Kemper needs to update

  • I'll also caveat this with if Kemper came forward with another step change then I'm in.


    So I'm happy but not opposed to progress. Pretty screens and functionality I'm not interested in is not enough to make me shift either to another device or KPA2.


    As a side point, running 2 profiles is probably more important for seemless morphing between 2 profiles or profiling a pedal so you can run that and an amp.


    I do think if there was a KPA 2 Kemper would have to balance interoperability with the KPA1 alongside a real step change.

  • As a side point, running 2 profiles is probably more important for seemless morphing between 2 profiles or profiling a pedal so you can run that and an amp.

    Some people use dual amps for the same reason they use dual cabs. Each cab imparts its own character on the tone, thus combining cabs can produce tones that might not otherwise be possible. The same holds true for profiles.

  • however, preferences often differ, thus the feature set of amp modelers is generally designed to accommodate the widest possible range of preferences.

    While I fully support versatility and progress, I have never seen anything that meets a very wide range of preferences be a total success at any of them. Design by committee is always sub standard in comparison to a clear single minded vision. If you ask users what do you want you will get too many answers to use and many of them will be mutually exclusive anyway. If you ask the public do you want "X" the answer will almost always be yes please and the more the merrier. That is until they have to actually use all these features at which point the say "I wish it was simpler to navigate and just worked straight out the box". A car that tries to be a Range Rover and a Ferrari will be poor at both instead of brilliant at either.


    The great thing about the Kemper for me is that it was clearly a work of a single minded visionary who knew exactly what problem he was trying to solve then found the best way he could to solve the problem. That in no way make solutions by others to different problems any less impressive or valid.


    There are clearly many features and functions that could still be added to the existing Kemper and/or a new KPA2. I am sure many will be added with time. However, it is clear from the list of feature requests, workflow preferences etc that Kemper has no intention of trying to please everybody. They seem very happy to implement changes that they feel serve to improve their original vision rather than dilute it. I have asked for several features that I genuinely believe would significantly improve the user experience and have effectively been told that my wishes are incompatible with their workflow vision. I was told on one occasion that if I wanted to achieve the result I was after the solution was to stop using the Remote and get a dedicated midi controller. While I am still disappointed that I can't make the company see my way, I totally respect them (in fact probably respect them even more for) sticking to their vision instead of trying to please everyone.

  • Some people use dual amps for the same reason they use dual cabs. Each cab imparts its own character on the tone, thus combining cabs can produce tones that might not otherwise be possible. The same holds true for profiles.

    Yeah I get it.


    I'm not suggesting you can necessarily cover that with E.Q but would I like to run a Fender Bassman and 68 Marshall Plexi at the same time live? Nope... purely because I don't need that tonal "richness" myself. Yes the bassman might add more definition blah blah but again for me law of diminishing returns. Just not enough to drive the need for another unit on its own.


    If Kemper released a KPA2 I would expect it to be included though for those who want it...I wouldn't use it.


    I don;t believe many people do it live. Yes you do it in the studio which is less relevant because you can multi-track in a studio anyway.


    Blending 2 amp sound holds no specific interest to me. Why stop at 2, why not 5 or 10 or 50? Yes more variation but more is not necessarily better..


    I understand that other won't feel this way but it just not significant in my mind. It seems to be an option brought in by other devices which have now become seen as essential. Maybe it is heavily used in other devices?

  • While I fully support versatility and progress, I have never seen anything that meets a very wide range of preferences be a total success at any of them. Design by committee is always sub standard in comparison to a clear single minded vision. If you ask users what do you want you will get too many answers to use and many of them will be mutually exclusive anyway. If you ask the public do you want "X" the answer will almost always be yes please and the more the merrier. That is until they have to actually use all these features at which point the say "I wish it was simpler to navigate and just worked straight out the box". A car that tries to be a Range Rover and a Ferrari will be poor at both instead of brilliant at either.


    The great thing about the Kemper for me is that it was clearly a work of a single minded visionary who knew exactly what problem he was trying to solve then found the best way he could to solve the problem. That in no way make solutions by others to different problems any less impressive or valid.


    There are clearly many features and functions that could still be added to the existing Kemper and/or a new KPA2. I am sure many will be added with time. However, it is clear from the list of feature requests, workflow preferences etc that Kemper has no intention of trying to please everybody. They seem very happy to implement changes that they feel serve to improve their original vision rather than dilute it. I have asked for several features that I genuinely believe would significantly improve the user experience and have effectively been told that my wishes are incompatible with their workflow vision. I was told on one occasion that if I wanted to achieve the result I was after the solution was to stop using the Remote and get a dedicated midi controller. While I am still disappointed that I can't make the company see my way, I totally respect them (in fact probably respect them even more for) sticking to their vision instead of trying to please everyone.

    Way more eloquent than me :).

  • While I fully support versatility and progress, I have never seen anything that meets a very wide range of preferences be a total success at any of them. Design by committee is always sub standard in comparison to a clear single minded vision. If you ask users what do you want you will get too many answers to use and many of them will be mutually exclusive anyway. If you ask the public do you want "X" the answer will almost always be yes please and the more the merrier. That is until they have to actually use all these features at which point the say "I wish it was simpler to navigate and just worked straight out the box". A car that tries to be a Range Rover and a Ferrari will be poor at both instead of brilliant at either.

    Do some amp modelers have 200+ amp models because they think one person will use all of them? No, of course not. It's because tastes vary widely, thus they include as many amp models as possible to appeal to the broadest range of preferences. Christoph didn't choose the traditional amp modeling route because it was too much work and he felt profiling accommodated a much broader range of preferences by putting the ability to model, so to speak, in the hands of the end user.

    it is clear from the list of feature requests, workflow preferences etc that Kemper has no intention of trying to please everybody. They seem very happy to implement changes that they feel serve to improve their original vision rather than dilute it.

    No one said anything about pleasing everybody, but it's obvious they've embraced some changes that weren't part of their original vision(eg. computer editor).

  • Christoph didn't choose the traditional amp modeling route because it was too much work and he felt profiling accommodated a much broader range of preferences by putting the ability to model, so to speak, in the hands of the end user.

    I could be wrong but I don't think that was the case. I believe that the original vision was specifically to allow touring pros to have a way of recreating their exact studio sounds in a simple to transport box. Hence the reason for the snapshot nature rather thanmodelling. It was also designed to allow studios to capture the entire signal path for a guitar take so that it could be reused later if an artist wanted to overdub something after the signal path had been dismantled. That seems like a very specific vision rather than a desire to create a way of satisfying a broader range of preferences.


    As I wasn't there when he had the initial inspiration and don't know him personally to ask the question I will probably never know the truth but that is what I think happened.

  • Yes you do it in the studio which is less relevant because you can multi-track in a studio anyway.

    Okay, but when you're trying different ideas, double-tracking takes a lot longer than testing stuff in real-time. Plus, some people don't play live or record. They're just hobbyists.

    Blending 2 amp sound holds no specific interest to me. Why stop at 2, why not 5 or 10 or 50?

    Well, banjos don't hold any particular interest for me, either, but they do for somebody, and that's why they make them.

    Yes more variation but more is not necessarily better.

    Well, less isn't necessarily better either. "Better" is entirely subjective.

    I understand that other won't feel this way but it just not significant in my mind. It seems to be an option brought in by other devices which have now become seen as essential. Maybe it is heavily used in other devices?

    The ability to use two or more amps and cabs simultaneously is pretty standard in a lot of modelers.

  • Interesting. I hadn't seen that before. Although to be fair this is a few years after the design and launch so the "story" may be a little different in order to sit well with marketing to the way it was being received. No matter what the history actually was though, he certainly created a unique approach that until very recently was the only way to take a sound from the studio to the stage and replicate it exactly night after night.

  • Although to be fair this is a few years after the design and launch so the "story" may be a little different in order to sit well with marketing to the way it was being received.

    No, in 2019 he sat down with Lee Anderton and discussed the evolution of his thought process behind the Kemper.


    Christoph, "You can never make a model right. There will always be someone who will complain about too many highs or this or that. Then I thought, if I ever went into this digital guitar amp thing, I will have those discussions all my life, and I don't want that. Then I thought, there must be a technology that allows people to make their own models somehow, and that was profiling."

  • I have head some silly stuff over the years, but this right here is beyond my understanding,,,,,,like asking Leo to change the design of the telecaster,,,,,why?? well,,,,, because its, been around a while,,,wow!

  • I have head some silly stuff over the years, but this right here is beyond my understanding,,,,,,like asking Leo to change the design of the telecaster,,,,,why?? well,,,,, because its, been around a while,,,wow!

    What do you think the Feature Requests section of this forum is here for? Decoration?

  • I could be wrong but I don't think that was the case. I believe that the original vision was specifically to allow touring pros to have a way of recreating their exact studio sounds in a simple to transport box. Hence the reason for the snapshot nature rather thanmodelling. It was also designed to allow studios to capture the entire signal path for a guitar take so that it could be reused later if an artist wanted to overdub something after the signal path had been dismantled. That seems like a very specific vision rather than a desire to create a way of satisfying a broader range of preferences.


    As I wasn't there when he had the initial inspiration and don't know him personally to ask the question I will probably never know the truth but that is what I think happened.

    He also realized you can't make some people happy with what YOU'VE done. Almost every big artist has a "custom" this or that, they have to let you know they're more important and can't just use the stock thing like everyone else or they have to "customize" it or they won't like it. (At my job as a machine designer, we call that "rubbing your stink on it"LOL) So instead of putting models in for someone to complain about, he made it so if you don't like the way it sounds, it's no one's fault but your own. Brilliant Idea.

  • The ability to use two or more amps and cabs simultaneously is pretty standard in a lot of modelers.

    It's also pretty standard for most modelers to be not as good sounding. Kemper is leading the pack sound and feel wise, not following. The originality of the product tells me he wasn't trying to do the "standard" thing. And I'm thankful!