No man. The Virus goes back to at least 1998, and there have been many versions of it.
Like you had Kemper in 2011, next you had powered Kemper, Kemper Rack and few years later you had Kemper Stage, but this is almost the same device. This company is not kind of, which gives you the best gear now, but two years later suddenly you can buy the newest, the best, groundbreaking and best forever. Until next version in two years.
Like you had Kemper in 2011, next you had powered Kemper, Kemper Rack and few years later you had Kemper Stage, but this is almost the same device. This company is not kind of, which gives you the best gear now, but two years later suddenly you can buy the newest, the best, groundbreaking and best forever. Until next version in two years.
Not a fair comparison. If you knew the Virus synths you would know that features and improvements and oscillators and filters and all sorts have been added over the years.
... If you knew the Virus synths you would know that features and improvements and oscillators and filters and all sorts have been added over the years ...
... and a second DSP. 
... and a second DSP.
Except more DSP isn’t going to improve Profiles or profiling.
Load a profile. Put the Ionosphere reverb in all 8 slots. It will sound horrible, generate artifacts and quickly feedback uncontrollably (solid red output LED on mine).
The result is unusable....but... it works. Switching to a different rig takes it right back to normal.
I'm assuming that doing this asks a lot of the available DSP. If I'm wrong, someone tell me. If this is even partially accurate - DSP is clearly not a limiting factor right now.
Yeah...no one would do this on purpose (unless you're very unscientifically attempting to illustrate something). But the unit continues to function.
Except more DSP isn’t going to improve Profiles or profiling.
More DSP would support 2 cabs and/or two amps + two cabs and of course more FX in the chain. Those seems to be the main DSP gobbling things people want - if only to keep up with the Jones with AXIIIs.
Above all, more DSP will boost possibilities and therefore, if you follow them, creativity.
More DSP would support 2 cabs and/or two amps + two cabs and of course more FX in the chain. Those seems to be the main DSP gobbling things people want - if only to keep up with the Jones with AXIIIs.
No it wouldn’t. You basically need two complete Profilers to support two amps.
As for keeping Up with the Joneses. Kempers history pretty much says they couldn’t care less from that perspective.
10+ years with the exact same hardware? They simply don’t care what the others are doing. If it isn’t innovative….they aren’t interested.
No it wouldn’t. You basically need two complete Profilers to support two amps.
As for keeping Up with the Joneses. Kempers history pretty much says they couldn’t care less from that perspective.10+ years with the exact same hardware? They simply don’t care what the others are doing. If it isn’t innovative….they aren’t interested.
And at this point in time, Kemper are not innovating. iPad apps and terrible sounding double-tracking algorithms? HAHAHAHA!
Above all, more DSP will boost possibilities and therefore, if you follow them, creativity.
Wrong, I am very creative on my Yamaha THR30II, because I play it everyday. Gear shouldn't be limiting creativity.
No it wouldn’t. You basically need two complete Profilers to support two amps.
Why would that be the case? There are plenty of examples of devices which do support this (AXE, Helix, Quad, Nord keyboards with their layers, etc.) because they have more DSP power. More DSP gives more possibilities, that was the case in electronics since it started and KPA is not an exception. And I'm not saying Kemper should do it (I personally don't needs this feature - my sound is very simple), but it would certainly be possible to implement second, parallel "layer" with additional DSP and faster main CPU, no question about it.
RE: Touch screen.
I'm more or less pro. As long as it is actually good. There are a lot of devices out there with crap touch screens, and if you rely on it too much and it turns out to be a bit poo, then you've severely hampered your device.
I think this is possibly the reason to not do it and ultimately you don't *need* a touchscreen for decent UI or UX. ...
... and Apple mice didn't need more than one button right?
Except more DSP isn’t going to improve Profiles or profiling.
Load a profile. Put the Ionosphere reverb in all 8 slots. It will sound horrible, generate artifacts and quickly feedback uncontrollably (solid red output LED on mine).The result is unusable....but... it works. Switching to a different rig takes it right back to normal.
I'm assuming that doing this asks a lot of the available DSP. If I'm wrong, someone tell me. If this is even partially accurate - DSP is clearly not a limiting factor right now.
Yeah...no one would do this on purpose (unless you're very unscientifically attempting to illustrate something). But the unit continues to function.
Reverb is one of the most DSP demanding tasks. Lets assume for a minute that it did work. My guess is that it would seriously sound like ass! So you want more processing in the KPA so you can do something that sounds really bad?
It made sense to enhance the KPA so a delay could be put in more than one slot, but IMO, the reverb is just silly anywhere but the end. YMMV.
Of course, there is a point here though. More processing SHOULD allow the engineering team at Kemper to create a better sounding device. They should have a better noise floor, lower latency, etc, etc, etc. I guess my question would be ..... would anyone be able to hear the difference? Since most can't hear the difference between the KPA and the original tube amp, I am guessing no.
In other words, trying to sell the KPA2 on the basis of "better, more accurate sound" is kinda silly. How much "better" do you imagine it can make a Fender Blackface sound? How much "better" can the reverb engine be made to sound? etc, etc. I believe that it isn't enough to shake a stick at.
I hear you guys, I just don't agree. I believe a KPA2 is going to have to be more flexible and have better features because in a blind listening test, I seriously doubt anyone is going to reliably pick out one from the other..... this is triply true for live gigging.
Why would that be the case? There are plenty of examples of devices which do support this (AXE, Helix, Quad, Nord keyboards with their layers, etc.) because they have more DSP power. More DSP gives more possibilities, that was the case in electronics since it started and KPA is not an exception. And I'm not saying Kemper should do it (I personally don't needs this feature - my sound is very simple), but it would certainly be possible to implement second, parallel "layer" with additional DSP and faster main CPU, no question about it.
Because the Kemper uses and entirely different technology that isn’t DSP intensive.
More DSP will not aid the sound of Profiles.
Wrong, I am very creative on my Yamaha THR30II, because I play it everyday. Gear shouldn't be limiting creativity.
Feels like you intentionally misunderstood. Yes, creating licks, melodies, songs, harmonies and building skills like vibrato, phrasing timing etc. is an important part of creativity and inspiration, at least for me. But creating mere guitar licks, melodies and songs or building technique and skills is not what I meant. I know you know what I meant. So, will we hear examples of those complex soundscapes, you are able to create with such a "cable into the amp" scenario - without high quality fx or raw dsp power? I am curious to hear how you can make song parts SOUND spacey (for example) with the thr and use that sound on stage or recording. Because, as I said or meant, I personally was always inspired and pushed into different territory and songwriting whenever I messed with complex sounds even if if did not use everything in the end.
Edit: I also own a Yamaha thr, it's fun
... and Apple mice didn't need more than one button right?
Reverb is one of the most DSP demanding tasks. Lets assume for a minute that it did work. My guess is that it would seriously sound like ass! So you want more processing in the KPA so you can do something that sounds really bad?
It made sense to enhance the KPA so a delay could be put in more than one slot, but IMO, the reverb is just silly anywhere but the end. YMMV.
Of course, there is a point here though. More processing SHOULD allow the engineering team at Kemper to create a better sounding device. They should have a better noise floor, lower latency, etc, etc, etc. I guess my question would be ..... would anyone be able to hear the difference? Since most can't hear the difference between the KPA and the original tube amp, I am guessing no.
In other words, trying to sell the KPA2 on the basis of "better, more accurate sound" is kinda silly. How much "better" do you imagine it can make a Fender Blackface sound? How much "better" can the reverb engine be made to sound? etc, etc. I believe that it isn't enough to shake a stick at.
I hear you guys, I just don't agree. I believe a KPA2 is going to have to be more flexible and have better features because in a blind listening test, I seriously doubt anyone is going to reliably pick out one from the other..... this is triply true for live gigging.
I work for a company who puts touchscreens on everything. And they're extremely successful. I don't know why you'd bring up Apple mice, it's a complete non-sequitor and is a pointless comment.
As to your points....
1. Reverb is not inherently DSP demanding - units today have vastly more DSP at hand than the Lexicon rack units of yesteryear, and those Lexicons defined the very nature of what we all look for when it comes to reverb, broadly speaking. Those units managed to do magical things with very little processing power. Meaning, if you also do those things with very little processing power.... you can spend your left over processing power doing other things, or giving the user more variety of the things you do have.
2. Many post-rock, post-metal, and p&w guitarists use both delay and reverb into the front of their amplifiers; quite often a Fender Deluxe Reverb. Not everyone has the same rig or the same needs. Pretending otherwise is folly.
3. Point of fact, quite a few of the most loved tube combos have their reverb circuits before the preamp. It's only a particular convention (rooted in the 80's production aesthetic in my opinion) that means we tend to put reverb after gain stages; but you can put reverb anywhere. Just like you can put compressors and noise-gates anywhere.
4. Many people can hear the difference between the original amp and the profile; even Christophe can. He's said as much to me when we went down the rabbit hole together. It doesn't mean the Kemper is bad. It just means there is always room for improvement. Someone said earlier that Christophe has said there is no room for improvement, but I've never seen him say that once. I would love to see a quote.
5. More DSP wouldn't result in a lower noise floor. Noise floor is a product of circuitry and AD/DA conversion.
6. More DSP *probably* wouldn't lower latency; latency is primarily a product of circuitry as well. But there have been some superb advances in chips that could actually impact upon latency. It would totally depend on the implementation though.
7. More DSP could potentially give us:
Point of fact - none of us actually know how much juice is left in the ol' girl. A lot of this stuff might be technically possible already, with a very small hit to the DSP pool. But that doesn't necessarily mean Kemper would do it. Perhaps they don't see the need for a lot of stuff that the users want, and the only way to get them to see the need is to talk about it.
The great thing about these sorts of threads is seeing people's imaginations at work. As a product owner in the music tech space, I love seeing it. It not only gives me ideas, but it helps validate previous ideas. I like seeing people fantasize about the possibilities.
Because the Kemper uses and entirely different technology that isn’t DSP intensive.
More DSP will not aid the sound of Profiles.
You simply don't know that.
Take oversampling for instance.
All parts of a digital system have a sample rate. Increase it, and you increase the fidelity. It's very helpful for filters, waveshaping and distortion, and oscillators.
Increase the oversampling of a part of a circuit (or at least parts that need it) and you change the final sound. You can see and hear this in software plugins a lot.
Another thing I'd like - audio interface built in. A proper 8x8 audio interface, without the utterly crap thesycon off the shelf driver. Team up with RME - that'd be sick!
You simply don't know that.
Take oversampling for instance.
All parts of a digital system have a sample rate. Increase it, and you increase the fidelity. It's very helpful for filters, waveshaping and distortion, and oscillators.
Increase the oversampling of a part of a circuit (or at least parts that need it) and you change the final sound. You can see and hear this in software plugins a lot.
Considering Christoph Kemper has said as much, we do know they’ve done something different.
Going so far to say the Profiling process has gone as far as he can take it…..I’d say “Yes…we do know that..”
Considering Christoph Kemper has said as much, we do know they’ve done something different.
Going so far to say the Profiling process has gone as far as he can take it…..I’d say “Yes…we do know that..”
I'd love to see what he said. I've not seen him say anything like that, and he's never said it to me in email conversations either.
In any case, machine learning techniques have come pretty far in the last decade or so. He might have said that before advancements were made. I'd be extremely surprised if the Kemper couldn't leverage variational auto-encoders in order to close the gap a little bit more.
It can always be better, but
the current possibilities are enormous and the factor that is by far the most limiting for the overall product is in most cases close to the jack plug, which is further away from the amp.
I work for a company who puts touchscreens on everything. And they're extremely successful. I don't know why you'd bring up Apple mice, it's a complete non-sequitor and is a pointless comment.
As to your points....
1. Reverb is not inherently DSP demanding - units today have vastly more DSP at hand than the Lexicon rack units of yesteryear, and those Lexicons defined the very nature of what we all look for when it comes to reverb, broadly speaking. Those units managed to do magical things with very little processing power. Meaning, if you also do those things with very little processing power.... you can spend your left over processing power doing other things, or giving the user more variety of the things you do have.
2. Many post-rock, post-metal, and p&w guitarists use both delay and reverb into the front of their amplifiers; quite often a Fender Deluxe Reverb. Not everyone has the same rig or the same needs. Pretending otherwise is folly.
3. Point of fact, quite a few of the most loved tube combos have their reverb circuits before the preamp. It's only a particular convention (rooted in the 80's production aesthetic in my opinion) that means we tend to put reverb after gain stages; but you can put reverb anywhere. Just like you can put compressors and noise-gates anywhere.
4. Many people can hear the difference between the original amp and the profile; even Christophe can. He's said as much to me when we went down the rabbit hole together. It doesn't mean the Kemper is bad. It just means there is always room for improvement. Someone said earlier that Christophe has said there is no room for improvement, but I've never seen him say that once. I would love to see a quote.
5. More DSP wouldn't result in a lower noise floor. Noise floor is a product of circuitry and AD/DA conversion.
6. More DSP *probably* wouldn't lower latency; latency is primarily a product of circuitry as well. But there have been some superb advances in chips that could actually impact upon latency. It would totally depend on the implementation though.
7. More DSP could potentially give us:
- True seamless spillover for all FX slots across rig changes
- The ability to run more than one profile at once for superb dual rigs
- A faster and more efficient profiling algorithm that wouldn't require a refinement stage
- Higher internal oversampling for sections of the amplifier circuit, potentially resulting in more accurate profiling and a less fatiguing high-end
- More power to process more FX loops, meaning the next Kemper could potentially have a full complement of FX loops like the Helix does. Even two FX loops like the Boss GT-1000 wouldn't go amiss.
- It could also help with empowering the Kemper to be able to process midi signals much quicker; meaning instead of limiting us to just two midi commands per rig, we might be able to have a proper control matrix where we can control all of our external devices straight from the Kemper.
Point of fact - none of us actually know how much juice is left in the ol' girl. A lot of this stuff might be technically possible already, with a very small hit to the DSP pool. But that doesn't necessarily mean Kemper would do it. Perhaps they don't see the need for a lot of stuff that the users want, and the only way to get them to see the need is to talk about it.
The great thing about these sorts of threads is seeing people's imaginations at work. As a product owner in the music tech space, I love seeing it. It not only gives me ideas, but it helps validate previous ideas. I like seeing people fantasize about the possibilities.
Wow. Really? You don't think that the Kemper is DSP intensive? Just .... wow. How about we simply disagree and I state that the Kemper runs entirely on DSP and that reverb is usually the most computational effect in an effects processor. I suspect that in Kemper, the amp stack is the most computationally intensive portion though.
As for "Apple Mice", it was in reference to those that believe that fewer controls make for a better work flow. Adding a color touch screen provides nearly an infinite number of controls and ways to display information. This does not mean that everyone that uses a color touch screen will have great work flow, it simply means that the best work flow would be achieved with more display and control options assuming the same UX talent. Sorry if it wasn't clear.
As for the Fender Reverb Deluxe .... you are kind of right. From here: http://fenderguru.com/wp-content/upl…-Schematics.png. Keep in mind that what Kemper did by allowing the verb to be placed prior to the amp stack STILL did not give the routing that the Fender Reverb Deluxe has.
The EQ is before the reverb and preamp which are in parallel with each other prior to the power amp stage. Silly argument you are making really since what I said was that it was my opinion (which I still hold) and that YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary). Let me know if you need that simile decoded for you as well).
"Many people can" does not mean "Most people can". Seriously? Do you think you could tell the difference? Do you think you could tell the difference AND pick the real amp as the one you liked the best? Do you think you could do it in a live setting? Again, silly argument to make. "Many" is not "Most" 0.000001% of the US national dept. is "Many dollars" but it would be grossly inaccurate and misleading to say "Many of dollars in the US debt are due to the money spent on a Norwegian Frog studies". I still stand on my statement that the KPA and KPA2 will NOT have a significant sound quality difference for routings and effects that both units can do.
More DSP will lower the noise floor because higher bit depth can be used throughout the processing path: https://www.mixinglessons.com/bit-depth/#:~:…nd%20reproduced. Higher big depths require higher DSP demands. I am sorry, but you are simply wrong on this point.
More DSP *probably* wouldn't lower latency; latency is primarily a product of circuitry as well
Really? The speed of the DSP COMPLETELY determines the latency in ANY digital processing unit. The analog signal delay is likely in the nano-seconds. Worst case micro-seconds while the DSP delay is in mili-seconds. In fact, most of the trouble with doing digital routing in DSP is making sure you remain phase coherent when bringing different signals in parallel together.
I do agree that the interesting part of the thread is hearing what people come up with for features in the next product.
