OS 10 beta is out! Let's get Liquid!

    Quote from Tony G

    This is what I'm thinking. I love tinkering with electronics and if you had something like tone stack calculator that can be interfaced with liquid profiling where we can experiment with the values of the resistors and capacitors this could be an incredible tool for electronic tinkerers and ultimately amp builders. You can hear the sound and feel the attack before building the amp and know when you have a winning situation. Has to be worth something to the electronics engineer.


    Just a thought...

    I don't think that would work, as I don't think it's component level modelling. For component level modeling to work, you'd have to be able to insert it "inside" the profile depending on where it's located in the real amp. As far as I'm aware a profile is not separable into pre and power amp stages (even a direct profile is a capture of the sound of the entire amp).


    I'm guessing how a "Liquid" tonestack works is that it not only models the EQ points and curves found on the reference amp, but also alters the gain structure of the profile to simulate, for example, how a tonestack placed before the power amp will alter how each freq range is subsequently driven by the power amp. This is all conjecture of course... in fact if ckemper could shed any light on roughly what's going on under the hood (without giving away any secrets of course;) then it would be very interesting to know.

    Quote from dave5150

    What was the rationale for excluding the Sat and C45 switches from the Friedman tone stacks?


    I feel they defintely have an impact on gain and tone.


    We have chosen to avoid modeling controls and switches, that do not truly (!) interact with other controls and switches.

    The same is true for controls that in addition do not contribute to the task of adapting your guitar to the amp.

    All these controls are captured in the Profile, as usual.

    It is advantageous to mention these settings in the text tags of the Profile.


    The idea of Liquid Profile is to leave the majority of the tone sculpting to the Profiling process of an individual amp.

    Therefore we want the amp parts that are being modeled to be kept at a necessary minimum, to reduce the margin of error of the modeling process.


    The gain control with its optional brightcap is a cruical part for adapting your guitar to the amp, and at the same time the impact of the bright cap is dependent of the gain control position. This is absolutely worth being modeled.


    The same can be said for the tonestack, that serves a similar purpose, and has its own interdependencies as well.


    CK

    Quote from lbieber

    The most direct solution to all of these requests is to implement a tonestack creator so users can DIY. We are now in 'give a man a fish or teach him how to fish' territory.


    ckemper - have you considered this?


    I have considered it for a second or two.

    But as long as I don't see the community of (digital) guitar amps using parametric equalizers - or even for a better start, graphic equalizers - placed before the amp (!) to sculpture the guitar sound going into the distortion in a very easy way, I have no hope.


    Using graphical EQs for that purpose is known since the 80ies, I guess.

    Now with digital amps, it is a no-brainer in terms of cabling and noise issues.

    But it hasn't made its way in 15 years. Has anyone ever tried it?


    I have been waiting for long, that this existing 80ies technology, still present and evolved 'till today, will find a place in the guitar community.

    For sure it is possible to further parameterize the tonestack technique from the 1940ies, by using advanced computer technique from the 2000's and todays.


    As a player of a digital amp, do you need the technical echoes from the past, but combined with todays technique to improve it, to find your tone? I don't want to sell snake oil to you guys.

    I think Billy Gibbons uses a graphic eq (a computer controlled one IIRC) in front of his amps in his live rig, but its to modify his guitar tone so that every guitar sounds like his pearly gates les paul. He's years ahead to model the past.

    I always used to run a Boss graphic EQ as the first pedal on my board back in 1980. At the time I basically had it set so it bumped the treble and cut the low end. I used it on some Police songs and every reggae and soca song.

    Now I use one if I'm using one of my humbucker guitars for crunchy rhythm.

    Hi.

    It would be nice to have the Marshall JVM (4 channel) inside the OS as a choosable Amp.

    The tone stack of every channel of this amp behaves different compared to the others.

    And, if I have the right information, the tone stack of channel 1 is build up like a Fender tonestack.

    I think this amp (and its profiles) are very common.

    ckemper What prompted the Liquid Profile development? It was a long-requested feature, and I recall years ago that you seemingly decided not to pursue individualized EQ stacks after exploring it at the time. Was there a paradigm shift? Or is it just the "no hope" as described above and giving into what guitarists want?

    Quote from ckemper

    I have considered it for a second or two.

    But as long as I don't see the community of (digital) guitar amps using parametric equalizers - or even for a better start, graphic equalizers - placed before the amp (!) to sculpture the guitar sound going into the distortion in a very easy way, I have no hope.

    Maybe consider adding an EQ to the Kemper input? Then there could be input presets and leave the 4 Stomps for effects.

    These days, I do routinely place a Studio EQ in a stomp slot - graphic EQ works too of course, but personally I prefer the parametric. Takes a bit of time to set up, carefully chosen freq's and Q's make a lot of difference, but is worth it in any profile that'll be used a lot.


    I didn't ever use pre-EQ before using a Kemper tho tbh - I figured I'd just go with the tone of the pickups - however with the Kemper I kind of had to do it in order to deal with the fact that 3rd party profiles are inevitably set up to sound good on someone else's pickups, so some pre-EQ can help alter the tonal balance of the input closer to what was used when the profile was created. Presumably liquid profiles (i.e. being able to set the amp EQ in a realistic way to suit your pickups) will mean this sort of "fixing" is less necessary, but I imagine I will continue using a pre-EQ anyway as another available tone-shaping tool.


    btw, ckemper can I ask a specific question about Liquid Profiling:


    In cases where an amps tonestack is located between pre and power amp stages, how does a liquid tonestack simulate this?


    e.g. say the treble control on such an amp is set very low - this doesn't just lower the volume of the high freq's (as a post-amp EQ would), but it also alters the way the high freq's are subsequently driven by the power amp - so less distortion on them, or at least a different character. So, with a liquid tonestack modelled on such an amp, when you e.g. lower treble, does it also alter the distortion character of these high freq's?

    Quote from alligatorlizard

    btw, ckemper can I ask a specific question about Liquid Profiling:


    In cases where an amps tonestack is located between pre and power amp stages, how does a liquid tonestack simulate this?


    e.g. say the treble control on such an amp is set very low - this doesn't just lower the volume of the high freq's (as a post-amp EQ would), but it also alters the way the high freq's are subsequently driven by the power amp - so less distortion on them, or at least a different character. So, with a liquid tonestack modelled on such an amp, when you e.g. lower treble, does it also alter the distortion character of these high freq's?

    I'd like to hear ckemper address this too, but practically speaking...


    Most amps have distortion driven primarily by either the preamp or power amp.

    In case an amp's tonestack is located between pre and power amp stages and it's a preamp distortion amp, you'd set the tonestack to Post.

    In case an amp's tonestack is located between pre and power amp stages and it's a power amp distortion amp, you'd set the tonestack to Pre.


    And... just checked the manual and it says the same:

    ✓The position of the tone stack in the signal flow is influenced by the selected Amp Model. For Amp Models of vintage amp designs, which have no master volume control and only power amp distortion, the tone stack is positioned before the distortion stage. For Amp Models of more modern designs that feature a distorting pre-amp stage and a master volume, the tone stack position has been set by the creator of this Liquid Profile. Usually this is the “Post” position. If the PROFILE has been captured with predominantly power amp distortion, the tone stack is positioned “Pre” – that is, before the PROFILER’s distortion stage

    Quote from Finally

    I always used to run a Boss graphic EQ as the first pedal on my board back in 1980. At the time I basically had it set so it bumped the treble and cut the low end. I used it on some Police songs and every reggae and soca song.

    Now I use one if I'm using one of my humbucker guitars for crunchy rhythm.

    The first pedal on my board is a GE-7 I modded.


    I know for sure that some of the Nashville guys like Brent Mason also have one on their boards.


    PS. I am a DIYer. I made my pedal board out of left over bits from an aluminum fence we had installed

    Makes sense. From that quote from the manual though, it suggests the liquid tonestack is simply a custom EQ (with freq's and curves matching the original amp) placed either before or after the Kemper's "Amp" section. Not saying this can't be effective - and as I'm waiting for the official release, I'll of course have to try it before passing judgment - but it does suggest that liquid profiling is still not completely accurately simulating how a real amp reacts to tonestack changes.


    The big question I've had since Liquid Profiling was announced is this: with a modeler, the tonestack can be placed anywhere in the modeled signal chain, so (of course depending on the accuracy of the model) should react authentically. With a profile, the captured sound of the amp can't be separated into pre and power amp stages. I'd thought they might have got around this by altering the distortion character of the relevant freq band when turning the corresponding knob, but it sounds like this is not the case. Again, not saying this means it can't still sound good, but it does seem like - at least in theory - a limitation to the accuracy of a Liquid tonestack. But maybe I'm wrong - maybe it is more than simply a custom EQ placed before or after the "Amp" section? Would be great to get a definitive answer here!

    Quote from yeky83

    ckemper What prompted the Liquid Profile development? It was a long-requested feature, and I recall years ago that you seemingly decided not to pursue individualized EQ stacks after exploring it at the time. Was there a paradigm shift? Or is it just the "no hope" as described above and giving into what guitarists want?


    We have actually never decided against having individualized EQ. At the time I have announced the possibility that we might come up with such a solution, we have not explored the technique yet. It was always on our list, and all about priorities. The developement was done at a slower pace, while we were updating our effects and distortions. We felt that the latter was considered more important for our users.

    Quote from alligatorlizard

    Makes sense. From that quote from the manual though, it suggests the liquid tonestack is simply a custom EQ (with freq's and curves matching the original amp) placed either before or after the Kemper's "Amp" section. Not saying this can't be effective - and as I'm waiting for the official release, I'll of course have to try it before passing judgment - but it does suggest that liquid profiling is still not completely accurately simulating how a real amp reacts to tonestack changes.


    The big question I've had since Liquid Profiling was announced is this: with a modeler, the tonestack can be placed anywhere in the modeled signal chain, so (of course depending on the accuracy of the model) should react authentically. With a profile, the captured sound of the amp can't be separated into pre and power amp stages. I'd thought they might have got around this by altering the distortion character of the relevant freq band when turning the corresponding knob, but it sounds like this is not the case. Again, not saying this means it can't still sound good, but it does seem like - at least in theory - a limitation to the accuracy of a Liquid tonestack. But maybe I'm wrong - maybe it is more than simply a custom EQ placed before or after the "Amp" section? Would be great to get a definitive answer here!

    I’m sure CK and others will respond, but if all this amounts to is a custom eq pre or post, why would it take over a decade to realize?

    “Without music, life would be a mistake.” - Friedrich Nietzsche

    Like 1
    Quote from alligatorlizard

    btw, ckemper can I ask a specific question about Liquid Profiling:


    In cases where an amps tonestack is located between pre and power amp stages, how does a liquid tonestack simulate this?


    e.g. say the treble control on such an amp is set very low - this doesn't just lower the volume of the high freq's (as a post-amp EQ would), but it also alters the way the high freq's are subsequently driven by the power amp - so less distortion on them, or at least a different character. So, with a liquid tonestack modelled on such an amp, when you e.g. lower treble, does it also alter the distortion character of these high freq's?

    The answer is yes!


    To answer the theories of the adjaced posts:

    There is sometimes a common believe that all tube stages of an amp contribute to the overall distortion. But this is not exactly true.


    Some rules of thump:


    When nothing distorts, it doesn't matter where you put an EQ/tonestack. Always the same result.

    For example it doesn't matter, if you place an EQ before or after a delay or reverb, as long as the latter don't distort.


    On a vintage tube amp up to the Marshall Plexi, only the power amp section distorts. No master volume control, only gain.


    On later tube amps starting with the JCM800, the pre-amp section was given the ability to distort as well. A master volume knob was added to the power amp, to play distorted sounds at moderate levels.


    If a preamp distortion is prominent, the volume peaks of your guitar are compressed by the distortion, hindering the power amp from distorting on top. You have to crank the master volume to extreme values to have that second distortion. That additional power amp distortion tends to mudden the sound, so expecially in metal music one relies on preamp distortion only.


    You can of course lower the gain so that the preamp is clean and crank the master volume to have power amp distortion instead. This works well on "vintage master volume amps" such as the JCM800. But on dedicated modern high-gain amps the power amp section is highly linearized to provide less additional coloration (mud) at higher volumes.


    The Profiler is made for capturing (profiling) the most prominent distortion stage, that is either the preamp or power amp.

    For a Liquid Profile, you should be aware which stage you made distort, and set the EQ Position to Pre, if the power amp does the prominent distortion, or Post, if the preamp does the prominent distortion.