Noise Gate - per Rig not using slot

  • It would be nice to have a noise gate setting per rig that does not use a slot. Since you do not turn it on and off...ty[ically, having it as a setting within the profile would allow you to use it independently without using an effect/stomp slot.

  • I think this would work on most of mine, but I could see an additional noise gate being used on higher gain stuff and with pedals. So, just like transpose being added to not take up a slot noise gate could be added to not take a slot.

  • Volume Pedal, Input Noise Gate, and Transpose don't require a module. Is it an issue to spend a module for an additional stomp noise gate once in a while? The position of that noise gate within the signal chain might be depending on other effects like boosters or distortions within that Rig.

  • Is it an issue to spend a module for an additional stomp noise gate once in a while

    Yes.

    This is why I brought it up. We have a set number of slots. That's why it was good to have transpose as it is now which can be accomplished without a slot. It's like the feeling of Christmas day when you get a free slot. You get all tingly inside. It appears to be working on all my profiles (low to mid Gain) so I'm happy with finding out I was wrong for the past 6 years and could have just used the noise gate knob for each preset. :S

  • Volume Pedal, Input Noise Gate, and Transpose don't require a module. Is it an issue to spend a module for an additional stomp noise gate once in a while? The position of that noise gate within the signal chain might be depending on other effects like boosters or distortions within that Rig.

    I actually think that as well as an extra noise gate not taking a slot (slectable position), Wah Wah can be made rig effect not taking a slot.

  • I'm really interested why are 8 modules plus Volume Pedal, plus Input Noise Gate plus Transpose not sufficient? Do people really need more than 8+ concurrent active effects for a sound? I mean which they play in real live. Or is it because you try to avoid by all means loading other Rigs and try to condense their whole permutation of effect combinations they might ever need into a hand-full of Rigs?


    There are other products where it has its meaning to stay within the same Rig (they call it preset or program) and just switch effect combinations (they call it scenes or snapshots), because this is the only way to avoid sound gaps and maintain spillover during switching. But the PROFILER doesn't have that limitation. With the push of one button you could change a Rig without sound gaps, have up to eight completely different effects plus different amp and cabinet, different Volume Pedal settings, different Transpose setting, different Noise Gate setting, and even enjoy spillover.

  • Do people really need more than 8+ concurrent active effects for a sound? I mean which they play in real live.

    Is the profiler ONLY for people that play live?


    That is the viewpoint implied by what you wrote. It's always been my view that Kemper (the company) and their approach to features and improvements is driven largely by pro live users. That set of users don't need an editor. They don't need USB recording. etc.

  • Is the profiler ONLY for people that play live?

    Of course not. ;)

    What Burkhard wants to outline is the fact that many users are too lazy to think out of the box and demand a gigantic pedal board concept with 16 FX readily available.

    OTOH with the Profiler it's possible to have 40 FX readily available with gapless switching (5 performances with 8 FX each). There's only a little brainwork needed for which effect you want to combine with which.

    Not to speak of other performances that you can add.

    I doubt that anybody has exploited the possibilities that I outlined above to the fullest.

  • many users are too lazy to think out of the box and demand a gigantic pedal

    Who did this ??? It was a simply request to go along with the same way transpose and volume have been approached - which was a great move. No one was or is complaining or asking for a gynormous board. Easy request - either see the need and incorporate it or don't and leave it as is.

  • A few more points...

    1. Almost nobody NEEDS more than 8 slots, because there are other ways of achieving the desired result, as you wrote. But that does not mean being limited to 8 FX slots is the ideal situation.
    2. You often need to use up extra blocks for simple things like high- and low-cut because the CAB block doesn't have those things. Or a post-amp GEQ in the AMP block. Or a per-rig gate in the Rig settings.
    3. Sometimes you need 5 stomps (pre-amp) and 2 FX (post-amp). Compressor, WAH, Vibe, Fuzz... now you're stuck even though you have 2 available slots that are post-amp.
    4. A lot of guitarists think of a Rig as their pedal board. They don't switch pedal boards every time they need one or two more FX on stage. This simply requires a mindset change, but it's still a factor for many guitarists.
    5. The Rig saved in a Performance is not tied to the original Rig, but rather, is a copy. If you use an Amp Profile in multiple Performances you will need to edit numerous rigs each time you make a change. This is the natural result of spreading out your FX across multiple Rigs ("since there is no switching gap", as you say).
    6. Avoiding sound gaps is not the only reason to have larger rigs with more FX. It makes more sense from an organizational standpoint. Having copies of the same amp (#5 above) and breaking up your "virtual pedal board" into multiple boards (#4 above) doesn't make sense for a lot of guitarists. It DOES make sense for touring acts that have set lists and sound banks all neatly arranged around their stage show. But for bedroom musicians, studio cats, and studio owners, this is less than ideal.

    Regarding #2, making a few simple changes in existing blocks will free up additional blocks.


    Regarding #6, I be willing to bet you have a larger base of bedroom guitarists than touring musicians.

  • bshaw92 I think the issue about gigantic boards is really an extension of the suggestion that the Wah should also be added to the "doesn't need a slot" list and then where do you draw the line? Other people have suggested other effects that could be used without tying up a slot and some others have asked for more than 8 slots. I think Ingolf is just extrapolating based on a wider view of feature request posts rather than just your post.


    The only drawback I see to adding things that aren't in slots is that it is harder to se what is actually in use as there is no light or metering to show status.

  • Of course not. ;)

    What Burkhard wants to outline is the fact that many users are too lazy to think out of the box and demand a gigantic pedal board concept with 16 FX readily available.

    OTOH with the Profiler it's possible to have 40 FX readily available with gables switching (5 performances with 8 FX each). There's only a little brainwork needed for which effect you want to combine with which.

    Not to speak of other performances that you can add.

    I doubt that anybody has exploited the possibilities that I outlined above to the fullest.

    I understand your point and I agree. But to operate this way requires a mindset change because it is a logical break from the reality most guitarists are used to. Kemper is fighting an uphill battle and requesting the user make changes because "it's a better way" when there is very little upside to making this change. They should just come out and say "the current hardware doesn't support more than 8 slots." Simple. Done. But they don't, and the fact that they are asking the question might be instructive.


    But since we all agree it's POSSIBLE to operate within the constraints of 4 pre and 4 post slots, let me flip the question around and ask... what are the advantages to operating within these constraints?


    Second, Burkhard asked the question and also introduced a context when he wrote "I mean which they play in real live". That is how he framed his arguments. I was just pointing out that it might be the context that's the problem because inside of that context (i.e. live performance) there are a LOT of user requests that will never, ever be answered.

  • I think Ingolf is just extrapolating based on a wider view of feature request posts rather than just your post

    Shouldn't do that. I've been around since before the Remote and rack version in the days of old.... The topic at hand was simply adding noise gate to a similar area as transpose and the like, saving a slot.

    I am happy with what we have now.

  • bshaw92 I think the issue about gigantic boards is really an extension of the suggestion that the Wah should also be added to the "doesn't need a slot" list and then where do you draw the line? Other people have suggested other effects that could be used without tying up a slot and some others have asked for more than 8 slots. I think Ingolf is just extrapolating based on a wider view of feature request posts rather than just your post.


    The only drawback I see to adding things that aren't in slots is that it is harder to se what is actually in use as there is no light or metering to show status.

    Yes, I wasn’t responding to bshaw92 's post or feature request, not at all,

    but trying to explain the point of view which Burkhard 's arguments are based on (I think).


    So thank you. ;)