Can we please get some kind of Kemper Editor Software for your computer

  • Marshall amp controlled with smartphone app.


    You can choose presets just by tapping on your phone.


    Nice!

    I'm glad none of my Marshalls had this feature. I'd have to grab an old rotary phone handset and rest it in the modem cradle to change my settings. :) But seriously, I'd worry about obsolescence with phone app control of hardware. It wasn't too long ago that Blackberry was the smartphone of choice. At least with a computer you can run older stuff on newer hardware and OS. I'm running some PC software from the 90's still on Windows 10.

    I hate emojis, but I hate being misunderstood more. :)

  • For me it doesn't make a sense to mirror toaster's interface in terms of multipages for single effect.It is what it is on KPA and it works there (LCD size limitation) but every FX could utilize on page/tab in apps GUI.


    On such a page loaded with so much information, it could be an overload. My suggestion was tailored toward the idea of being able to load FX simply and make simple tweaks if necessary. Then, if deeper editing is required, double click on a loaded FX in order to bring up a pop up with all the parameters for that FX.

  • On such a page loaded with so much information, it could be an overload. My suggestion was tailored toward the idea of being able to load FX simply and make simple tweaks if necessary. Then, if deeper editing is required, double click on a loaded FX in order to bring up a pop up with all the parameters for that FX.

    Can you draw a sketch of what you imagine to be GUI layout? ;)

  • On such a page loaded with so much information, it could be an overload. My suggestion was tailored toward the idea of being able to load FX simply and make simple tweaks if necessary. Then, if deeper editing is required, double click on a loaded FX in order to bring up a pop up with all the parameters for that FX.

    Absolutely. My idea for the toaster editor is to have a main desktop window with a lot of dockable windows.


    Can you draw a sketch of what you imagine to be GUI layout?

    Just imagine a dockable window with a nice skin and a lot of knobs.

  • Absolutely. My idea for the toaster editor is to have a main desktop window with a lot of dockable windows.

    Just imagine a dockable window with a nice skin and a lot of knobs.

    Dockable windows? Not my cup of tea, personally. I much prefer highlighted buttons or tabs. Tabs allow better organization, in my opinion. Think about your browser, for instance.

  • I think the best interface has been done already.

    I makes sense to follow the basic idea of the physical sight with subwindows and popups. Preset names could be in the designation of each graphic sign, to see in the main screen what items are behind.
    It would not be a failure to have operable tables for parmameters, presets and cabs in in the windows and popups.


    A lot of single items could be now a point of discussion but I am quite sure that a good software engineer will find a nice interface which is consistent and follow the operating concept of the KPA in the quality we are now used to have. :)

  • I makes sense to follow the basic idea of the physical sight with subwindows and popups. Preset names could be in the designation of each graphic sign, to see in the main screen what items are behind.It would not be a failure to have operable tables for parmameters, presets and cabs in in the windows and popups.


    A lot of single items could be now a point of discussion but I am quite sure that a good software engineer will find a nice interface which is consistent and follow the operating concept of the KPA in the quality we are now used to have. :)


    Completely agree. Kemper already designed a fantastic UI for their KPA hardware. I think they should keep the same "model and metaphor" when designing the UI for a PC/Mac. Does it have to look exactly like the display screen on the physical KPA...well, no. But IMHO it should follow the same general layout and design, for the simple reason that it makes it easy for the user to switch back and forth between devices. The Editor will make things much faster and easier...and obviously certain "screens" may show more information, given the size of the typical PC display...which may make flipping pages to access deeper parameters no longer necessary. Nevertheless, the general location, layout and schema should follow the original hardware UI.

  • Kemper always seems to beat their own path. Innovating and coming up with unique and elegant solutions. The KPA itself is/was an unheard concept. The devolpement of the software and implementation of new features is both different and very welcome. I,ve never had an electronic unit that matures and improves with age. A concept of drastically improving something without the money sucking parasites of the world milking it for every last cent. With that kind of track record why would you expect them to blindly follow everyone elses method for an editor?

  • I think the argument is made that the purpose of an editor is for ease of use and that other companies have long since figured out a very intuitive interface. Doesn't mean Kemper couldn't improve it, and it's no reason not to try, but there's no need to reinvent the wheel.

  • Completely agree. Kemper already designed a fantastic UI for their KPA hardware. I think they should keep the same "model and metaphor" when designing the UI for a PC/Mac. Does it have to look exactly like the display screen on the physical KPA...well, no. But IMHO it should follow the same general layout and design, for the simple reason that it makes it easy for the user to switch back and forth between devices. The Editor will make things much faster and easier...and obviously certain "screens" may show more information, given the size of the typical PC display...which may make flipping pages to access deeper parameters no longer necessary. Nevertheless, the general location, layout and schema should follow the original hardware UI.

    UI is great for hardware, I agree. But you don't want to click on 5~6 pages/tabs to set all parameters for new fancy delay.
    What is the reason to have output parameters on 6 pages? On hardware, it's small display so it's understandable, but VST and 6 pages of parameters for 1 option....
    General schema could follow hardware UI, agreed.

  • UI is great for hardware, I agree. But you don't want to click on 5~6 pages/tabs to set all parameters for new fancy delay.What is the reason to have output parameters on 6 pages? On hardware, it's small display so it's understandable, but VST and 6 pages of parameters for 1 option....
    General schema could follow hardware UI, agreed.


    Hi Sckozy,


    Indeed, we agree, and I believe we are saying the exact same thing:


    Quote

    ...and obviously certain "screens" may show more information, given the size of the typical PC display...which may make flipping pages to access deeper parameters no longer necessary.

  • Kemper always seems to beat their own path. Innovating and coming up with unique and elegant solutions. The KPA itself is/was an unheard concept. The devolpement of the software and implementation of new features is both different and very welcome. I,ve never had an electronic unit that matures and improves with age. A concept of drastically improving something without the money sucking parasites of the world milking it for every last cent. With that kind of track record why would you expect them to blindly follow everyone elses method for an editor?

    It's not like the Kemper's hardware UI is revolutionary. In terms of an editor, it's not really a matter of Kemper following everyone else's lead, but implementing conventions that people are familiar with and make sense. I wouldn't expect a Kemper computer editor to look exactly like Axe-Edit or Helix Edit, but tabs, pages and knobs are fairly standard.

  • Does the profiler needs an editor like the other modelers;


    The axefx or the helix do not take "snapshots" of an amp/cab..they give you the ability to "sculpture" your rig from the scratch.Actually you have to do this.So you need all these parameters.You need "the tools" and the best possible UI (big screen and mouse) to work for some time building your rig.You will sit hours and hours to get it right.


    The profiler does not work like this.Taking a "snapshot" of an already existing amp/cab which is already tweaked and miced everyone who uses the profiler has to understand that it is much more important to choose the right rig (or-ofcourse-do your own profiles of your own amps/cabs)If you choose/buy a rig it is still the same:The less tweaking the choosen rig needs the better the result.


    This difference actually is so big and convincing that Kemper has the most pros who use this tool.Afaik there is not even one guitar-VIP using the helix despite the fact that it has the best UI of all modelers.The Axe is (very) often just used as FX-tool.


    The new delays need an editor ofcourse.Morphing sure needs an editor.Maybe the growing number of cabs need an editor too.But untill recently the profiler did not need an editor.Would anyone use the editor live on stage;Anyone here who has an helix or an axe and uses the editor during live gigs;I am curious..

  • I would say the ability to set effect presets, stomps, performances, IR's, and even tweak profile settings themselves would be greatly improved. You don't need an editor, even on the Axe-FX or Helix, but one is provided for ease of use and the understanding that most people prefer to use a computer for such things. It is a digital device after all.


    Kemper deserves lots of credit for its UI, but a tiny screen and a bunch of buttons isn't for everyone (especially the older players and those can't see as well) and those who've invested a lot for the KPA don't find it unreasonable to ask, or even expect an editor. It's not about need, it's about convenience and the vast array of KPA users have made it known this is something they want.