Kemper Profiler MK 2

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 490
  • Start date Start date
nicolasrivera said:
WOW, Leo has spoken! V2
Click to expand...

LP59 said:
I think that matches what everyone has been expecting for months now, and confirms what people are saying in subjective comparisons. It's improved but doesn't raise the bar on the state of the art for profiling accuracy.

It will be interesting to see if all the effort they put into this project turns out to be worthwhile for Kemper.
Click to expand...

Lets have some fun

Just to put some perspective and data around this .... Leo always uses his Soldano for Null Tests so we have consistency at least at the stimulation point for Capturing / Profiling.

Now lets assume that Null Tests tell us everything we need to know about the quality of relative Profiling methods ... which of course is total bullshit ... but regardless, lets play a round of digital amp tech sites newest favorite Gameshow "Null Tests Give Me The Horn" :)

From Leo's own video's and test result:-

=> V2 Mk2 Kemper is -33.8 LUFS

=> Q/Cortex V2 is -34.6 LUFS

=> Literally 0.8 LUFS / %2.3 difference.

Not even dear old Sky Daddy will hear that difference !

But of course all the spreadsheet-tone-chasers hear will have better than Jesus ears .. so that's reassuring;)

B.T.W ..... plenty of big names, Kenny Wayne Shepherd, Pete Thorn and numerous others are using the QC live and from various Rig Rundowns, they are all almost always using their own Amp Captures ..... KWS for example has the biggest collection of Dumbles in the world and is using his own Dumble QC Captures on his current EURO Tour ..... but w.t.f would a bluesy-tone-feel player like him know that the math-tone-chasers here know better.

Can me crazy, but these "results" make the KPA V2 as good as the QC V2 .. if you worship at the Alter of Null Tests ;)

Not bad given everyone was "blowing their juju" when QC V2 was released just recently.

I'll leave it there.

B.T.W ... I've had a Kemper Player for over 6 months and haven't even turned it on or taken it out of its box ..... once V2 settles and MBritt releases some packs - which I prfefer - I'll give it my personal shit testing methodology ..... how good or bad does it sound and feel and respond etc.... to me ..... you know, all that irrelevant crap that doesn't matter.

Remember ... Tone is in the Spreadsheet !

I need to get my morning coffee ;)
 
BenIfin said:
Lets have some fun
Click to expand...


Travolta Legends GIF by Pixel Bandits
 
LP59 said:
I'm not following what you're trying to say. V2 profiling gets Kemper back in the accuracy game and gives results on par with NDSP and IK. I don't think anybody is disputing that. Like I said, that was widely expected. Go ahead and install it, I'm sure you'll agree.
Click to expand...

Many people - not you - have been pre-shit-bagging Kemper V2 profiling saying it was never going to catch up to the any/some of the others

Now it turns out it "null tests" as good a QC V2 ... which people were blowing their beans over with the QC V2 very recently.

That's all ! No more. No less.
 
Orvillain said:
LUFS and null tests are not valid ways to compare capture technology. How many times do we have to cover this?
Click to expand...

That is actually the point of my post above .... hence why I put null test in " ". I should have been more obvious with my sarcasm - and being recently better educted on the topic from yourself and others ...I absolutly do agree they are "not valid ways to compare capture technology"

I thought my reference to people "blowing their beans with the QC V2 very recently" was another giveaway ;)
 
BenIfin said:
That is actually the point of my post above .... hence why I put null test in " ". I should have been more obvious with my sarcasm - and being recently better educted on the topic from yourself and others ...I absolutly do agree they are "not valid ways to compare capture technology"

I thought my reference to people "blowing their beans with the QC V2 very recently" was another giveaway ;)
Click to expand...
Not sure I really get it.
 
Orvillain said:
LUFS and null tests are not valid ways to compare capture technology. How many times do we have to cover this?
Click to expand...

The LUFS measurement needs to be integrated. If you do that, it measures the residual in a way that provides useful information about profiler accuracy.

For anybody in doubt on this matter, just look at Leo Gibson's latest null test results. They show that Kemper improved from V1 to V2 and is now in the ballpark of IK and NDSP. That's entirely consistent with what people are concluding from subjective tests of V2. That serves as independent confirmation of Leo's methodology.
 
LP59 said:
The LUFS measurement needs to be integrated. If you do that, it measures the residual in a way that provides useful information about profiler accuracy.

For anybody in doubt on this matter, just look at Leo Gibson's latest null test results. They show that Kemper improved from V1 to V2 and is now in the ballpark of IK and NDSP. That's entirely consistent with what people are concluding from subjective tests of V2. That serves as independent confirmation of Leo's methodology.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter if it is integrated or not. It isn't the right tool. It provides little useful information about profiler accuracy.
 
Orvillain said:
It doesn't matter if it is integrated or not. It isn't the right tool. It provides little useful information about profiler accuracy.
Click to expand...

Sure it does. The key question you want answered to assess accuracy is: how significant is the residual for human hearing? LUFS is well-suited to that.

Regardless, the key question anybody who doubts null tests must answer is: if null tests are so useless, why did they work so well in his Kemper V2 tests? His results align very well with people's subjective impressions about the profiling accuracy.
 
LP59 said:
Sure it does. The key question you want answered to assess accuracy is: how significant is the residual for human hearing? LUFS is well-suited to that.

Regardless, the key question anybody who doubts null tests must answer is: if null tests are so useless, why did they work so well in his Kemper V2 tests? His results align very well with people's subjective impressions about the profiling accuracy.
Click to expand...
It is pretty simple - null residual energy is not equivalent to perceptual difference. Two residuals can have the same LUFS but very different audibility. Null tests work well for linear time-invariant systems; which guitar amps and guitar amp models are not.
 
https://www.izotope.com/en/learn/what-are-lufs#integrated

I'm not a fan of Leo's Tests - I don't think they prove or show really anything of any value abuut how 2 different capturing techniques demonstrate that one capturing platform is "better" than another, let alone how much better or worse one "sounds" or "feels" or "responds" to pick attack or pre/post effects or playing dynamics ... the list goes on.

Its good info link from a Company that probably knows ;) what they are talking about.

F.w.i.w .... the word "frequency" appears once only in relation to oversampling ..... the word "null" is never mentioned ... the word "compare" appears only twice in relation to comparing loudness across streaming or playback sources etc ....

Its actually a bloody good read on this whole topic and pretty much puts it to bed and tucks it in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: eon
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PorcinePicker
Kemper KAOS Chaos....advice?
Replies
9
Views
951
hunter
hunter
Orvillain
My first day with each unit
Replies
19
Views
748
EOengineer
E
DrewJD82
Friedman IR-Load
11 12 13
Replies
256
Views
13K
paisleywookiee
paisleywookiee
D
What's a reasonable price to sell a Helix Floor for these days?
Replies
16
Views
258
ragingplatypi
ragingplatypi
hunter
Null Tests
4 5 6
Replies
103
Views
8K
Boudoir Guitar
B
Back
Top