The Kemper Foot Controller: A Proposal

  • This should make schneidas happy with the vote tally

    I'm always happy - but thank you :)

    Actually, I'll live if CK decides to go FX bottom row... but I'd really hope he goes for the free assignable thingy, so everyone will be happy and get the way he is used to work.
    But I'll live either way...

  • I reckon we'd be close to a 50 - 50 for both these camps if all 1000+ members voted.

    Hence, it might make sense to let the player decide if he wants to assign FX or rigs to the bottom row.

    1+ I agree just make the switches user define-able, then everyone could decide for themselves....

  • can't these preset-nerds just buy an axe fx and programm their mfc to 15 p/c's? just kidding of course (!)... :P
    it is a testament to the kpa, that folks want to use it like a pedalboard -> amp setup. you don't need 20 sounds per song, if your preset doesn't suck after some seconds...
    so, to feature the ingenious multi-stomp-in-one-switch-control ck came up with, it should be prominent and on the bottom... hope this makes sense 8|

    Stompsetups are usually a good way when you have a great clean amp and have some stomps that can cover all the kinds of overdrive and distortion that you need. But to me the KPA isn't that thing, it's the thing where you change amps and don't need stomps that much. We have thousands of amps in there, but not as many stomps.

  • guys, honestly: i don't think this is actually about presets vs fx. i surely could manage to hit first and second row equally well.
    i've never heard someone complain that preset 1-5 are in better reach than 6-10 on other well spread floorboards ... 8|

    the only exeption maybe tap-tempo which, on a common sense base, should be located at the bottom right.

    so for me this is about a footcontroller that is a bit larger, or a footcontroller that is a bit smaller. still: same functionality.

    since i want it small, i want fx at the bottom to grant a logical and streamlined layout with exactly no space wasted.

    if you want rigs on the bottom, you'll have a 6 switch design with some space "wasted", so if you don't mind hauling around an additional bag for your floor-gear, actually both versions should work equally well. (i still prefer 5 switch-layout for the reason that presets and bank build a more logical block, but this really is just a detail...)

    all in all i just want to keep it as small and simple as it gets.

    keep on the good fight fellas :P

    edit: so i'm afraid user configurable layout wont't help us here, since it's more a hardware decision. maybe the "we-want-it-big-crowd" comes up with some more needs, so ck will be forced to offer 2 different footcontrollers... poll: who of the "rig-switches-at-the-bottom-crew" would like to access all stomps & fx individually by a choice of no less than 8 switches... :wacko:

  • If that the case, Then i hope the controller will be with rig on the bottum row.
    Just my 2 cent. :)

    Rigs on the bottom row, that's what I like too, for sure...... on a 6 button design.
    But with a 5 button design it would cause the tap button to be placed in the second row. Maybe not the best place for it.

    Both ways have advantages and disadvantages.

    It can be difficult to hit the right preset button on stage, when it's a great moment and they turn off the lights and you're blind for a moment (or they ignite the blinders and you're blind too). Rigs in the second row can be a problem then, you need to place your foot in front of the button some seconds before the big moment and then hit it without any additional eye contact.

    At the other side tapping something without beeing able to put your heel on the ground is difficult too, so the tap on the second row is not that nice.

    Maybe the rigs on the bottom row and an addtional connection for an external tap button if needed (also for the ones that want to tap with the left)?
    I then would use the onboard tap for the rehearse and so on, but could make it better accessilbe if needed for gigs.

  • To be very honest, whatever the layout and the usage I can adjust to any design. Not an issue for me.

    Noted... but you'd still prefer the FX on the bottom row, so I'll leave your vote there.

    I don't want the buttons swappable, because then we cannot name them correctly. Also the four LEDs per effect button will be a problem then.

    Ok, I can see that. Bummer...


    Updated votes:

    -FX on bottom row:
    MoreK, killihan, Chris Beaver, richaxes, guitarnet70, TMV, vibracore (il padrino)
    7 votes

    -Rigs on bottom row:
    DanielRigler, Steeldom, Vitchpat1, schneidas, RAPH, ace, jakeykim, JoeBlob, luntho, imall41(vote changed), Gibson, Froschn, Acker
    13 votes

    and44, Zappledan, Guitartone, Stemast (vote changed), Doc (vote changed), BRUNO
    6 votes

  • Yeah, I'm sure CK will make a great pedal!
    To be honest, I can and will adjust to any design - but I guess there's nothing wrong with showing a little passion for the things you'd want.

    Anyway, stats updated.

    Ask 1000 guitarists to design a pedal board and you'll get 1000 different designs. :D

    Add me to the neutral vote, whatever Mr Kemper designs and produces will be fine for me.

    Chris, I believe I should be on the neutral ones. That's exactly what I meant with my previous post that I can adjust to any solution. That's even more passion shown than sticking to one design :thumbup: I trust that the best solution possible will be delivered to us.