Posts by SwAn1

    ... If I would have wanted to direct it to you specifically, I would have tagged you in my post.

    You seem to be under some sort of misunderstanding that your intent defines how others use the Internet. Instead of blaming him for a perfectly reasonable assumption why not work to make your communication clearer?

    no, I won't. but it would be a good idea if you would put your comparison up on your dropbox and replace the soundcloud links.

    Why not follow some of your own advice and start a new thread where you post your own examples to discuss player fidelity rather than demand that someone else undo all their work to meet your expectations? The purpose of this thread was not what site is the best site for audio comparisons, it was can you determine which clip is the original and which is from the profile.

    word of advise: if you want to make a serious comparison, maybe don't choose soundcloud to host it. don't you realize how much soundcloud degrades the quality of the recording? why talking details when you look at things through a filter which possibly even masks some of the broader strokes?

    What site would you recommend? Most people don’t use uncompressed WAV files loaded to a site like Dropbox to manage and play their music. So in terms of conducting a test I think it is perfectly valid to post it to a site that represents real world usage. If you really wanted to make it a real world test, Youtube would actually have been better!

    The differences in the clean test are very hard to detect, but here they're quite obvious to me.

    I am going to vote opposite to you - I think 1 is the Axe and 2 is the KPA. Not based on the sound but rather, the audio waveform. I remember once (and could be remembering wrong!) that the KPA waveform seemed to show less data / dynamics than the original amps.

    We have here two professional tools.One of this tool is (as I mentioned above) already a "standard" in many pro-studios and the main working tool for many professional gigging musicians on the road with "big names".This means some things are not a matter of taste but rather common sense and "minimum requirements of professional musicians to their main tool" kind of thing..Further..comparing these two modelers in 2019 is not the same like it was some years ago.In the meanwhile everybody has heard about definitions like "amp in the room"/FRFR and all these things many many guys never thought about before they bought a Kemper in lets say 2015..

    Things have developed.New shootouts should be valued by these developments..These clips are not good.They do not stand for the Kemper or the AF3.Period.

    So you are saying you don’t know which is which then? What about those in the second test he posted?


    But my problem is that we have here two rather weird sounding clips(what is this for a weird "ringing"?) and for sure the KPA or the AF3 do not sound this poor.I would not say this if OP would be a newbie.But in this case OP knows that "requirements" are quite high if a "old member" does one more shoot out between these two modelers.I dont say that ColdFrixion does bad profiling or bad tweaking on purpose.I really dont believe this.But for sure we can do better.

    If the profile is bad it should be easy to identify! I find that often people making bold claims come up with all kinds of excuses when it come time to put their ears where their mouth is - poor sound samples, too much compression, ringing weirdness (which apparently the profile captures accurately), bad profiles etc. So far these two tests (here and in the other post) confirm to me that there is no Kemper sound baked in across profiles and that it does a great job profiling modelers.

    As the owner of a KPA and an Axe II (not III) I am interested in the results for a number of different reasons:

    1. I hope that some of those who claim that the KPA has a “certain sound” across amps and profiles now have a chance to put this to the test. If it does, they will be able to identify the profile. I am not denying that some may hear a similarity so I am hoping to get some sort of personal resolution on this.

    2. I couldn’t tell the difference so hoping someone will make and post profiles of the III and save me $2,400! :D

    I am voting for 2 as the Axe. It is a total guess.

    if you want something better than 'amp in the room', put the PROFILER in stereo through a good monitoring system (Studio monitors, wedges, IEM) and add a 1x12 cabinet, preferrably driven by the POWERHEADs internal power amp.

    Now you can take advantage of the full profiled sound including cabinet, speaker, mic, EQ etc. for FOH/reheasal room PA/FRFR and the extra impact a 12" speaker delivers, which is what many of us guitar players are used to.

    Best of both worlds.

    How can something be better than amp in the room? By definition, the idea is to create the sound of the amp in the room! Nothing more, nothing less. And the profiler gives the sound of a recorded amp, not amp in the room and certainly not better than amp in the room!

    The firmware change is just allowing IRs to be imported into the unit in a "non-minimum phase aligned format", if they were or are created this way. Basically, no cutting out any silence before the waveform. This lets you manually align the phase of any IR and/or adjust to other IRs if you are mixing them. Gives a lot more control over the final product, but doesn't create "amp in the room" feel. For that, you need an amp in the room.

    Thanks for the theory explaination. Have you actually tried it on a III? There are some comments there by some who feel like it actually does capture the amp in a room sound but I would expect some hyperbole there!

    The new AxeFX III firmware seems to offer an amp in the room feature. Still too early to judge how good it is as it was a beta release and most comments don’t really talk about the feature, but if it really can recreate the feel of an amp in the room as opposed to just an amp on a recording this will be a good for all of us over time.

    No offense taken. I don’t code but do hire a lot of developers for my various projects. In defense of companies that do develop on a fast schedule I don’t think it automatically means crappy results. Depends on the developer I guess and the team around them. Regardless, if you don’t mind glacial development schedules then it is one more plus for the Kemper.

    I have the AFx II and the Kemper. I feel I can dial both of them pretty close to each other sound wise but the Kemper has certain advantages. The biggest is that the sound of the profile is always the same firmware to firmware. On the Axe it is almost never the same. Fractal users seem to love this but no one has any idea if it actually sounds more like the real amp modeled or if it just sounds different for the sake of sounding different. This leads to the next big advantage which is that’s there is not a lot of tweaking like there is on the Axe, trying different IR’s and tweaking it all over again. The new delays and the reverbs go a long way to closing the effects gap advantage and if the rumors about the other effects being reworked on the Kemper is true then that advantage goes away as well. The downside of Kemper for me vs Fractal is that the developments cycle to add or change anything is just glacial while at Fractal they are very responsive to ideas from the user base and have a lot of new requested features added with new firmwares. The Axe has a great editor as well while the Kemper has none. Personally I feel that overall Fractal also seems to have more respect for their customers than Kemper but that is my subjective point of view and does not change my opinion that the Kemper is the better buy.

    It took you 10 edits to write this?

    I like my AFII as well but Dean is right about the fact that the sound keeps changing! What is interesting in the III marketing page is that realistic amp sound seems to just be a repetition of the text they had for the II and is close to the bottom of the III’s features that they highlight. It seems to have moved to become more of a jack of all trades type box where close enough is good enough.

    One of the bands I play in we use tracks a lot. The click and audio cues are panned hard left and the audio is panned hard right. The audio tracks are all converted to dual mono tracks and run from Logic Pro x so we can balance the instruments as needed. House sound is mono. Each musician has an iPad and we can balance out instrument to the track and other live instruments and vocals. I use the Weston AM30 (I believe) that allows some stage audio to come in. They are great for IEM which is the intended use but make poor headphones as when I use them outdoors the wind can make a lot of extraneous noise through the hole. As we play at the same location, we have an audience mic that provides some ambient sound and that worked well for me and other band members who use Shure IEMs (415?). Apart from the wedge for the vocalist and the acoustic drums and guitar, the stage is silent. The flexibility of dialing in my sound and saving my hearing outweigh the benefits of “thump and power.” Also makes mixing the house sound a lot easier for the sound guy (we can almost set it and forget it now).