Are Kemper amps ethical?

[destinytot]

[QUOTE=Socraticaster;639045... the second formulation of the categorical imperative.[/QUOTE]
“ Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end. ”
— Immanuel Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Moral (thank you, Google).

[NSJ]

There's word on the street that, when you get your free AOL cd in the mail this month, they've somehow found a way to slightly bump the dial up DL speed by a few kb/s.

That's crazy talk.
Someone ran into Woz in a Cupertino cafe, and apparently they're developing something in a few short years that will not only fit into your pocket, but will completely replace your

flip phone
crackberry
plain paper fax machine
Sony Walkman
point and shoot camera
Personal Digital Assistant
car GPS navigation system
AOL dial up service
desktop scanner
word processor - typewriter
beeper

I mean, that's terrible, what's the world coming to????

[Vladan]

Amps do not have sound. Amps do not deal with, do not amplify sound, first place. They amplify voltage. All the circuits (currently in use) "sound" exactly the same. Perceived difference in sound comes from different control settings of said amp, speakers used and so on. Any "amp" can sound like any other "amp", with adequate control settings. That's why there's no possible copyright on "The Sound".
You pay for the logo (i.e. guarantee) and presets (i.e. ease of use).
Now days presets are more in digital domain, while yesteryear they were in settings of bias, trimmers, gain range ..., but always up to 100% replicable on any other device of a kind.

[AlainJazz]

I'm ready for the future.

I'm ready too. At the next financial opportunity, I'm going for either an Axe or a Kemper. I love my little deluxe reverb, I hate the noise it attracts in crappy locations with bad wiring.

[vintagelove]

Amps do not have sound. Amps do not deal with, do not amplify sound, first place. They amplify voltage. All the circuits (currently in use) "sound" exactly the same. Perceived difference in sound comes from different control settings of said amp, speakers used and so on. Any "amp" can sound like any other "amp", with adequate control settings. That's why there's no possible copyright on "The Sound".
You pay for the logo (i.e. guarantee) and presets (i.e. ease of use).
Now days presets are more in digital domain, while yesteryear they were in settings of bias, trimmers, gain range ..., but always up to 100% replicable on any other device of a kind.

Horsesh@t,

different components in the signal path effect the sound. Output transformers are a great example.

a twin reverb does not feel like a super reverb. Tube vs SS rectifier.

etc,

[John A.]

There's a critical error that a lot of people make about the principles underlying patents and copyrights (at least as they exist in the US), a mistake I've been guilty of and schooled on by people who know more. These constructs serve explicitly to promote society's interest, not an individual's property. This is fundamentally different from other legal constructs built on a ideas of natural rights of individuals (e.g., the natural right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). Specifically, the "patent clause" of Article 1, section 8 of the US constitution says:

"The Congress shall have Power ... [snip other clauses] ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

So, when someone submits an innovation for patent to the government, he/she is explicitly entering into a deal with society: "You give me a monopoly of finite duration, and in exchange for that, I'll publish my idea so that you all can use it, but on my terms." After the patent expires, everyone is free to use the discovery. The idea that the discovery itself belongs to the inventor is wrong -- the discovery exists by virtue of the laws of nature, not because someone truly created it. So if you start talking about copying or using other people's innovations in terms of "ethics" in the abstract (rather than in the specific context of how our society actually manages these constructs) you're making a fundamental category error. In the case of patents, there is no ethics outside the law. The law is the ethics.

John

[Herbie]

I don't know about the ethics but yes, I have wondered that the future (Kemper, Axe fx etx) is here but why do they do their best to imitate the the past? Why does every modeler have its 'British rock', 'American clean' etc if the future is here?

Maybe this is a phase that goes over and they who are in the forefront of the future start making sounds of the future too.

Or they have started it already but I have missed them because I have been modding my Princeton Reverb!

[Bluedawg]

There's a critical error that a lot of people make about the principles underlying patents and copyrights (at least as they exist in the US), a mistake I've been guilty of and schooled on by people who know more. These constructs serve explicitly to promote society's interest, not an individual's property. This is fundamentally different from other legal constructs built on a ideas of natural rights of individuals (e.g., the natural right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). Specifically, the "patent clause" of Article 1, section 8 of the US constitution says:

"The Congress shall have Power ... [snip other clauses] ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

So, when someone submits an innovation for patent to the government, he/she is explicitly entering into a deal with society: "You give me a monopoly of finite duration, and in exchange for that, I'll publish my idea so that you all can use it, but on my terms." After the patent expires, everyone is free to use the discovery. The idea that the discovery itself belongs to the inventor is wrong -- the discovery exists by virtue of the laws of nature, not because someone truly created it. So if you start talking about copying or using other people's innovations in terms of "ethics" in the abstract (rather than in the specific context of how our society actually manages these constructs) you're making a fundamental category error. In the case of patents, there is no ethics outside the law. The law is the ethics.

John

Maybe I'm wrong .... but

IMHO the law is what the government requires ....

ethics is a personal requirement on one's self .. or what a private organization (company, professional group, etc.) requires .... usually stricter requirements than the law

I would not expect a legal penalty for breaking an ethics rule that's not enshrined in law ... but you may suffer penalties from a private organization that governs your profession or hobby .. or just a personal disappointment in your ability to stick with your own rules

So while you raise some very good points ... if one choses to impose an ethical standard that is stricter than what the law allows that is a personal choice

As for the ethics of Kemper .... I don't see the ethics problem with it ... but if someone else has an issue I can respect their opinion

[DRS]

Is it ethical to play the I-IV-V? Somewhere, long ago, someone got creative and came up with the I-IV-V. Who's protecting that guy?

[Vladan]

Horsesh@t,

different components in the signal path effect the sound. Output transformers are a great example.

a twin reverb does not feel like a super reverb. Tube vs SS rectifier.

etc,

The only shit is your wit. You'd better stick to playing guitar.

[Vladan]

Maybe I'm wrong .... but

IMHO the law is what the government requires ....

ethics is a personal requirement on one's self .. or what a private organization (company, professional group, etc.) requires .... usually stricter requirements than the law

I would not expect a legal penalty for breaking an ethics rule that's not enshrined in law ... but you may suffer penalties from a private organization that governs your profession or hobby .. or just a personal disappointment in your ability to stick with your own rules

So while you raise some very good points ... if one choses to impose an ethical standard that is stricter than what the law allows that is a personal choice

As for the ethics of Kemper .... I don't see the ethics problem with it ... but if someone else has an issue I can respect their opinion

Point is, that it is not unethical, at all. The nature of discovery and invention is such that it would happen anyway, sooner or later. That's why you have similar inventions and discoveries happen within relatively close time frame at different places around the world, completely independent of each other. Teams, even if of only 1 member, working on same stuff. The only question is who's to do it first.
The one who does it first, gets recognition and receives a sort of handicap, measured in time, usually much longer than difference in time made before the next guy who was about the same thing, not only to exploit own work on own terms, but everybody else is obliged to follow same set of rules. After that period of time passes, we are again all equal in the game.

EDIT: Is it ethical to have two digital amp emulators? If Donald did it first, how dare Camper do that same thing? See? Its O.K.

[goldenwave77]

.



There are no "IP laws" as such because IP is imaginary. There are patent laws, copyright laws and trademark laws. These are specific legal structures that are erroneously referred to as "IP laws." They are not intellectual property laws; intellectual property is a recently made up rubric intended to deprive software purchasers from the right to actually own the software they purchase and has been extended from there for use by others with a financial interest in maintaining control over information. It's quite interesting how readily society fell for that nonsense.

.

There are some very weighty, and interesting observations in this post, and I won't attempt to read too much into it. But, there is a lot of history to IP issues.

Historically, battles over copyright were big issues in the 19th century. One of the reasons British authors (Dickens, esp.) disliked the U.S. was that the U.S. didn't respect British copyright. British authors would publish something, and U.S. publishers would pirate it, reprint it, and distribute it for the U.S. market. The U.S. was kind of like China right now---a big, expanding "Wild West" where IP rights were not always observed. Pretty sure publishing rights disputes between U.S./Britain were settled by treaty in the 1880's.

In the invention of the sewing machine, 6 or 8 rivals had patents on one or more of the parts/processes that ended up becoming the Singer Sewing machine. Singer organized a financing consortium, the various disputants settled 10-15 yrs. of litigation, and contributed their patent rights, and the Singer sewing machine became world famous. Pretty sure that was 1830's-ish. (In Detroit recently, I had an interesting conversation with a Croatian immigrant cobbler who knew Singer from the old country. In his U.S shop, he still uses a Singer stitcher that was over 100 yrs. old. He characterized modern machinery as "cheap cr*p---no good.")

The "golden age" of Tin Pan Alley and the Great American Songbook, roughly 1900-1950, would not have been possible without the rise of ASCAP and BMI. Songwriters like Irving Berlin, Jerome Kern, Jimmy Van Heusen became well to do, if not rich, from writing songs that allowed them to receive royalties.

[vintagelove]

The only shit is your wit. You'd better stick to playing guitar.

What are you even talking about???

You make a post that is utter bs, (but try to pass it off as a joke). Then you get called on it by someone who has actually done various component listening tests in a studio environment. To which you respond by insulting me.

I hope this demonstrates how closely one should listen to anything you have to say.

[Max405]

I don't think its unethical at all.
The sounds they try to replicate are close, but the real thing will always be the real thing.

I am getting my first taste of the great variety that all the different amps provide. A Polytone in a small room sounds totally different in big room. An open back Fender tube amp sounds good in a small room but can lose some of its focus on a stage. All of this is created by sound waves moving about in different directions or catapulted at different speeds.

Sound replication can only be so close. Nothing can replace the real thing. But I love the convenience of having all replications in one box.

The bottom line though, Most of the tone comes from your hands. I know some Johnny Smith songs note for note, exactly as he played them. I've played a D'Angelico through an Emrad and guess what? I'm still Joe DeNisco, trying to replicate Johnny Smith. Through the same exact equipment.. And I cant sound anywhere near close to him.. Its in the brain and the hands..

Joe D.

[jads57]

If it's Boutique and either European,or USA it's Ethical! If it's Asian or Other it's Not, LOL!

[Vladan]

What are you even talking about???

You make a post that is utter bs, (but try to pass it off as a joke). Then you get called on it by someone who has actually done various component listening tests in a studio environment. To which you respond by insulting me.

I hope this demonstrates how closely one should listen to anything you have to say.

What are you talking about, what jokes? I was dead serious about amps and never tried to pass anything as a joke. Are you the one who have done listening tests? Why should I believe you and even if you have done what you claim, who can tell if you actually heard anything. Maybe I'm the one who did listening tests in studio environment, only not find it worth mentioning?

Evidently, you're the one who is full of it.

Not to mention how shameless you are to say I insulted you first, with all previous messages available to public.

EDIT: You should stick to playing guitar.

[vintagelove]

What are you talking about, what jokes? I was dead serious about amps and never tried to pass anything as a joke. Are you the one who have done listening tests? Why should I believe you and even if you have done what you claim, who can tell if you actually heard anything. Maybe I'm the one who did listening tests in studio environment, only not find it worth mentioning?

Evidently, you're the one who is full of it.

Not to mention how shameless you are to say I insulted you first, with all previous messages available to public.

EDIT: You should stick to playing guitar.

Ok, let's start here, two different output transformers. Each one is going to sound different, and it's not a matter of eq. Headroom, punch, saturation, etc. are unique to each transformer.

How about noise levels resulting from the different materials in the resistors? How do you "dial out" that noise from the carbon comp resistors?

The idea that all amps can sound the same with a few tweaks is insane. Remind me how to make my champ sound like my hot rodded Marshall?

[lawson-stone]

What are you even talking about???

You make a post that is utter bs, (but try to pass it off as a joke). Then you get called on it by someone who has actually done various component listening tests in a studio environment. To which you respond by insulting me.

I hope this demonstrates how closely one should listen to anything you have to say.

Vladan and folks like him are the reason this forum has an "Ignore" List feature. Amazing how it increases my enjoyment of this forum to be able simply to dial out obnoxious and unhelpful posts.

[Vladan]

I'm not sure what the "punch" is, headroom if specific is not important as long as you don't hit it, while saturation is specific,.but ...

Say we have to transformers Transformer 1 and Transformer 2 - we can adjust signal prior to transformer 1, in such way that post mentioned transformer 1 it is exactly the same as unadjusted signal post transformer 2.

The idea of amp is that it is linear and it is. All amps are, within some optimal range of operation. There, they all sound the same.
When it comes to working sat the edge of optimal range and components' specification, there you get nonlinearities, noise, distortion and all the junk which, by default, we do not want in our signal. Since some people find that junk pleasing, in spite of being able to eliminate them, due technical advance, makers decided to leave it in and offer it as a kind of feature, commodity, .... in the end I see it as a built in preset for the ease of use, where you are letting your signal, soon to become sound, to the mercy of random noise and distortion generator, named transformer or tube, which today will distort one way, while tomorrow it will distort differently. As well as speaker will deteriorate, you will move amp to another corner, or further from the wall, or anything alike that will have more impact on sound in the room than make and model of components the amp was made of.

Model and make of components are not really part of design, only specs are. 4.7 K is what it is. I'm aware of sales pitches where they supposedly design whole device around certain component, but I don't really believe anybody really does it, except if possibly left with pile of otherwise useless underspecd junk, so they find the way to sell it. Like recent revamp of germanium transistors. Anyway, you can solder in place same make and model resistors in all amps, they'll work just fine and all the noise will be the same.

So, for small solid state to sound like Marshall stack, get a pedal board and put your headphones on.

Just to mention, many times people spoke about some sounds I produced purely solid state and digital, not emulation, like "Yeah, nothing like hot rod tubes".
On the other hand, about some of my pure analog recordings they spoke like "This "digital" sounds like crap, it would be better if you recorded it the old way".

It all just speaks to me that people, generally, don't hear sh@t.

[Vladan]

Vladan and folks like him are the reason this forum has an "Ignore" List feature. Amazing how it increases my enjoyment of this forum to be able simply to dial out obnoxious and unhelpful posts.

Seams your ignore button does not work very well.

[vintagelove]

I'm not sure what the "punch" is, headroom if specific is not important as long as you don't hit it, while saturation is specific,.but ...

Say we have to transformers Transformer 1 and Transformer 2 - we can adjust signal prior to transformer 1, in such way that post mentioned transformer 1 it is exactly the same as unadjusted signal post transformer 2.

The idea of amp is that it is linear and it is. All amps are, within some optimal range of operation. There, they all sound the same.
When it comes to working sat the edge of optimal range and components' specification, there you get nonlinearities, noise, distortion and all the junk which, by default, we do not want in our signal. Since some people find that junk pleasing, in spite of being able to eliminate them, due technical advance, makers decided to leave it in and offer it as a kind of feature, commodity, .... in the end I see it as a built in preset for the ease of use, where you are letting your signal, soon to become sound, to the mercy of random noise and distortion generator, named transformer or tube, which today will distort one way, while tomorrow it will distort differently. As well as speaker will deteriorate, you will move amp to another corner, or further from the wall, or anything alike that will have more impact on sound in the room than make and model of components the amp was made of.

Model and make of components are not really part of design, only specs are. 4.7 K is what it is. I'm aware of sales pitches where they supposedly design whole device around certain component, but I don't really believe anybody really does it, except if possibly left with pile of otherwise useless underspecd junk, so they find the way to sell it. Like recent revamp of germanium transistors. Anyway, you can solder in place same make and model resistors in all amps, they'll work just fine and all the noise will be the same.

So, for small solid state to sound like Marshall stack, get a pedal board and put your headphones on.

Just to mention, many times people spoke about some sounds I produced purely solid state and digital, not emulation, like "Yeah, nothing like hot rod tubes".
On the other hand, about some of my pure analog recordings they spoke like "This "digital" sounds like crap, it would be better if you recorded it the old way".

It all just speaks to me that people, generally, don't hear sh@t.

Punch = transient response.

Are you serious that headroom isn't important???

Transformer 1 and 2 also have tonal coloration due to materials/construction techniques, not to mention the tweaks to the circuit you suggest are going to effect the sound as well. On top of that, anyone who knows anything about electronics knows the guitar amps are intentionally designed not to be "perfect". Thats why nobody plays through hi-fi setups. Your assertions are some of the most asinine things I've ever read here, or on any other forum.

Second, you totally avoided answering question two, the noise levels inherent in the materials of resistors. Along with those materials come tonal differences.

If you really think your tiny ss amp and a pedal sounds like my 100w modded marshall... well it wouldn't surprise me coming from someone who thinks all amps sound the same.

You raised a bunch of bs straw man arguments to avoid the truth, your original post if false. Perhaps you can't hear/feel the difference, but please, there is a whole world of players/builders who can, they would laugh in your face for suggesting what you have.

And we didn't even begin to talk about component layout, wire, switching, etc etc etc......

As far as "who can't hear sh@t", it's pretty easy to tell which one of us falls into that category...

[Vladan]

Are you serious that headroom isn't important???

It is only important to have it enough. As soon as you want to exploit the lack of it, it becomes unimportant, since it is always finite.

Transformer 1 and 2 also have tonal coloration due to materials/construction techniques, not to mention the tweaks to the circuit you suggest are going to effect the sound as well.

As I've said, yes they are different, but those differences are accountable, you can set inputs so to match outputs.

On top of that, anyone who knows anything about electronics knows the guitar amps are intentionally designed not to be "perfect". Thats why nobody plays through hi-fi setups. Your assertions are some of the most asinine things I've ever read here, or on any other forum.

I'm really glad I could receive such a valuable lesson from such an authority. Thank you so very much.

Second, you totally avoided answering question two, the noise levels inherent in the materials of resistors. Along with those materials come tonal differences.

I did not avoid it. I did answer it. You have problem with understanding read text. Stick to playing guitar.

If you really think your tiny ss amp and a pedal sounds like my 100w modded marshall... well it wouldn't surprise me coming from someone who thinks all amps sound the same.

Same as above.

You raised a bunch of bs straw man arguments to avoid the truth, your original post if false. Perhaps you can't hear/feel the difference, but please, there is a whole world of players/builders who can, they would laugh in you face for suggesting what you have.

Here you are insulting again. For no reason. Not to let your comment unaddressed, in addition to "same as aabove", world is full of stupid wankers who claim authority based on the speed they can jerk their wrists.

And we didn't even begin to talk about component layout, wire, switching, etc etc etc.....

Good. Don't.

EDIT: This was not in original message I responded to. You edited as I was typing my response, so ...

As far as "who can't hear sh@t", it's pretty easy to tell which one of us falls into that category...

I was not talking about you. I was talking about people in general.

[vintagelove]

It is only important to have it enough. As soon as you want to exploit the lack of it, it becomes unimportant, since it is always finite.



As I've said, yes they are different, but those differences are accountable, you can set inputs so to match outputs.



I'm really glad I could receive such a valuable lesson from such an authority. Thank you so very much.



I did not avoid it. I did answer it. You have problem with understanding read text. Stick to playing guitar.



Same as above.



Here you are insulting again. For no reason. Not to let your comment unaddressed, in addition to "same as aabove", world is full of stupid wankers who claim authority based on the speed they can jerk their wrists.



Good. Don't.

Look, I get it, you're butthurt. But you are either willfully ignorant, or deaf.


Again folks, if you believe a tiny SS amp with pedals sounds like 100w marshall, by all means listen to this mans posts. If that statement makes your BS meter peak, ignore everything he says. Which I'm about to do (thanks for the heads up on the ignore list LS!!!).

[Vladan]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...&defid=6850970

[John A.]

Look, I get it, you're butthurt. But you are either willfully ignorant, or deaf.


Again folks, if you believe a tiny SS amp with pedals sounds like 100w marshall, by all means listen to this mans posts. If that statement makes your BS meter peak, ignore everything he says. Which I'm about to do (thanks for the heads up on the ignore list LS!!!).

C'mon, you two. Get a room!

John