Submitted by inmyhands on Thu, 08/21/2014 - 19:38
Original signal path of the 2nd generation, (1978 - 1979) A / DA Flanger with the following changes:
The reissue is true bypass where the original was not.
The PC Board has a slightly different layout but retains the original signal path.
As of 2014 the A / DA Flanger still sports original NOS Panasonic bucket brigade chips but the supply is running down.
Ease of Use:
It makes me feel young again. Although the A / DA Flanger wasn't released until 1976, (the reissue is of the 2nd generation '78 / '79 version), it remains the only flanger pedal that sounds like it was built to reproduce the studio flange effects used during the psychedelic '67-'69 era. The flanging effect of this era was more about a metallic shimmer or spacey mix match. Phasers sweeped or swooshed while flangers shimmered. Other flanging models released in the late '70s / early '80s, (maxon / Ibanez), used flanger tones but more phaser like controls. Their sweeping sound relates more to the '80s. I'm a "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" kinda guy. The A /DA is perfect for me.
The A /DA reissue may be on it's last legs. The NOS Panasonic chips are running out. I wouldn't order a new one without getting a guarentee on the chip being used.
If you were born after 1970 you may have a different take on what a flanger should do and the controls it should feature. Four knob Ibanez FL9s actually provide more direct control than the 5 knob + toggle switch of the A / DA. An Airplane or EVH swoosh type flanger, (that Eddie used more like a phaser), offers more direct control. The A / DA, (being a reissue and remaining true to the original), does not offer "next generation" control. It's true vintage quality may not work for '80s affectionados.
So far so good. I've been playing the hell out of it for a couple of months and it works as good as new.
I've had no need for customer support so far.
Submitted by inmyhands on Wed, 08/20/2014 - 19:35
True bypass with "fuzz friendly" technology. Karmaflux custom Inductor. RFI filtering. EFI filtering. Easily adjustable rocker tension. One switch, located beneath the rocker, that alters sweep speed and low end resonance.
Ease of Use:
The Wizard Wah has a voice that's "one of a kind" among the wah wah pedals available for guitarists to choose from. The sweep is much shorter. High frequencies are reduced and bass frequencies are clearer. A poor but understandable comparison would be to say the vocal range of most wahs are a wide alto / 2nd soprano while the Wizard Wah is a solid tenor. I'd call the Wizard Wah the "Meatloaf" of wah wahs pedals. The shorter sweep keeps the Wizard solidly "vocal" as used in wah descriptions. No high end bite. No "Shaft". The "sweet spot" is at a lower frequency and is wider than you'd expect. The "Sweet Spot" in a wahs sweep is harmonically rich. The larger than average sweet spot of the Wizard offers up a multitude of harmonics the user can utilize to create interesting templates of vocal colorizations. Another common descriptive used in describing a wah wahs voice is "quack". The Wizard doesn't quack like a duck. It caws like a crow. It's different. I like it.
The Wizard Wah does not provide what would be considered a normal wah voice. It would not be a good choice for the generic wah wah sounds a guitarist in a cover band would want available. Also, the use of output volume rather that bright high frequency at the toe down position to cut through the mix takes some getting used to. I gave the Wizard a 4 in the "ease of use" rating because of this added learning curve.
Considering the amount of time I've spent rocking Geoffreys Wah Wah pedals, as well as multiple rocker type pedals by Thomas, Dunlop, GigFX, Ernie Ball, etc., I believe RMC pedals to be the most reliable. I've only had one issue come up with an RMC product and that was a failed internal component from one of RMC's suppliers that Geoffrey immeadiatly made right at 0 cost to me. The usual Wah problems, (rocker issues, potentiometer failures, "scratchyness", etc. have never occured with any of the RMC wahs I've owned.
Geoffrey Teese at Real McCoy Custom, RMC), provides excellent customer support. You can contact him with any questions or problem and he provides whatever you need. No one knows the Wah Wah pedal designs better than Geoffrey. Mike, over at Analogman, also swears that Geoffrey is The go to guy for anything Wah Wah related.
Submitted by Dinosaur David B on Mon, 08/04/2014 - 10:13
IF YOU PLAY GUITAR, WATCH THIS 5 MINUTE VIDEO. IT COULD CHANGE YOUR LIFE. And I sure wish I had this information 25 years ago. That said, the whole Troy Grady Cracking the Code series is excellent.
Submitted by Mike Hansen on Mon, 05/19/2014 - 06:23
Country of origin:
Mahogany w. Maple top
Number of frets:
Sound is fantastic. It roars, it squeals, it growls, all of the sounds I wanted from a Les Paul. Personally I really like the Dirty Fingers pickups, and they are really the heart of this guitar. Neck shape is comfortable, not super thin, but not a boat either. I like the faded finishes, I believe the colour is like a dark cherry, I think it looks great, and it could be buffed to a brighter shine if that is a concern. Tuners are Grovers, and do the job. Surprisingly the nut was cut properly and doesn't stick/ping at all.
The fret ends were sprouting rather significantly. I expected this as I am sure it sat in a warehouse during this eternal winter. I have the tools and skills to address. It took me about 45 minutes to file them even to the fretboard and re round the fret ends. If you are not comfortable with this, it would probably cost you $75 to $150 to get that work done, and it was necessary, as they were deadly sharp at the start. The gig bag is truly a piece of crap, down to the plastic zipper. I will need to get a case.
I love the sound of this guitar, I guess it would be safe to say that was the major selling point, and the price is not too high either. It is by no means a fancy looking Les Paul, in fact, rather plain. However, for me that holds a certain elegance in itself. I would recommend this as a guitar for playing just about any kind of dino music, it certainly gives a good sound for John Sykes (early), Gary Moore, and later Thin Lizzy type tones. Beware of the fact that as the price is budget, the finishing/setup will be rough and you will likely have to do some of the work yourself, or get it done by a professional.
Submitted by andy gavin on Thu, 05/15/2014 - 13:45
Country of origin:
No power tubes
Far too many to list, but here are the main things:
Seems very solidly built.
No personal experience, but Kemper's techs (and even the inventor himself) are known to be quick, courteous and very helpful. If you find glitches or technical difficulties, apparently, they will work with you to fix them.
The official Kemper forums are a very good source of information - I was able to find solutions to several noob problems very quickly be searching the forums. Just be aware that some users have their egos tied to the Kemper - watch out for the bitch-fights with AxeFX users and don't dare tell anybody that your real amp sounds better than the KPA.
I've been putting off checking out the Kemper Profiling Amplifier (KPA) for a couple of years now, but finally decided to give it a serious test since hearing the testimony of Wolf Hoffman - I heard him using the KPA live on Accept's tour of Stalingrad, and discovered that all the guitars on Stalingrad were made using the Kemper itself.
Also, both famous dino producer Michael Wagener and Accept producer Andy Sneap have pretty much raved about the Kemper - although despite bold claims that you can't hear the difference between the real amp and the profiled version, Hoffman, Wagener and Sneap refuse to go as far as saying they'd actually get rid of their real amps for the Kemper.
I had 3 big questions over the KPA:
As far as my expectations go - my requirements were very simple. I'm a dino-rock player with nearly 30 years playing under my belt and very sharp and discerning ears. I've spent a fortune on amps and gear over the years, chasing good tone - both for live use and (with more difficulty) for home studio recording.
I want the sound of a real JCM800 Marshall, well-mic'd and recorded, but I do not have access to the expensive microphones, preamps or studio needed to create it myself. My current best efforts have been to use a loadbox with my real Marshall JCM800, take a line signal from that, then use a speaker cabinet simulator VST in my DAW, using speaker impulse responses. So the KPA has to beat that.
I soon discovered that the factory-supplied profiles were a very mixed bag. The clean sounds were very impressive - although I have little interest in them. Most amp simulators can pull off good clean sounds - the real test is how well they can sound like a cranked, distorted tube amplifier.
Sadly, the factory preset distorted profiles were VERY disappointing. Flat and lifeless and curiously, despite the clear difference in character between Marshall and Mesa Boogie profiles, I discovered that pinched harmonics were first of all quite difficult to get, but more alarmingly, sounded almost identical, regardless of which profile I chose. I also found that string handling noise had a spiky, nasty sound - reminiscent of the Line6 Pod series or VST guitar plugins.
Power chords and riffing were adequate, and the FEEL of playing a real amplifier was definitely there. Dynamics were there and the KPA allows you to adjust pick attack, the compression, the power tube sag. There's a limited window of usability with these parameters though, as adjusting any of them very far gives very unusable results.
This brings me to the core issue I have with the KPA. And it seems obvlous, but it cannot be overstated. The Kemper Profiling Amplifier is only as good as the profiles it uses.
I spoke to my friend (a knowledgeable KPA user) about the problems I was having with the harmonics and he explained to me that the way that a Kemper profile is created is that you set up the original amp and speaker that you intend to profile so it sounds the way you want. You set up your microphone(s) and preamps and whatever else you use in your signal chain, so the sound from the mic(s) is just right and you hook it up to the KPA. The KPA sends various strange sounds through your rig and does its magic - this is the automated process. Then you have to "refine" the process by actually playing your guitar through it.
Now, Kemper doesn't actually specify WHAT you should play here and this step is a bit mysterious. But bearing in mind how differently guitarists play. Almost all the factory distortion profiles seemed incapable of producing a screaming, early Gary Moore/John Sykes-style pinched harmonic. Power chords and riffs were ok, but dig in for a screamer and the KPA sounded like I was plugged into the microphone input of a hi-fi. But if the guys who created those profiles didn't play any screaming harmonics or whatever through their Marshall/Boogie/ENGL, how would the KPA know what it's supposed to sound like? And if you don't make pick noise/string handling noise during that phase of the profile, how could the KPA reproduce that? It's not the KPA that is at fault, it's the person who made the profile.
Herein lies what I believe is the biggest weakness of the KPA (for me at least). If you want to be able to get ALL the nuances of YOUR playing through a particular amp, you're going to need a superbly made profile (of which there are very few) or you're going to have to profile that amp yourself. Which means that aside from procuring the amp you want, you need to be able to mic the speaker so it sounds great.
This is where it starts to fall apart for me. The ENTIRE reason for me trying the KPA, is that I am a guitarist - and NOT an audio engineer. I don't have a soundproof and acoustically treated room, nor do I own a $1200 Royer 121 ribbon mic, or a Neumann or an expensive mic preamp or any of the other industry-standard recording gear that is used to create professional guitar sounds in a proper studio.
When Wolf Hoffman recorded the guitars for Stalingrad with the KPA, he profiled himself playing his own amps. Well - Wolf is not exactly short of cash or gear, and he's close personal friends with (and a lives next-door to) Michael Wagener (producer for Accept, Dokken, Skid Row etc. etc.) - who owns Wireworld studios and knows more about mic'ing amps and dino hard rock sounds than anybody else on the planet.
I ended up purchasing some 3rd party commercial profiles from theampfactory.com. This place has some quite impressive audio samples of their profiles and from what I could hear, the guy doing the demo playing sounds at least partly similar to me - a clean, dynamic hard rock player. And I got MUCH better results than anything from the factory presets.
But all the while I was testing the KPA, I kept going back to compare the sound with my own setup - an attenuated Marshall, comparing both the "in the room" sound and the direct recorded sound (the Marshall going direct and using a VST speaker simulator). Despite the good progress I'd made with the KPA, it still fell short when compared to my own amp. Both in the room and recorded direct.
I did everything I could to give the Kemper a fair shot. At one point, I actually played nothing but the KPA for two days and I actually began to adapt to it. It brought a smile to my face (playing a Blackstar Series One profile). It's funny how these things are relative. Because I was really starting to think I could go for the KPA. Right up until I plugged my Marshall back in.
I told my KPA-using friend about this, and he urged me to profile my Marshall. He told me that I could profile a line signal from the Marshall's power amp and forget about microphones - then use the speaker sim that I currently use, and it should sound just as good as my own Marshall. I raised an eyebrow. $2200 to sound just like what I already have? AND add another 6ms latency to the chain? He then told me I could also convert the impulse response of the VST speaker simulator to a Kemper compatible format and then monitor it in hardware.
Cool. But that's $2200 to get what I already have, and to maintain the low latency I use, have to reprofile it every time I want to change an effect from my DAW? This is getting silly. Ok. So maybe I'm a specialist. But why shouldn't I be? When Wagener or Sneap say that "you can't tell the difference" between the KPA and the real amp, I DO believe them. But think about what they are actually referring to. These are music engineering experts who have profiled the amps themselves. They have world-class skills and professional studios and gear to create AMAZING profiles. And MOST importantly, they're talking about the same guitarist AND guitar going through the amp and the profile.
Don't get me wrong - the Kemper is good. It can sound good recorded AND it can sound good amped with a solid state power amp and sent to a guitar cab (I got some nice results with that Blackstar profile). But as nice as the results were, they were still a compromise and fell short of what I was already achieving through my own rig.
Your own requirements may be different. Maybe your playing style is more similar to the guy who created the profile you try. The best I can say is to try one out yourself. Perhaps the KPA is the best evidence yet that "tone is in the hands." If the guy who makes the profile doesn't cover all the bases you'll need, there's not much you can do, but make the profiles yourself. Good luck with that... Other players may get better results than I did - it could well be that I missed something very important, but I did my best with it for a week, with the help of an experienced KPA user to guide me, but I still couldn't get it to sound as good as what I currently use, so it went back to the shop.
There are currently 0 users and 2 guests online.