No, WE don't need a kemper2

  • Well I think one main argument is that Kemper is different. And luckily they are. I sometime get the feeling that customers want the Kemper to become another product. The Kemper has a unique selling proposition since years and hopefully still will have another long time. Why should they change that? If Axe is best for some players use it. If you rather go for a 2 x 12 with an old cranked Marshall go for it. I am happy with the USP of Kemper. Surely improving effects to real world use (way go beyond) is necessary improvement. But all the additional digital options and ways beyond that (two amps, for amps in parallel, 15-min delay) who did ever use this before and for what? Does this make our music better? The most important aspect is our vision of music and technical skills on the guitar. Not the effect-differences you can estimate by Bits and other technical descriptions. I would still be happy with my rack gear if it wasn‘t somehow heavy and inflexible. Kemper is way beyond that quality and remains on their path of products. I dare to say: Everybody‘s darling is anybody’s fool... so best be different Kemper.

  • Care to post some examples of these presets?

    Any of my Tone Matched presets. Check out the first three I created from this search result. Below is another example of a favorite preset I created but that I can't reproduce in the KPA:

    Yes, like I said, not all of us are trying/are capable of using effects like that. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, but I really haven't seen many examples where someone has actually done so.

    Depends on where you're looking. A lot of people use modifiers in the Axe-Fx to create all sorts of unusual effects. A lot of times it's not really my thing, but I do run across some that are pretty cool, like this:


    I remember an interesting interview with Meshuggah, where they were looking at the AxeFx for recording and getting bogged down over whether one tweak was better than another tweak. In the end, they just went with an amp sim. If you think people don't get sucked into an IR rabbit hole and keep second-guessing themselves when using devices like the Axe FX, you are mistaken. Plenty of evidence to that effect on the Internet.

    Oh, I'm not saying you can't get bogged down in minutia. You can. I'm just saying you can keep it as simple or make it as complex as you want. If you just want to recreate the Kemper's signal path, well, that's simple. The unit has a ton of options, but that doesn't mean you have to know or use all of them. I mean, you can have a workshop full of tools, but how many do you need if you only want to hammer a nail into a wall?

    And Kemper has profiling. So?

    Profiling was developed before the product was released, and it's one of the few features the separate it from other units.

    And you didn't have that with the Axe FX?

    Not usually. I mean, sure, there are times when Tone Matching isn't perfect.

  • When a newer version is released, it's initially worth more than previous versions, which is another way of saying that previous versions are worth less than newer ones. However, in the long term, prices vary considerably.

    Yes, but that is NOT what you contended. You contended that each new model would go up in price because it had more features and capabilities. I simply pointed out that this is not how things work or CPU's in your computer would now go for a million dollars each.


    The Kemper is nowhere near as flexible as the Axe-Fx, nor is it trying to be. Further, the KPA will also be competing the Quad Cortex, which offers a number of features the KPA doesn't have at a lower price point, so unless a revised version of the KPA had similar (or better) features, it would be foolish to charge more.

    And if flexibility was the ONLY measure of value in these products, I might agree with you. I have noticed that you appear to assume that since flexibility is the most important measure to you, that the entire market feels the same way. Not so I assure you.


    Kemper already has many advantages over Axe-Fx III and already offers features that neither Axe-Fx III or NQC offer. Price point is determined by the market based on the features the majority of the market values most.


    My contention still stands. I believe that there is room for a price increase on the KPA2 (hopefully ck isn't listening ;) ). We can agree to disagree on this point.



    It's not unique to the KPA.

    First, the ability to have all updates throughout the history of the hardware NOT have a tonal effect on your gigging setup is totally unique to KPA. This is NOT the case with any Fractal product I have ever heard of, and is not the case with Line 6. I seriously doubt it will be the case for NQC, but since it isn't even available to buy yet, it is a silly argument at this time.


    And again, I get the feeling that you do not value this feature and therefore you dismiss it completely. I can tell you that for those of us who gig live with the KPA, this feature ALONE is pure gold.


    What are you talking about? The Axe-Fx III runs circles around the KPA in terms of features and flexibility. In my opinion, the number of features that have been added to the Axe-Fx over the years makes KPA development look like it's been standing still. Don't get me wrong, I love the KPA, but it's obvious you've never used an Axe-Fx.

    Obviously you are wrong. I have spent DAYS with both the Axe-FXII and Axe-Fx III. And again all you talk about is flexibility?


    Over the years, Fractal has added TONS of processing widgets and settings in each widget. They have created paths within paths within paths of processing. At the end of the day, the KPA is still most frequently chosen as the best guitar tone by more tube amp audiophiles.


    True story. A friend of mine got a shiny new III fx. I came over with my KPA so we could mix and match guitars and amps for comparison. 5 hours later we both came to the conclusion that the tones in my KPA were killer as were those in the Axe III Fx, but it was SOOOO much easier to get there on the Kemper. The Axe III Fx has a crazy wonderful powerful editor and signal path, but that is NOT what most people are looking for. Most people just want it to sound great. The truth is that we both thought the KPA sounded better; however, considering that I had been using my KPA to gig live for a couple of years and he had only had the Axe III Fx for half a year (and no gigging) we agreed that there was room to grow in the Axe III.


    With respect to ease of setup and use, I would argue that the KPA "runs circles" around the Axe III Fx. If you are going from a tube amp to digital, the KPA is simply a more natural choice.


    What improvements have been added that most other modelers didn't already have?

    Any other modeler have an interface to a real life cab with its own custom imprints for various speakers like the Kabinet?


    Still, that is hardly the point I am making (you seem hell bent on moving the goal posts on your replies). The point is that every feature that the latest firmware has in it works on EVERY KPA that has been produced in over the last 10 years! This was NEVER the case with Fractal products.

    Fractal Audio doesn't release new MODELS every 2 years. They release REVISIONS every 2 to 3 years. There's a difference. Revisions are FULLY COMPATIBLE with previous and future versions of the same MODEL(which is why a lot of users don't upgrade when a revision is released), and MODELS are released about once every SEVEN years.

    Really? Again you miss the point entirely. So while it may be true that Fractal hardware FUTURE revisions are FULLY COMPATIBLE with PAST revisions of the same model, PAST versions of the same model are NOT compatible with all features in FUTURE revisions. Surely you see the point?

    People CHOOSE to buy whatever they buy. I wasn't forced to upgrade to the Axe-Fx III. I WANTED to upgrade, and anyone who owns an Axe-Fx II (or previous model) isn't forced to stop using it. It'll continue to function just fine.

    I think we can all agree that the purchase of the KPA over 10 years ago yielded much more value from then until today than whatever version of the Axe Fx was offered when KPA first came out.


    Care to do a head to head comparison of the Axe II Fx (released in 2011) to the KPA (released in 2012) today?


    I'm sure you get the point.

  • Any of my Tone Matched presets. Check out the first three I created from this search result. Below is another example of a favorite preset I created but that I can't reproduce in the KPA:


    I'll just focus on the video you posted.



    Sound about right? I didn't go for such a lush reverb setting, otherwise I think it sounds pretty much in the ballpark to the extent that an audience would never be able to make out a difference. It's just single tracked.

  • Yes, but that is NOT what you contended. You contended that each new model would go up in price because it had more features and capabilities. I simply pointed out that this is not how things work or CPU's in your computer would now go for a million dollars each.

    I know exactly what I meant because I'm the one who said it, and that's precisely what I'm contending. The price of a previous version/model drops when a newer version/model is released, thus the newer product will inevitably cost more than the older one.

    And if flexibility was the ONLY measure of value in these products, I might agree with you. I have noticed that you appear to assume that since flexibility is the most important measure to you, that the entire market feels the same way. Not so I assure you.

    Straw man. I never said or implied flexibility is the only measure of value. That said, why would someone spend more on a potential KPA2 unless it offered more features and flexibility than the KPA1? The fact is, the initial price of each new Axe-Fx model has been dropping over time, not going up, despite the fact that its feature set and flexibility continues to grow exponentially with each new iteration.

    Kemper already has many advantages over Axe-Fx III and already offers features that neither Axe-Fx III or NQC offer.

    Many? I can think of two useful features that the Axe-Fx III doesn't have; profiling and locking effects slots. What are the others?

    Price point is determined by the market based on the features the majority of the market values most.

    My contention still stands. I believe that there is room for a price increase on the KPA2 (hopefully ck isn't listening ;) ). We can agree to disagree on this point.

    If the feature that the market values most with the KPA is profiling and the QC offers a similar technology with a plethora of features and flexibility that a KPA2 doesn't have, then why would people pay more for a KPA2 if they can have a similar technology (that's potentially more accurate) that has more features and flexibility at a lower price?

    First, the ability to have all updates throughout the history of the hardware NOT have a tonal effect on your gigging setup is totally unique to KPA.

    The profiling algorithm was revised for firmware 2.6 which resulted in a reduction of the low-end, and that change affected previously created profiles.

    Obviously you are wrong. I have spent DAYS with both the Axe-FXII and Axe-Fx III.

    You said, "the original hardware wasn't thought out as well as the KPA has been" What specifically wasn't as well thought out as the KPA?

    And again all you talk about is flexibility?

    Flexibility and features.

    At the end of the day, the KPA is still most frequently chosen as the best guitar tone by more tube amp audiophiles.

    Says who? For every source you can cite that states they prefer the Kemper, someone else can cite a source that states they prefer the Axe-Fx or Helix. I mean, we could compare the number of artists on the roster list of both the Kemper and Fractal Audio homepages if you like?

    True story. A friend of mine got a shiny new III fx. I came over with my KPA so we could mix and match guitars and amps for comparison. 5 hours later we both came to the conclusion that the tones in my KPA were killer as were those in the Axe III Fx, but it was SOOOO much easier to get there on the Kemper.

    That's because you're far more familiar with the Kemper than the Axe-Fx. However, I'm intimately familiar with both and I'll bet I could've easily created a preset that would've matched his amp (assuming he was using one) faster than you could've profiled it.

    The Axe III Fx has a crazy wonderful powerful editor and signal path, but that is NOT what most people are looking for. Most people just want it to sound great.

    A lot of people want both.

    The point is that every feature that the latest firmware has in it works on EVERY KPA that has been produced in over the last 10 years!

    That's because the KPA hardware has never been updated, which isn't necessarily an advantage if another unit with updated hardware has features that you want/need that the KPA doesn't/can't support.

    Really? Again you miss the point entirely. So while it may be true that Fractal hardware FUTURE revisions are FULLY COMPATIBLE with PAST revisions of the same model, PAST versions of the same model are NOT compatible with all features in FUTURE revisions. Surely you see the point?

    You specifically said, "There is definitely a business case to be made for Fractal. If there is a market for a shiny new product every 2 years, why not make it?" Current users don't generally upgrade every 2 years, so what was your point?

    I think we can all agree that the purchase of the KPA over 10 years ago yielded much more value from then until today than whatever version of the Axe Fx was offered when KPA first came out.

    Depends on who you ask and what their needs are. If you're a tweaker who needs or wants the features and flexibility that the Axe-Fx offers, then a unit like the Axe-Fx II may very well be of greater value 10 years after its release than the KPA and vice versa.

    Care to do a head to head comparison of the Axe II Fx (released in 2011) to the KPA (released in 2012) today?

    Sure. The Axe-Fx II has more features and flexibility than the KPA, but then the KPA wasn't designed to compete with it in that regard.

  • I'll just focus on the video you posted.



    Sound about right? I didn't go for such a lush reverb setting, otherwise I think it sounds pretty much in the ballpark to the extent that an audience would never be able to make out a difference. It's just single tracked.

    There's a pretty big difference in terms of imaging, chorus, and reverb, as well as frequency response.

  • There's a pretty big difference in terms of imaging, chorus, and reverb, as well as frequency response.


    I never said it is exactly the same. It is definitely in the ballpark though, have a listen at comparable volumes.


    Quite easy to dial up the reverb and add a chorus as well. If I wanted to exaggerate the stereo response, that is also possible. I just prefer subtler effects, I could definitely dial in the sound in your video with this effect as a base if I want.


    I mean, you could argue that it is not possible to replicate that tone, but it's actually nothing spectacular and undoable on the Kemper, which is the point I was making.

  • I never said it is exactly the same. It is definitely in the ballpark though, have a listen at comparable volumes.


    Quite easy to dial up the reverb and add a chorus as well. If I wanted to exaggerate the stereo response, that is also possible. I just prefer subtler effects, I could definitely dial in the sound in your video with this effect as a base if I want.


    I mean, you could argue that it is not possible to replicate that tone, but it's actually nothing spectacular and undoable on the Kemper, which is the point I was making.

    Hey, if you can replicate it, go for it. That was the reason I posted the video in the first place, because I can't. Given the collective discrepancies, your profile sounds quite a bit different to my ears. Not really in the ballpark through my HD600's, and I'm not saying that to be argumentative. Just giving my honest opinion.

  • Hey, if you can replicate it, go for it. That was the reason I posted the video in the first place, because I can't. Given the collective discrepancies, your profile sounds quite a bit different to my ears. Not really in the ballpark through my HD600's, and I'm not saying that to be argumentative. Just giving my honest opinion.


    Travelling, or I would have given you a run for your money! :P


    It is definitely possible, the major element is the delays, which can be replicated. After that, it's just a question of applying a cavernous reverb and chorus to taste.


    Of course, perhaps that's just my opinion.

  • Travelling, or I would have given you a run for your money! :P


    It is definitely possible, the major element is the delays, which can be replicated. After that, it's just a question of applying a cavernous reverb and chorus to taste.


    Of course, perhaps that's just my opinion.

    Part of the reason I can't reproduce it is related to the number of simultaneous post effects; 2 choruses, 1 reverb, 1 multitap delay, 1 plex delay, and some post EQ shaping.

  • So the discussion is again about a better UI,more cpu and more fx?


    New sounds anyone?


    The KPA was a revolutionary tool ten years ago because of its ability to profile everyone's personal rigs.And putting these into a box together with fx and multiple controls.It was also the first "real life modeler" (seamless switching,automatic volume control etc,etc..).


    A possible kpa2 should be the same revolutionary as the current one.And this in matters of sound.Not gimmicks.Leave the "moaarrrr"(cpu,holographic display what ever)...to other ones.The Axefx is and will be fine for that.For sure the qc also.Everyone has a right to tweak himself into oblivion.


    But I want to make music and need some inspiration.Give me new sounds.

  • Part of the reason I can't reproduce it is related to the number of simultaneous post effects; 2 choruses, 1 reverb, 1 multitap delay, 1 plex delay, and some post EQ shaping.


    Yes, that does sound complex, let me try and figure out how I could replicate it and then I'll have a crack at it when I am with my Kemper.


    How I'd approach it most likely is to run a single air/hyper chorus into a quad delay or maybe a dual/quad chromatic + harmonic delay and then into the Cirrus/Ionosphere/Formant reverb. Or maybe the reverb before delay. I might use post-EQ for shaping, but probably won't.


    What are the chorus settings like? What are the delays synced to - quarter notes/eighth notes?

  • ColdFriction,


    Here are the facts.


    The Kemper sounds noticeably better than the Axe FX II by any reasonable measure.


    The Kemper and Axe Fx III both create a similar tonal and touch experience with the Kemper having an edge in soft breakup tones.


    A profile created in 2012 still sounds IDENTICAL today on a KPA. A patch created on the Axe Fx II the day it was released will sound quite different on the last firmware released for the device. I never said that the profiling algorithm did not change. I SPECIFICALLY said the rigs made don't change with new firmware releases.


    The Kemper is a MUCH easier device to learn than the Axe III Fx especially for guitar players used to the controls of a tube amp.


    I think I am done arguing with you. You seem to simply want to continuously move the goal post of every discussion point in every new reply. This is simply not productive.

  • Here are the facts.


    The Kemper sounds noticeably better than the Axe FX II by any reasonable measure.

    That's clearly an opinion. I've Tone Matched Kemper profiles using the Axe-Fx II and the results were indistinguishable in blind tests. That's really one of the biggest advantages of the Axe-Fx; it can Tone Match live or recorded tones.

    The Kemper and Axe Fx III both create a similar tonal and touch experience with the Kemper having an edge in soft breakup tones.

    That's also an opinion.

    A profile created in 2012 still sounds IDENTICAL today on a KPA.

    There are quite a few users who wish the profiling process would get updated because they can hear a difference between some Kemper profiles and the reference amps they're based on. I mean, the profiling process isn't perfect, but Christoph has said there's virtually no room for improvement. So, yes, while a profile created in 2012 will sound mostly the same today, quite a few people wish profiles sounded more accurate now than they did in 2012.

    A patch created on the Axe Fx II the day it was released will sound quite different on the last firmware released for the device.

    That's the difference. The profiling process isn't perfect and has no room for improvement, while the Axe-Fx sounds close to perfect and is still being improved.

    I never said that the profiling algorithm did not change. I SPECIFICALLY said the rigs made don't change with new firmware releases.

    The release notes for firmware 2.6 specifically stated that the changes affected previously created profiles.

  • That's clearly an opinion. I've Tone Matched Kemper profiles using the Axe-Fx II and the results were indistinguishable in blind tests. That's really one of the biggest advantages of the Axe-Fx; it can Tone Match live or recorded tones.

    Ok, you are right. The Axe-Fx II is clearly better than a KPA and all those that say different are blithering idiots. Do you feel better now? Seriously? Let it go man.


    There are quite a few users who wish the profiling process would get updated because they can hear a difference between some Kemper profiles and the reference amps they're based on. I mean, the profiling process isn't perfect, but Christoph has said there's virtually no room for improvement. So, yes, while a profile created in 2012 will sound mostly the same today, quite a few people wish profiles sounded more accurate now than they did in 2012.

    No they don't. Most people don't give a crap if the profile sounds exactly like the source. Most people NEVER profile an amp with the KPA. MOST people just love the way it sounds.


    People who play live REALLY don't want their rigs to change in tone. Once you are dialed in with a rig for a song, you simply want to keep getting that same great sound every night. The LAST thing you want is for a firmware update to change it for you without your consent!


    Have you ever done a gig? Ever do it on a steady basis? If so, then I can't see how you don't see this logic.


    That's the difference. The profiling process isn't perfect and has no room for improvement, while the Axe-Fx sounds close to perfect and is still being improved.

    No, no, no. As I keep saying to you, people DON'T WANT their existing rigs to change! They already have them sounding like they want. It is fine for new profiles to start differently than an older firmware would have because people still tweak them to their liking....... but once that is done, NO ONE wants the device to simply change it for them when a firmware update is applied. I KNOW that this is what the Fractal offerings do, and therefore YOU think this is somehow a GOOD thing! IT ISN'T!


    When I state that this is a unique selling point for the KPA, it is now completely clear to me that you think it ISN'T. You just don't get it.


    I can't personally think of a SINGLE reason anyone would WANT their device to arbitrarily change all their tones for them. Can you? If so, please ...... enlighten me.


    The release notes for firmware 2.6 specifically stated that the changes affected previously created profiles.

    NO IT DOESN'T.


    Quote

    Version 2.6.0 is a feature update which allows you to switch rigs faster, features Improved Profiling and refines the interaction in between Kemper Profiler® and Rig Manager.


    The whole IDEA you are presenting is so wrong headed and anti-Kemper. Performances and rigs NEVER CHANGE when you update the unit and I LOVE THAT about the Kemper.


    In fact, every new release keeps backwards compatibility. You can still use the old reverb engine if you like or the old delay engine. They are ALL STILL THERE. Any rigs you made with the old firmware will sound exactly the same after you update to the firmware with the new reverbs and delays. ONLY THE NEW rigs you create with these new features will have a sonic difference.


    You seriously WANT the device to change all your tones when you update the firmware? Really?

  • Ok, you are right. The Axe-Fx II is clearly better than a KPA and all those that say different are blithering idiots. Do you feel better now?

    Value is subjective, thus saying either one is better is wholly a matter of opinion. A certain feature might be better for my needs, but what I want or need is specific to me.

    Most people don't give a crap if the profile sounds exactly like the source. Most people NEVER profile an amp with the KPA. MOST people just love the way it sounds.

    Specifically, what percentage of people care if a profile sounds exactly like the actual amp? And what percentage of people actually profile their own amps? Source, please?

    The LAST thing you want is for a firmware update to change it for you without your consent!

    Updating is consensual.

    No, no, no. As I keep saying to you, people DON'T WANT their existing rigs to change! They already have them sounding like they want. It is fine for new profiles to start differently than an older firmware would have because people still tweak them to their liking....... but once that is done, NO ONE wants the device to simply change it for them when a firmware update is applied. I KNOW that this is what the Fractal offerings do, and therefore YOU think this is somehow a GOOD thing! IT ISN'T!

    You've misconstrued my position. I never said I wanted updates to change the sound of previously created tones. In my experience, an update that improves the accuracy of the profiling process is desired by a number of people. After all, the primary concept behind the KPA is the ability to accurately capture the sound of a rig.

    When I state that this is a unique selling point for the KPA

    Profiling is the unique selling point of the KPA, and accuracy obviously plays a huge role in that. According to the marketing brochure, "The Kemper Profiler can capture the sonic DNA of a guitar amp with the press of a single button." It can capture it "easily and perfectly into the digital domain."


    NO IT DOESN'T.

    Well, you're clearly wrong:

    Due to a software flaw from day one, a number of existing PROFILEs feature a little too much energy in the region

    below 60 Hz, when compared to the original amp.... we have taken the opportunity to correct this with the latest operating system.

    The result is an increased authenticity, even of PROFILEs created previously

  • Some people clearly live in their own "alternative universe" in which "their personal alternative reality" is not questionable.


    I mean..how often have some guys here in this forum told me (and others) not to mention that biggest names in business are using the profiler and not any other modeler?And thus as their amp.Not for fx.


    What should not be..obviously can't be..for some people out there it is that simple..


    Also.. countless blind tests?Never happened!


    Kemper being industry standard to find in every serious recording studio used by the most famous producers?Not real!


    This looks often more like actual methods of handling political discourses than talking about music gear.Sign of the times..

  • Value is subjective, thus saying either one is better is wholly a matter of opinion. A certain feature might be better for my needs, but what I want or need is specific to me.

    Ok, subjectively many more people think the KPA sounds better than the Axe II Fx.


    Specifically, what percentage of people care if a profile sounds exactly like the actual amp? And what percentage of people actually profile their own amps? Source, please?

    Ok, fair enough. Of all the people I know and converse with in forums, the majority do not rely on profiles they created for their live show. Source, me.


    Updating is consensual.

    I see. So a fractal device must be used exclusively with the original firmware forever if you don't wish it to change your tone then. Great feature. Good to know. Was that written somewhere in the small print of all Fractal device user guides?

    You've misconstrued my position. I never said I wanted updates to change the sound of previously created tones. In my experience, an update that improves the accuracy of the profiling process is desired by a number of people. After all, the primary concept behind the KPA is the ability to accurately capture the sound of a rig.

    You stated multiple times that Fractal's advantage was that their tone improved over time with firmware updates in various replies. An update that improves the accuracy of the profiling process is always a good thing; however, it doesn't change what you already have.


    ONE of the many great features of the KPA is its ability to capture an amp in a given state; however, as discussed ad nauseum in the NQC thread, just capturing isn't enough. In order for it to be useful to the most number of people, the amp parameters need to be able to be EASILY modified for specific taste. This is where the KPA excels.


    Great tones, ease of use, many great live options, great value, etc .... these are where the KPA hits home IMO. Keeping the tones the same is another.

    Profiling is the unique selling point of the KPA, and accuracy obviously plays a huge role in that. According to the marketing brochure, "The Kemper Profiler can capture the sonic DNA of a guitar amp with the press of a single button." It can capture it "easily and perfectly into the digital domain."

    Yes. it is ONE of the unique selling points. Again, as discussed in this and other threads, this isn't the ONLY reason people use it. I still contend that in MOST situations it isn't the reason most people use it. Well .... perhaps that isn't 100% true. Having such a HUGE library of captured amps and tones is really a side effect enabled by this feature.


    Let me ask you this. Axe III Fx CAN'T capture an amp at all. Does that mean it is useless? Why not?



    Well, you're clearly wrong:

    Due to a software flaw from day one, a number of existing PROFILEs feature a little too much energy in the region

    below 60 Hz, when compared to the original amp.... we have taken the opportunity to correct this with the latest operating system.

    The result is an increased authenticity, even of PROFILEs created previously

    Did you own a KPA when it was released? I did. In fact, I specifically loved this release because it significantly improved the rig switch time (I measured it at 45 mSec and still have the image where I did it).


    I detected no change in my previous rigs. Now, to be fair, I hadn't had my KPA for very long at that time so it is possible I wouldn't have noticed the change.


    Still, REALLY? ONE change to tone in an early release and THAT is what you want to hang your hat on?


    Back on topic.


    I think it more likely that a new version of the KPA (KPA2) would simply be a continuation of what we have as others have stated.


    • Color LCD, possibly a touch screen (but PLEASE not on the FC!)
    • Much more powerful DSP for future expansion
    • Completely compatible with the existing profiles either natively, or through a conversion process.
    • Completely compatible with the existing Kemper FC and Kemper Cab. The former may not be plausible through :(
    • Possibly more than one amp stack (I still think this is silly; however, it might be cool to morph from a Fender Blackface to a Bogner Shiva ;)
    • More efx routing capabilities and an easy way to see these routings certainly through the editor, and maybe on the physical unit.
    • Bluetooth control and a cool phone app

    Sadly, I see little need for tonal improvements. Are there any that could be made? Sure, and it would be nice to have them; however, for live settings, the existing KPA is already a fantastic gig rig. I don't think any existing KPA owners are going to be rushing out to by the KPA2 because they feel their current tone is lacking. Certainly, their will be many (most here I suspect) who would want one, but I hardly think we on this forum represent the average KPA user out there. I think we are much more likely to spend 3K on something we don't NEED than the average musician out there.


    I think that while MOST current KPA users don't NEED a new KPA2, eventually, CK will have to make one simply due to part obsolescence.


    Do I think that a KPA2 could potentially sound better than the current KPA? Sure, some. I simply believe that we are talking diminishing returns at this point.