifted with a 5-pole socket in order to use instruments such as the Godins.

Quote from halipino

How can anyone make choices with so much to choose from?

Usually you search by amp and/or cab, by author if you have started to appreciate specific ones, by gain.
Hint (serious): if you get options paralysis, just ignore them all

Not sure this relates to your case, but I'm reporting my experience hoping it helps.

I've found that in most cases the issue of tones getting lost in the mix derives from three circumstances:

1. making sounds at home volume
2. making sounds outside the mix contest
3. trying to use that gorgeous, living-room tone on stage.

When we listen to sounds at low volume our brain automatically increases the mids; so you are brought to increase low-mids, lows, highs or whatever. At higher volume the neurological increment of the mids ceases, and we are left with the least useful ranges of frequencies...

The best mix is the one where every instrument/range on frequencies sits in a more or less empty niche: IOW, the one where instruments don't overlap. This moves the "lost in the mix" issue from the guitarist alone to the band: unless the mixer guy is good, not all the (bass) drum sounds are suited for a certain context; in a traditional rock context the piano player usually doesn't play the first two octaves... and so on.
In case such things can't ber changed, the guitar player is the best equipped member to find the empty niche(s) in the band context. Playing with the band is the best way to sculpture your tone the right way... unless you have a lot of experience already (experience is required because those well-functioning tone sound very poor/bad alone).

As a general rule, I'd advise you cut everything below 80/100 Hz, and then use a PEQ to find the most offending range of frequencies while playing with the band at volume. When you find it, just negativise the PEQ gain... and you are at least halfway

HTH

Quote from tedtan

It’s where the latest, most up to date info resides.

The Main and the Addendum manuals are published together.
The goal of the Addendum manual is to make people aware of what has changed when.

HTC

Quote from Radek01

Currently, from top of my head, I have: KPP manual (specific to device), "The big manual" (describing a lot of details), and Addendum.

Out of curiosity, why do you need to consult the Addendum on a regular basis?

Kudos to the people who explore and actually learn manuals!
The others, literally, don't know what hey are missing... ;D

I think the minimum length of the IR would be really big. Not sure the Profilers are equipped for managing such big amount of data.

Anyway, I was interested in the matter years ago and collected some interesting reads. Here follow some statements from Jay Mitchell on this subject, always interesting to read even if he goes further. HTH

Quote

1. An IR that fully captures the "cab plus room" is entirely unsuitable for live performance with a modeler/monitor system. This is because you're adding (one piece of) a virtual "room" to the physical room in which you are performing. This is almost never a Good Thing.

2. In order to fully capture the portion of the "room" that is even possible to capture in a single IR, its length would have to exceed the longest decay time of any room you would ever want to capture in this way. Even a small room takes a second or more to decay below ambient noise. A medium size room - a number of recording studios fall into this range - would require 2-3 seconds, and a large room could require as much as 6 seconds or longer. Cliff's proposed 8k-point "UltraRes" simulated IR falls woefully short of what is required even for a small room. The effect of lengthening the IR by that amount is to add the least desirable pieces of the room response - early reflections - while cutting off the more desirable diffuse decay.

Whereas you stand a chance of capturing all the audibly relevant part of a guitar cab alone (IOW, its "anechoic" or "free field" response) in a short IR (40ms or less), increasing the length to 170ms (or 200ms or 500ms) falls far short of what is required in order for you to stand a chance of capturing a room. There are compelling reasons why convolution reverbs are not offered in standalone hardware devices of reasonable cost.

If your playback environment is anechoic (as is the case with headphones), there might be a benefit. Because the "Ultra" IR only captures early reflections, there would still be a major piece missing, however.

Placing mics in front of guitar cabs in a studio - no matter how many years are spent doing that nor how good the results - in no way prepares one to acquire clean, authentic-sounding far field impulse responses.

The claim that there is significant (meaning audible) energy beyond ~20ms in a cab IR is the mistaken part. The fact that a longer FFT yields more low-frequency detail is a mathematical result and is not by itself evidence that there is acoustic energy beyond 40ms that needs to be included in a cab sim.

Recent posts in the thread on the other board have made the motivation behind Cliff's announcement of his "discovery" a bit clearer. There is a belief on the part of at least one individual involved in the process that including the effect of a "good" room in cab IRs is not only not a Bad Thing, it is a Necessary Thing, and that having a "good" room in which to shoot IRs will make them "better" than IRs which contain no room reflections. Given that these are all highly subjective conclusions, it is not productive to take issue with them. It is not subjective, however, that there will be several results from the IRs that result from this thinking:

1. They will all contain room reflections by design. In close-mic'ed IRs, those reflections will be substantially attenuated compared to direct sound, but they will be audibly present.

2. There has been no attempt to identify the first occurrence of a room reflection and window it out in any of these IRs. It is therefore very likely that even the shortened ones presently being offered have such reflections in them.

3. If/when IRs taken in the far field are offered, the room reflections that are present in them will be much more prominent. According to the thinking outlined above, this should be a Really Good Thing, since the room is a "good" one.

Based on this new information, there appears to be a major bifurcation in the thinking of different folks involved in the acquisition of guitar cab IRs. This was never about improving the accuracy of the cab-only part of an IR. There is only one way to do that: acquire longer, reflection-free ones.

When you play through an actual guitar cab and listen to what you're playing - without resorting to mic'ing the cab and listening over monitors - you hear two components: the direct sound from the cab, and the reflected sound from the acoustic environment. There is no way to completely remove either of those components and leave the other intact. Moreover, one part of the reflected sound - early reflections - has a generally detrimental effect, and it is very much to your advantage to minimize this part via optimizing cab placement and aiming.

When you use a modeler with an amp block and a cab block in the signal chain and play through a monitor of some kind, those same two components will always be present. The room in which you are playing is always audibly present, no matter what you do. When the cab sim also contains reflected sound from a different acoustic environment, you've added a second set of unknown environmental reflections, and, because the IR is short, these reflections will consist entirely of early reflections (IOW, the kind that are generally detrimental to your sound).

Display More