Vote on Kemper Amps’ next development steps

  • Help us rank feature requests (3 votes each) 175

    1. Reverbs (70) 40%
    2. User definable/custom/modelled stacks (28) 16%
    3. Librarian to be upgraded to full on editor (109) 62%
    4. Better OD/DS stomps (121) 69%
    5. More midi capabilities (10) 6%
    6. VST like Access Virus to save and recall settings in projects (22) 13%
    7. More FX like slow gear, sitar, slicer, univibe, ADT, etc (63) 36%
    8. Ability to stitch multiple rigs into a profile (26) 15%
    9. Bluetooth (9) 5%
    10. Looper improvements: Loop quantisation, loop import/export from USB stick (15) 9%
    11. Better organisation/categorisation within profiler (e.g. DI and merged profiles, sorted by cabs, etc) (9) 5%

    Here is my development agenda for Kemper in terms of my own ranking of importance/feasibility:1)

    1) Reverbs (on the way, looking forward to it)

    2) User definable/custom/modelled stacks: I want the main EQs and gain and presence behaviour to be as real as the actual amp. Please?

    3) Librarian to be upgraded to full on editor

    4) Better OD/DS stomps (Glad this is on the to-do list)

    5) More midi capabilities (e.g. cc transmission, start/stop commands) to act like a real octopus for my rig

    6) VST like Access Virus to save and recall settings in projects

    7) More FX like slow gear, sitar, slicer, synth sounds, etc


    What do you guys think? If you have an alternate list, post here. With any luck, Mothership will see what users are demanding and prioritise their efforts :thumbup:


    EDIT: Adding feature request 8.


    8 ) Ability to stitch multiple rigs into a profile. This doesn't even need to be done within the Kemper. Just give us a software programme like cab manager that is able to interpolate the data of multiple rigs into a new profile, based on parameters such as gain, definition, etc. This would tie into No. 2, which would enable us to sweep knobs from a value dictated in profile A to profile B. If we could have profiles C, D, E, etc, also stitched into a profile, perhaps this would enable us to have a tone stack that is more honest to the original amp. Or alternatively, it could be a tone stack that we define based on the profiles we stitch together.


    EDIT 2:

    9) Bluetooth


    10) Looper improvements: Loop quantisation, loop import/export from USB stick


    11) Better organisation/categorisation within profiler (e.g. DI and merged profiles, sorted by cabs, etc)

  • Looks like a reasonable list there, though I don't think number two will make it possible to have them react in the same way as they would on the actual amp, though the interaction of the different EQ bands is probably possible between themselves. On most old amps I've played through, ALL of those controls interact. That might be a stretch too far for the way the KPA works currently.

  • 3, 6, 5, 7, 1, 4. 2 ain’t ever going to happen. That requires full on modelling to capture the way the tone controls interact with each other AND other parts of the system both downstream and upstream.


    I thought I saw something in the forum software thread about now being able to actually insert a poll in a thread. I can’t find out how to do it though so maybe I imagined it.

  • I'd like to see RigManager getting a big improvement. I'd much rather the folder structures acted like playlists. Simular to apple iTunes/Photos. The original rig stays in the main folder and I can include that in folders without having to create another version.

  • I thought I saw something in the forum software thread about now being able to actually insert a poll in a thread. I can’t find out how to do it though so maybe I imagined it.

    You didn't imagine it, Alan, 'twas I who said that. I'm impressed that you remember, bud.


    The tab has since disappeared, but it was there immediately following the forum-software upgrade. Nobody quoted me or raised a discussion about it, which I found surprising 'cause many had created threads requesting the ability to create polls in the past.


    If you'd like to discuss it, please say something here in my thread that was mysteriously moved to the commercial-announcements subforum:


    Kemperites' Views on the New Forum Format?


    AJ, regarding #5, isn't CC transmission already implemented, or is that only the ability to pass CC streams through?

  • Re. number 2: Maybe we don't need to have the stacks profiled, but there could be a list of say 10 stack types the user could select from - it has been discussed before.

    Multiple EQ styles would be a nice addition but it still won’t react like the real EQs from the original amps.


    The position of the stone stack in the signal chain clearly has an effect. Although the KPA lets us place the EQ Pre or Post this appears to be pre the entire amp or post the entire amp (the profiling process doesn’t distinguish between pre amp and power amp). The effect of the interaction between the various controls will have a significant and different effect depending on where it is in the signal path.


    One of the great things about the KPA is the way the EQ is so consistent between different amp profiles. Having said that giving users who want it extra flexibility never hurt anyone.

  • AJ, regarding #5, isn't CC transmission already implemented, or is that only the ability to pass CC streams through?


    You can only pass CC from an expression pedal to your DAW. But assuming I want to just send a CC to a pedal or external device, I cannot do that.


    Honestly, the limitation of transmitting just two PC numbers per performance rig is really sad. The Kemper is easily able to pass through CC data when it is sent to it. I see no real reason for the arbitrary limitation.

  • 3, 6, 5, 7, 1, 4. 2 ain’t ever going to happen. That requires full on modelling to capture the way the tone controls interact with each other AND other parts of the system both downstream and upstream.


    I thought I saw something in the forum software thread about now being able to actually insert a poll in a thread. I can’t find out how to do it though so maybe I imagined it.


    It seems 2 is a stretch to everyone on this thread.


    Let me suggest an alternate way of looking at the issue with feature request No. 8 (which I'll add to the OP).


    8 ) Ability to stitch multiple rigs into a profile. This doesn't even need to be done within the Kemper. Just give us a software programme like cab manager that is able to interpolate the data of multiple rigs into a new profile, based on parameters such as gain, definition, etc. This would tie into No. 2, which would enable us to sweep knobs from a value dictated in profile A to profile B. If we could have profiles C, D, E, etc, also stitched into a profile, perhaps this would enable us to have a tone stack that is more honest to the original amp. Or alternatively, it could be a tone stack that we define based on the profiles we stitch together.

  • Let me suggest an alternate way of looking at the issue with feature request No. 8 (which I'll add to the OP).


    8 ) Ability to stitch multiple rigs into a profile. This doesn't even need to be done within the Kemper. Just give us a software programme like cab manager that is able to interpolate the data of multiple rigs into a new profile, based on parameters such as gain, definition, etc. This would tie into No. 2, which would enable us to sweep knobs from a value dictated in profile A to profile B. If we could have profiles C, D, E, etc, also stitched into a profile, perhaps this would enable us to have a tone stack that is more honest to the original amp. Or alternatively, it could be a tone stack that we define based on the profiles we stitch together.

    This is exactly what I asked for in the thread I'll link to, AJ! In the OP, just, as I said, "Insert plethora of imagined possibilities here". You'll remember this one as you didn't quite get where I was coming from at first:


    Amp & Cab Morphing Without the Impossible CPU Hit


    Also, Lokasenna thought of it here in 2014; He linked to it in my thread:


    Dual amps