I can see a new marketing campaign....Kemper...it's so addictive, it's like crack...
I can see a new marketing campaign....Kemper...it's so addictive, it's like crack...
I can see a new marketing campaign....Kemper...it's so addictive, it's like crack...
That would be spelled Krack, as in Kemper Krack
you know the drill
back to topic please
you know the drill
back to topic please
Dang! I was hoping you would close it!
I would love to have a hardware switch that toggles between looper input sound and looper output sound. Sometimes you want to throw sth at the looper in input mode so you turn on a booster and solo over the loop. Other times you want to play a loop and then click through the profiles in order to see which profile is best for what you played. a 2 way hardware switch would make jumping between those 2 options a lot easier.
Separation of pre and power amp profiling. This I can do with 2 kempers but would be nice to be able to do with 1. Lately I've been using my powered toaster as a fancy tube power amp and cab simulator with the stereo power mod and using pedals or other digital devices as my preamp base plus effects before and after the preamp. In this way I have more control over my sound and plenty of slots on all my devices.
Here are my coins:
- 2nd order profiler 2.0: Profile the behavior of the equalizer and the gain structure of the amplifier. For example: Profile with all amp controls at 12:00. Then profile 8 more times with the gain at 9:00 and 3:00, the same with the bass, mid and treble. The algorithm creates a profile that emulates the behavior of the amp.
- channel profiler: possibility of putting two or more channels of an amplifier in a profile. With a button the channel change would be activated.
- Profile the effects loop, so that effects can be inserted before the amp, in the effects loop, and after the speaker and mic emulation.
- lastly, in-room amp modeler. It would be a simulator(nor profiler) of the sound of an amp in the room, (without microphone emulation), with several adjustable parameters: room size, type of box (4x12, 2x12 open, etc...), room materials, speaker position etc. It would be very useful for playing on headphones and recording in the studio.
- channel profiler: possibility of putting two or more channels of an amplifier in a profile. With a button the channel change would be activated.
I think it's gonna be complicated ; even modelers don't offer this possibility or not this way ; the first channel in one sim and with a snaphot you jump to the second/third channel on another sim...
- 2nd order profiler 2.0: Profile the behavior of the equalizer and the gain structure of the amplifier. For example: Profile with all amp controls at 12:00. Then profile 8 more times with the gain at 9:00 and 3:00, the same with the bass, mid and treble. The algorithm creates a profile that emulates the behavior of the amp.
I guess is that what you are describing will be the next generation of modelling. Can't wait for it. However, I guess that is complicated to implement and may not be around soon.
Here are my coins:
- 2nd order profiler 2.0: Profile the behavior of the equalizer and the gain structure of the amplifier. For example: Profile with all amp controls at 12:00. Then profile 8 more times with the gain at 9:00 and 3:00, the same with the bass, mid and treble. The algorithm creates a profile that emulates the behavior of the amp.
- channel profiler: possibility of putting two or more channels of an amplifier in a profile. With a button the channel change would be activated.
- Profile the effects loop, so that effects can be inserted before the amp, in the effects loop, and after the speaker and mic emulation.
- lastly, in-room amp modeler. It would be a simulator(nor profiler) of the sound of an amp in the room, (without microphone emulation), with several adjustable parameters: room size, type of box (4x12, 2x12 open, etc...), room materials, speaker position etc. It would be very useful for playing on headphones and recording in the studio.
Simulating the knobs on an amp sounds like a good idea. But imagine now having to both learn and remember how a Vox amp's controls work versus a Marshall versus a Fender......Orange.....etc. Knobs with similar labels do not behave the same way brand to brand and even model to model.
A Vox AC30 has no middle control. What do you do about that? Some amps have two gain controls plus a master. Some don't have any. Some amps have one knob, others a bunch of them. A Boogie Mk3 has a 5 band equalizer, plus bass/mid/treble. A Boogie JP-2C has two.
IMO - it sounds like a nice idea. But the complexity added to the user experience would be catastrophic. Every time you add a new amp to the Profiler, you'll have to learn - and remember - how the controls function and interact with each other.
Screw that.
Simulating the knobs on an amp sounds like a good idea. But imagine now having to both learn and remember how a Vox amp's controls work versus a Marshall versus a Fender......Orange.....etc. Knobs with similar labels do not behave the same way brand to brand and even model to model.
A Vox AC30 has no middle control. What do you do about that? Some amps have two gain controls plus a master. Some don't have any. Some amps have one knob, others a bunch of them. A Boogie Mk3 has a 5 band equalizer, plus bass/mid/treble. A Boogie JP-2C has two.
IMO - it sounds like a nice idea. But the complexity added to the user experience would be catastrophic. Every time you add a new amp to the Profiler, you'll have to learn - and remember - how the controls function and interact with each other.
Screw that.
100% agree
Simulating the knobs on an amp sounds like a good idea. But imagine now having to both learn and remember how a Vox amp's controls work versus a Marshall versus a Fender......Orange.....etc. Knobs with similar labels do not behave the same way brand to brand and even model to model.
A Vox AC30 has no middle control. What do you do about that? Some amps have two gain controls plus a master. Some don't have any. Some amps have one knob, others a bunch of them. A Boogie Mk3 has a 5 band equalizer, plus bass/mid/treble. A Boogie JP-2C has two.
IMO - it sounds like a nice idea. But the complexity added to the user experience would be catastrophic. Every time you add a new amp to the Profiler, you'll have to learn - and remember - how the controls function and interact with each other.
Screw that.
I agree. People forget the difference between a profile (which is really a snapshot) and a modeller.
There is no practical or precise way to implement this.
my buddy Jarrod ( ToneWars)just bought a QC to do captures to sell, he’s very pro Kemper, but was surprised how well it captured , the amp and he was able to keep a noise gate on.
I think as smart as Christof is, he can update the Kemper, to fix some of the issues brought up by the members here.
I still love , my Kemper, I would really like a much lighter Stage
unpopulated option, I would totally buy a mini stereo option kemper cab and speaker imprints only with post parametric eq and multiple outputs with a stereo power amp built in. In think this potential unit could be pretty small.
my buddy Jarrod ( ToneWars)just bought a QC to do captures to sell, he’s very pro Kemper, but was surprised how well it captured , the amp and he was able to keep a noise gate on.
I think as smart as Christof is, he can update the Kemper, to fix some of the issues brought up by the members here.
I still love , my Kemper, I would really like a much lighter Stage
From what I can guess (as an electrical engineer), the QC has a much more powerful processor than the KPA (I haven't cracked open a QC, so I don't actually know what processor it is using). I am guessing this because Neural came from a PC environment and PC programmers tend to think fat and inefficient unlike embedded programmers that are worried about code size and effeciency all the time.
My point being that if the QC has 10x or more processing power than the KPA, it may well be able to more easily capture an amp.
As an example from another type of processor, look at reverb. For years, digital reverb units used algorithms to produce reverb due to the limited processing power they had. More modern reverb is done with convolution which is 100 to 1000 (or more) times more processor intensive, but sounds so much better.
Kemper was the first profiler/capture tool for guitarist. It is using 10-15 year old DSP. It is understandable that another company using much more powerful processing could capture faster/more accurately in 2022.... and even that is debateable. I have heard some shoot-outs where I didn't care for the QC capture as much as I did the KPA profile..... but then I haven't done it myself ;).
I still think that the KPA is by far the best gig rig you can buy including AxeIII Fx which is a $1000.00 more expensive rig (including FC). And while it may well be that QC can capture faster and perhaps more accurately (without refining on KPA and tweaking after the fact), that isn't what most people do with their KPA. For performing, the KPA really can't get much better in my book.
What can improve?
The promised time based effects update (chorus, flanger, etc). These are still using the original algorithms. The delays, reverbs and drives are all top knotch IMO. The amp "tone" is amazing with the right set of profiles. Furthermore, it is pretty darned easy to get a "good set of profiles".
I think a color LCD would be good. So much more can be done with color from a usability standpoint. Finally, it has to be getting close to the time when the DSP used in the KPA will no longer be around (no one will make it). When that happens, CK will have no choise but to make a KPA2. I am just not so sure I would go all "ground up" on a design when the current one really just needs a little clean up around the edges to make it good for another 10-15 years IMO.
Display MoreFrom what I can guess (as an electrical engineer), the QC has a much more powerful processor than the KPA (I haven't cracked open a QC, so I don't actually know what processor it is using). I am guessing this because Neural came from a PC environment and PC programmers tend to think fat and inefficient unlike embedded programmers that are worried about code size and effeciency all the time.
My point being that if the QC has 10x or more processing power than the KPA, it may well be able to more easily capture an amp.
As an example from another type of processor, look at reverb. For years, digital reverb units used algorithms to produce reverb due to the limited processing power they had. More modern reverb is done with convolution which is 100 to 1000 (or more) times more processor intensive, but sounds so much better.
Kemper was the first profiler/capture tool for guitarist. It is using 10-15 year old DSP. It is understandable that another company using much more powerful processing could capture faster/more accurately in 2022.... and even that is debateable. I have heard some shoot-outs where I didn't care for the QC capture as much as I did the KPA profile..... but then I haven't done it myself ;).
I still think that the KPA is by far the best gig rig you can buy including AxeIII Fx which is a $1000.00 more expensive rig (including FC). And while it may well be that QC can capture faster and perhaps more accurately (without refining on KPA and tweaking after the fact), that isn't what most people do with their KPA. For performing, the KPA really can't get much better in my book.
What can improve?
The promised time based effects update (chorus, flanger, etc). These are still using the original algorithms. The delays, reverbs and drives are all top knotch IMO. The amp "tone" is amazing with the right set of profiles. Furthermore, it is pretty darned easy to get a "good set of profiles".
I think a color LCD would be good. So much more can be done with color from a usability standpoint. Finally, it has to be getting close to the time when the DSP used in the KPA will no longer be around (no one will make it). When that happens, CK will have no choise but to make a KPA2. I am just not so sure I would go all "ground up" on a design when the current one really just needs a little clean up around the edges to make it good for another 10-15 years IMO.
CK has stated repeatedly that they are in no danger of exceeding their CPU limits.
More power isn’t the answer for ‘better’ Profiles. The process isn’t nearly as hardware intensive as modeling. According to Christophe, the Profiling process has been taken as far as it can go. The code is optimized and the specific chip they use is a requirement for it to work.
As I understand it, to use a different chip would require major code changes to compensate. Something he didn’t sound interested in rehashing for little to no gain.
Maybe he’s found a new way to attack the problem, but if it hasn’t surfaced in 11+ years?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
CK has stated repeatedly that they are in no danger of exceeding their CPU limits.
More power isn’t the answer for ‘better’ Profiles. The process isn’t nearly as hardware intensive as modeling. According to Christophe, the Profiling process has been taken as far as it can go. The code is optimized and the specific chip they use is a requirement for it to work.
As I understand it, to use a different chip would require major code changes to compensate. Something he didn’t sound interested in rehashing for little to no gain.
Maybe he’s found a new way to attack the problem, but if it hasn’t surfaced in 11+ years?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I hear you (and CK).
Most people would agree that you can get a KPA to profile as well as a QC with the proper refinement. So with respect to "how close" KPA gets to the actual amp, I would agree with CK's assessment.
Most people who have used both a KPA and a QC would inequivically say that the QC gets there faster and easier though. That is the part I was suggesting could be improved. I agree that the end result (for both) is so close to the real thing that it isn't worth talking about.
I would guess that most people (including me) don't profile much but instead either get free profiles from the rig exchange, or purchase professional profiles and tweak them to their needs.
Kemper's ability to "tweak" a profile is amazing IMO. I am able to make a great tone with very little effort.
Kemper's work-flow live is also outstanding. The Kemper FC is the perfect size IMO with the exact right amount of features for live work. In this regard, the QC isn't even in the same galaxy as the KPA.
I never quite understood why so many people got so fixated on minute differences in profiles vs QC or the original amp when so few people use this feature that much (I know some swear by it though).
Still, the fact remains that CK will not be able to purchase the chips he is getting today forever. A new DSP will need to be picked and it is very likely the code will need to be overhauled to work with the much newer DSP architecture. A color LCD is also long overdue.
If this is ALL the KPA2 had, it would be enough in my book.
When the day comes that a KPA2 hits the street, I seriously doubt that the reason that existing KPA owners will rush out and buy it will have anything to do with how good it sounds though. I am pretty sure the current KPA sounds convincingly good even compared to the best tube amps money can buy.
When I think of features that a KPA2 would have, I try to think about what would make it more marketable, not what would make it sound better since it seems like there really isn't much room for great sonic improvement from the KPA IMO.
As in my original post, a refresh of the chours/flanger/etc would be nice and for those that use these effects, it might be a sonic improvement.
Rather than profile including tone knob settings, why not just make a half dozen EQ types representing the tone stacks in common amps? More to the point, it would be one EQ effect type with presets for Marshall, Fender, Boogie, Soldano, etc... kind of like the Wah.
That way if you want the easy adjustment based on your memory of how your old amp worked, the controls will have similar gain and center frequency and Q of the original amp.
The user feature would be the ability to leave the normal system EQ for the front panel knobs or override it like the Kone speaker selection.
Profile your amp, then if you want a different EQ you choose the tone stack from the pick list and save it. Then your Fender profile mid knob will work like a Fender mid knob.
All the processing is there, it's really just a UI tweak.
(For me, I like the front knobs being predictable but I would probably play with this if they made it a feature.)
An easy 2.0 "feature" that could be nothing more than a decal:
Have the "show must go on" soft and hard reset instructions printed on the device somewhere. Like on the bottom of the Stage or back of a Rack.
Of course users can add this with a label maker themselves...
Display MoreRather than profile including tone knob settings, why not just make a half dozen EQ types representing the tone stacks in common amps? More to the point, it would be one EQ effect type with presets for Marshall, Fender, Boogie, Soldano, etc... kind of like the Wah.
That way if you want the easy adjustment based on your memory of how your old amp worked, the controls will have similar gain and center frequency and Q of the original amp.
The user feature would be the ability to leave the normal system EQ for the front panel knobs or override it like the Kone speaker selection.
Profile your amp, then if you want a different EQ you choose the tone stack from the pick list and save it. Then your Fender profile mid knob will work like a Fender mid knob.
All the processing is there, it's really just a UI tweak.
(For me, I like the front knobs being predictable but I would probably play with this if they made it a feature.)
Spot on!
The reality is that (like overdrive pedals) there are only three or four basic EQ types. Everything else is just minor component value tweaks and whether it comes before or after the gain stages. Because of the way each control interacts in an analog amp it is impossible to accurately profile a few extreme eq settings and have these extrapolate into a real profile of the amp with EQ. However, it is relatively easy to model the behaviour of different electrical circuits including how each control interacts with others.
Like you, and many others, I see the predictable behaviour of the current EQ as a bonus not a shortfall but having the option to play with other EQ types would be a nice additional feature 👍