Make the information about the used preset available

  • This is IMO one of the logistic flaws in the Profiler: the name of the preset used in a given slot gets lost after you assign it.
    Actually, as long as you stay on that slot, turning the Browse knob shows the loaded preset highlighted. But, if you try and do this for other slots, you'll be presented with the same item: basically, turning the knob in any other slot always shows the (same) last preset loaded.

    I hope this issue is planned to be addressed in KAOS 6.0. If not, I strongly support this FR!

  • It has been talked about, the thing is when you load a preset and tweak just one parameter at 1 or more value, as just about happens every time, then it is not the preset anymore.


    This creates a problem, a bit of a rabbit hole as such.


    Does other digital simulation gear out there reference their effects presets after being loaded?, I truly don’t know, but would be interested as to how they work and behave.

    New talent management advice to Laura Cox -


    “Laura want to break the internet? let’s shoot another video of you covering the Nightrain solo in the blue singlet, but this time we’ll crank up the air conditioning”.

  • Yep, I am aware of the issue. They might allow the preset name to show as long as it's not been edited.


    As a side note, when edited, they might just for example append a special character to the name, such as an *, and maybe offer the option to automatically add this name* to the presets list the same way it works for rigs with the "Automatically add to favourites" switch.

  • An effect preset includes the type of the effect, all its settings, and its on/off-status! So, already activating or deactivating the module breaks the logical relationship to the preset. The life time of such a logical relationship would probably be much shorter than what requesters have in mind.


    And what should happen, if the preset gets deleted? Or what if the preset gets modified - "preset replace/store as/rename" will be introduced in the near future. Or should all this be referencing? In other words you modify one Rig, the underlying presets get modified, other Rigs and Performances linked to the same presets get modified as well automatically?


    I suggest to keep things simple. A preset is just a convenient method to select an effect type and all its settings. It's a one off like dialing in settings manually. Just more convenient. I'm not aware that any other comparable device offers such module or section presets. What others call presets are our Rigs. And the information about the effect type as such is maintained.

  • Thanks Burkhard for responding and for your observations.


    It seems that the main need of those who are asking for the possibility of identifying the (original) preset (not only on this forum but elsewhere as well) would be: For goodness' sake, what preset do I use on this rig?!


    Of course any feature implementation would require some change to the code.

    For instance, the status of the preset could be excluded by the elements which characterise its identity; this would allow to still see its name while not edited. But there's more.


    You will agree that presets (may) sound very different from each other, even when coming from the same Type of effect. The majority of the users, IME, approaches presets as if they were different effects. Apart from my personal (and of those who have been asking for this feature) feelings on the matter, there are proofs of this mind approach: for example, when reverbs were last released, and you had to loaf factory contents in order to get all the presets, loads of people kept asking (from all over the world, literally!) "I can't see the new reverbs, did my installation go wrong?!" again and again ;)


    Granted, if you change- say - Grit from 3.5 to 3.6 it's not the same preset any longer; but it sounds the same nevertheless :) It's the same effect, in my mind.

    So, I can confidently state that it would make sense (in the mind of the average user) to just change the (still-to-be-implemented) displayed name of such preset from - say - Aqualong to Aqualong*.


    What if Aqualong gets deleted? Nothing: it doesn't exist anywhere (in the KPA, but I can retrieve it again if I need) any longer, but I have a living instance of Aqualong* in the unit, stored in a rig, and I can save it as a preset (hopefully with a name of my choice).


    Should all this be referencing? Well, this is a completely different issue, that responds to totally different needs which are not part of this feature request. I am aware it has been long discussed not only here but on every forum I follow. I would note tho that the asterisk'ed name would become a different preset, which would/could be independently inherited and treated as any preset should the referencing feature be implemented.


    I believe the feature I am suggesting does keeps thing very simple, and adds a lot of information: you have used the Aqualong preset here, and this is a modified version of it. You can save this version, if you want, or reverse back to the original version by just loading it.


    I have been thinking over about this feature request, and I was not able to see any drawback.


    On a funnier side of things, I believe Kemper is not the more credible firm when it comes to any sentence which starts by "I'm not aware that any other comparable device offers..." :D

  • I agree with you, that this request seems to be originated in the fundamental misunderstanding of some users, that presets are types, which they are not. We are aware, that some users never use the TYPE knob to select effects, but just use the BROWSE knob instead - exclusively. So, they are using the given preset names of the factory presets for their effect orientation and never get familiar with the effect type names and the algorithms as such as described in the Main Manual . If you select your effect type, you have your reference. The revision of the effect selection screen will make the difference between type and preset more obvious - hopefully.


    What would be the real value of the information "Module A with a Wah Wah is based on the preset "Wah Cry" but has been modified"? All you really know for sure is, it's a Wah Wah. You know that anyhow. Plus: The preset "Wah Cry" could have been deleted in the meantime. Or in that new software revision you could have modified and replaced that preset. Or the Rig could have been exported/imported to another PROFILER, where that preset doesn't even exist. Please don't insist to use presets as pseudo types.

  • What would be the real value of the information "Module A with a Wah Wah is based on the preset "Wah Cry" but has been modified"?


    I am realising that your approach to the matter starts from the idea that guitar players choose (or better, set) an effect looking at its numbers, with a great awareness of what each parameter does. Like "mhhh... Grit at 5.6 gives a bit too much mid-highs... and doesn't cope well with Feedback at 34.8... I'll lower it to 5.1". This is how an engineer thinks, but the average digital user thinks in terms of sound, specially in a 6-page kind of effect (try and set a complex Delay with totally different parameters: there's no way - generally speaking - that the average user can tell it's the same Type (Vs a different Delay). For this reason, Aqualong becomes (in fact, it is) in the user's mind a label that refers to a specific tone, just as if it was a kind of effect.

    Again, this would most probably be less critical if the various instances of the same effect coudn't sound so differently from each other. A device must follow the way the user thinks IMO.


    To answer your question, IMO it's a matter of order, rationality, and practicality.

    As I was trying to convey, the value lays in the fact that, since presets may sound really different from each other (and from the default settings the bare "type" comes with), I will know where to find a similar sound in the future. I have maybe modified Aqualong because there was something that needed to be adjusted for a specific rig, but I may (as we - requesters - in fact do) want to have the original preset available for other uses.

    Sure, I could just refer to Aqualong* and start from there, but I'd like to have a stable reference to start from, so that all the possible variations the original. Also, if I see several instances of Aqualong* in different rigs, I know at a glance that they were just different version of a same general setting.


    The preset "Wah Cry" could have been deleted in the meantime. Or in that new software revision you could have modified and replaced that preset. Or the Rig could have been exported/imported to another PROFILER, where that preset doesn't even exist.

    Yep, you already wrote this. But, again, these are cases of no consequence: I see no drawbacks, since Aqualong* would be nothing but a further label, like any other preset. OTOH, if the guideline was based on this, we would sacrifice the practicalities as I discussed in the previous paragraph.


    Please don't insist to use presets as pseudo types.

    Well... with all due respect, a user does what they want with their device :)

    The KPA's interface and functions have been modified a lot since KAOS 1.0, and many of these modifications have been driven by users, as you guys usually point out.

    This means that there are people out there that don't think the way devs did when they conceived the unit and its functions. I don't see this as positive or negative, it's just a matter of fact.

    So, it happens at times that users "insist" in trying and use a device in a way that it was not originally designed for.

    I am of course not stating that the functionality I am requesting should be implemented just because I'd like to see it: I've been several times hearing it is missing from others as well.

    Of course we can disagree on its utility.


    Thanks for your time!

  • Thanks for your detailed response!


    Under which conditions do you think a relation between a module and a preset breaks?

    Only if another preset gets loaded into that module?

    Or also, if the effect type gets changed e. g. from Phaser to Phaser OneWay while all the parameter settings are maintained?

    Never, if just parameters get tweaked, even if the character of the effect, preferences and options get changed completely?

    If that preset itself gets deleted or slightly changed?


    If you load Aqualong, change the Mix from "Post" to "Pre", deactivate "To Tempo", change Mix, Feedback, Low Cut and Hi Cut, Reverse Mix, Chorus, Flutter Intensity and Ducking, is it still Aqualong*?

  • If you find an FX setting you like in a Rig, create a new Preset. You can use a name that references the Rig that contains the FX setting, if you like. That would enable you to build a library of FX presets that are useful to you.

    Thanks Paults for chiming in :)

    What you suggest has nothing to do with this feature request tho, which relates most with traceability.



    Thanks for your detailed response!


    Thank you Burkhard for getting the time to discuss this :)


    I guess by "module" you refer to an effect slot, right?

    These questions are taking us more into the coding of the KPA's behaviour, so I run the risk of talking about things I don't know. But I'll get them, for the sake of discussion! Please forgive me if I assume something wrong.

    I also realise that, with the new features announced at NAMM there will be the need to establish a closer (strict?) relationship between Types and Presets, because IIRTC the latter will be listed under each preset. So I'll have this a a reference.


    I see a preset as a sort of not-inheriting object, which should not be related to the slot where it gets loaded, but only to its Type (from what you wrote in a previous comment this seems to not be the case, but I don't know enough to elaborate on this).


    So to analyse the cases you're suggesting, and keeping the Aqualong metaphor:


    I don't know code-wise whether all the presets must exist in the Preset Set, or a preset can exist in a Rig only. I believe that, if we give presets the status of entity, we couldn't have a preset in a rig which doesn't appear in the Set as well. Of course this implies decisions to be taken at coding level, which is not my competence, even tho I do have a vision.
    Coherence and consistency would suggest that, if presets were to be entities:

    • the user can't delete a preset if they have rigs that use it (a warning message appears that specifies at least the number of rigs that use it);
    • importing/loading a rig that uses a preset implies the automatic addition of the preset to the Presets Set;
    • if no rig uses Aqualong, when deleting it the System would ask a confirmation whether to delete its children Aqualong* as well;
    • if the user edits Aqualong by changing the effect Type, a new Aqualong* preset is created under the other Type cathegory (of the same Family: Delays, Distortion ecc.);
    • if the user changes the Type of effect in a preset outside the Family of the Type (i.e., it was a Delay but now they load a Flanger?), consistency would suggest that a new preset is saved nevertheless under the correct Family and Type, but it doesn't gets deleted if the original Aqualong is deleted, because the Family has changed as well;
    • so we can have several Aqualong* instances (Aqualong001, Aqualong002 etc)under several Types and Families. This seems coherent and should not introduce any ambiguity; on the contrary, the newly-implemented hierarchical visualisation would show that there are (if ever) several instances of Aqualong, under several Types and in several Families. There would be differences and affinities among them, but the System recalls and shows that they have an ancestor in common
    • For consistency, editing Aqualong001 would generate Aqualong001001 (this nomenclature is of course just an example).

    Hope to non have forgotten anything, and to not have written some resounding idiocy.

    I did not take the time for a serious and consistent study, and there are too many coding aspects I have no information about, so I may well have overlooked something obvious or written something impossible to implement without re-writing the KAOS from scratch (LOL).

    Nevertheless, whether this request is received or not, hope I made my vision clear.


    Thanks for listening, it's bee interesting anyway :)

  • Quote from Pippopluto

    in the user's mind a label that refers to a specific tone, just as if it was a kind of effect.

    this makes me think about all of the posts asking for specific FX to be provided in the Stomp Types. There are lots of cases of users asking for models of specific OD and Distortion pedals such as Klon or TS808, TS9 TS8 etc. In reality the Kemper model seems to be to create a TYPE which can be tuned to be many things as the range on variables is far greater than the analog world would allow. Therefore, the same OD TYPE can be any variable of Tube Screamer or TS derivative the user wants by setting the controls appropriately. In the Kemper mindset this is a TYPE. However, in the mind of users it isn’t the effect they want and they keep asking for more “improvements“. If you provide presets labelled TS8, TS9, etc people think they have the effects they want. That’s just the way most peole think even thought the it might not be logical.

  • this makes me think about all of the posts asking for specific FX to be provided in the Stomp Types. There are lots of cases of users asking for models of specific OD and Distortion pedals such as Klon or TS808, TS9 TS8 etc. In reality the Kemper model seems to be to create a TYPE which can be tuned to be many things as the range on variables is far greater than the analog world would allow. Therefore, the same OD TYPE can be any variable of Tube Screamer or TS derivative the user wants by setting the controls appropriately. In the Kemper mindset this is a TYPE. However, in the mind of users it isn’t the effect they want and they keep asking for more “improvements“. If you provide presets labelled TS8, TS9, etc people think they have the effects they want. That’s just the way most peole think even thought the it might not be logical.


    Hey Alan, this is basically what I perceive happens, too.
    In the case you mentioned, tho, there might be some technical issues: not necessarily a Kemper Type is able to be shaped so to sound like a given pedal.

    But I agree, in general, that on the average the guitar player is not really skilled in shaping a complex system (a Type I mean) and make it sound the way they want.


    In fact, I agree that Kemper would spend quite a rewarding time by providing a. very versatile Types (including distortions etc) and b. very realistic "the-real-thing" presets.

  • Just a few clarifications:


    There are no "effect slots" in our nomenclature. The term "Slot" is used in Performance Mode: each Performance has five Slots. We have eight effect modules A-D and X-REV.


    Presets are completely independent from Rigs. There is no link between any Rig and any preset in our data model. Presets are not stored/exported/imported as part of any Rig and vice versa. You could even delete all presets on your PROFILER and still load Rigs as today, select effect types, and dial in their settings - so basically work with the PROFILER as you do with other devices, which don't offer anything like effect presets.


    Effect presets are already linked to exactly one effect type today. When you scroll through the list of presets, that effect type gets displayed in the right column and after loading a preset its associated type gets displayed in the box on the left hand side.


    Presets are just a way to rationalize the data entry by storing type and all parameter settings in one independent file. You could for example store the type and settings associated with "TS808" under this name. But as soon as you load this preset TS808 and tweak the parameters within the algorithm towards a TS9, the information, that "this module is originally based on preset TS808" is completely misleading. The only item in common between that preset and your current setting is the effect type displayed on the left hand side.


    The new software revision shown at NAMM won't change those principles. It "just" integrates the two lists of effect types and effect presets into one list. Already today each effect preset is associated with exactly one effect type. In the new software revision the effect presets get sorted and listed beside their associated effect type. Based on feedback we received from our beta testers and during the show I'm confident, that this goes a long way towards a better understanding and more effective use of effect types and presets.


    My impression is that you are trying to redesign presets into something completely different. What you really seem to be looking for are more specific/less versatile effect types. I suggest we wait for the new effect selection screen and see how that goes. From my perspective offering versatile effect types plus presets as shortcuts to specific settings is a great combination.

  • And down the rabbit hole we go.


    Pippopluto, I’m sure the hopefully soon, preset management will go a long way to alleviate the current situation.


    We can then train ourselves to use the Type knob, select the algorithm and then will be presented with far less presets making identification easier.


    Just for the record I understand fully, I have been frustrated many times, but as Burkhard is saying there are too just many “what if” variables to offer a robust solution.


    Peace.

    New talent management advice to Laura Cox -


    “Laura want to break the internet? let’s shoot another video of you covering the Nightrain solo in the blue singlet, but this time we’ll crank up the air conditioning”.

  • Based on feedback we received from our beta testers and during the show I'm confident, that this goes a long way towards a better understanding and more effective use of effect types and presets.

    From what I saw in your video I would definitely agree.


    From my perspective offering versatile effect types plus presets as shortcuts to specific settings is a great combination.

    Yes, that is really what I was trying to say about the TS8, TS9 etc. While many people are asking for individual effect types to model ever single OD/Distortion/Boost ever created, I think the best option is a small range of super flexible types. However, the range of flexibility can be daunting. Also, some of Kemper's nomenclature and processes aren't always intuitive to most normal people. Therefore, most users would need you to create some great convincing presets to get them in the ball park for the kind of sounds they are chasing.

  • I’m sure the hopefully soon, preset management will go a long way to alleviate the current situation

    I can't say I know much about the new (future I mean) workflow :)

    How will it help me know what preset I've loaded into a rig (which was ultimately my feature request)?

    Thanks for you insight!

  • It won’t as monkey man says, let you know which preset, it will narrow the possibilities.


    If you go to the single delay algorithm and select a preset, and then forget, you can tell it’s a single delay in use, then you look at the single delay presets and are confronted with 20 possibilities instead of 100 presets (hypothetical numbers), and been as a intelligent person you may suddenly recognise the preset name, if not immediately, I bet you will be able to sift through 2 or 3 and find it.


    The key word was “alleviate”, you get confused by the sheer numbers in its current form.

    New talent management advice to Laura Cox -


    “Laura want to break the internet? let’s shoot another video of you covering the Nightrain solo in the blue singlet, but this time we’ll crank up the air conditioning”.

  • The key word was “alleviate”

    :D


    you get confused by the sheer numbers in its current form

    This is certainly at least partially true.
    Nevertheless, Aqualong* still looks a very practical and useful idea to me.


    Stimulated by Burkhard's questions, in my previous (long) post I was trying to "design" a coherent approach in which saving the (morphed) identity of a preset made sense. It was an hypothetical scenario that just tried to "go beyond" so to speak, and show how a coherent implementation of the "preset object" would possibly be conceived. But that is no way what my feature request is about :)


    Anyway, from the scarce participation to this thread, it looks like I am among the few who feel uncomfortable with the current KAOS philosophy.
    This is weird, because this limitation gets raised quite often here and there, and I have certainly read it several times.


    Happy Easter everyone :)

  • I suggest we wait how the user experience will be with the new effect selection screen.


    Based on my support experience I'm aware, that some people are exclusively using the BROWSE knob to select effects and look at the given preset names as if these would be effect types. Then they feel a gap, if the given preset name disappears and suddenly another name - the real effect type - comes up. They don't feel acquainted to these effect types as they never use the TYPE knob to open the list of effect types and never checked out the Main Manual which explains effects by type and not by preset.


    I think, the new effect selection screen is more "educational" in that sense.


    Happy Easter!