Midi controller change assigns

Quote from Will_Chen

Hey man, very, very sorry. I'm not meaning to insult and am all for re-purposing gear. I can see your point.

Thanks for meeting me halfway on that. I was a little on edge this morning anyway - work makes me crazy.

Quote from Neonknight

I have no problems in programming the FCB1010, ive had it for years and im using a freeware editor with graphical interface which is nice.

Unless im wrong since the FCB1010 can only send 2 CC# per pedal and if you want it to send a different CC# for the second press of the pedal for on/off then you can only turn one effect on/off per pedal on the KPA while you can turn on/off up to 12 different effects or change parameters on the GT-pro by just one press of a pedal on the FCB1010 since the GT-pro has 12 different assigns with about 500 different parameters that you can change. Active range can be used for many things, for switching off the wah by just setting the expressionpedal in the toe position, morphing between different sounds/effects. Midi assigns are very powerful.

Personally i still like my GT-pro very much, the problem with it is actually not the ampsims, its the speaker emulator that is poor, but for direct recording i have just recently bought a nice guitar speaker VST plugin, so for the moment im fine.

I have heard both good and crappy tones from both the Kemper and Boss units, i think it has alot to do who is doing the tweaking and with the KPA it is more like a real amp and therefore easier.

I do understand the intention to keep it simple for the user and its a very good intention, but it also may cripple the unit and make people like me not buy it, thats why i agree with the "advanced menu" idea or something like it, maybe with a "set to default" function for the cases where people has gotten lost in the settings.

I highly doubt that i wil be buying any unit that is lacking in advanced functionality, sure for recording it may be fine, just add effects in the DAW, but for live i want to have good midi control.

Display More

Fair enough, the Kemper clearly isn't a solution for everyone. To be honest, its missing some effects which I use fairly regularly and I've had to supplement the device. Never played the GT-PRO, but I've owned both the Boss GT-10 and GT-100 and the Kemper is a huge, huge step up in the amp tone department from those units especially when running direct, it has nothing to do with tweaking. The Kemper doesn't run 12 effects (it is limited in signal chain flexibility as compared to the GT series as well), so it clearly doesn't meet your example, but I can control the state of 8 effects with a single button push of the FCB by making 2 rigs on the Kemper and switching between them. There are many ways to skin a cat...

Quote from Neonknight

Sure as you say, many ways to do things, but many things doesnt seem possible anyway.

The GT-pro is the rack version of the GT-8 with added connectivity like 2 separate stereo outputs, one with both XLR and TS connectors and USB audio IO with computer editor, its really a great unit, thats why i havent found anything that can replace it yet and have used it for 7 years. Many think the GT-8 sounded better than the GT-10, i dont know how the GT-100 is i havent tried it or any of the floor pedals since it hasnt been my thing really.

Well it seems the GT-Pro has all the features you care most about. The Kemper does not meet any of the features you've listed you love about the GT-Pro: no USB audio, no computer editor, no custom/active range CC assignments, and only 8 effects at a time. There...I just saved you $2,000!

For me, as a live player, the midi control is one of the most important aspects. And there are things you can't program in presets.
An example:
You would have four effects that you want to engage/disengage whenever needed in all different combinations that could happen: Wah, Treble boost, Mid boost, Delay. Why? You can't say what song comes and goes next in your setlist and on stage some things can happen where you don't want to be limited.
And you would have a bank of five sounds: The number of possible combinations is 5 banks x 4IAs x 3 IAs x 2IAs x 1 = 120. You would have to program 120 presets to have all combinations available! Not only that I needed to keep an overview over so many presets, which is almost impossible, I also needed to maintain all these. Whenever I needed to change a setting of a basic sound, I needed to reflect that changes on all other banks too, all that are based on the same sounds. You see, even 4 instant options are way too much to handle it with presets!

With IA switches is easier: You have 5 buttons for the presets and 4 buttons for the effects, that's all. You have to maintain one bank only and 4 effects only, that's all. (BTW: That's how real amps work, you have some basic channels with real knobs and when you turn any of these knobs it gets reflected to all presets that are based on that channel).

Just wanted to show that you can't replace what CCs can do by programing presets. Presets are no solution for live playing. You can't keep up even with a simple amp with stomps that way.

Quote from Froschn

For me, as a live player, the midi control is one of the most important aspects. And there are things you can't program in presets.
An example:
You would have four effects that you want to engage/disengage whenever needed in all different combinations that could happen: Wah, Treble boost, Mid boost, Delay. Why? You can't say what song comes and goes next in your setlist and on stage some things can happen where you don't want to be limited.
And you would have a bank of five sounds: The number of possible combinations is 5 banks x 4IAs x 3 IAs x 2IAs x 1 = 120. You would have to program 120 presets to have all combinations available! Not only that I needed to keep an overview over so many presets, which is almost impossible, I also needed to maintain all these. Whenever I needed to change a setting of a basic sound, I needed to reflect that changes on all other banks too, all that are based on the same sounds. You see, even 4 instant options are way too much to handle it with presets!

With IA switches is easier: You have 5 buttons for the presets and 4 buttons for the effects, that's all. You have to maintain one bank only and 4 effects only, that's all. (BTW: That's how real amps work, you have some basic channels with real knobs and when you turn any of these knobs it gets reflected to all presets that are based on that channel).

Just wanted to show that you can't replace what CCs can do by programing presets. Presets are no solution for live playing. You can't keep up even with a simple amp with stomps that way.

Huh? I'm not arguing against using CCs, I use them as well. I'm saying if someone wants a single footswitch to control many CC messages (ie, there's some solid planning and programming happening here) why not store 2 patches, one with all on and one with all off. You can still assign other pedals on the all off patch to send the CC messages to turn the individual effects on and off.

Looks like the Kemper team is focused more on the studio usability, but in this case why do not exist yet an editor and a libray for it???

Quote from Jimmyno

Please let us be able to assign any parameter to a different modifier for each preset.

Agreed! My $140 DigiTech pedal lets me assign the expression pedal to any parameter on a patch-by-patch basis. Why not the KPA?

Quote

Agreed! My $140 DigiTech pedal lets me assign the expression pedal to any parameter on a patch-by-patch basis. Why not the KPA?

I think CK's argument would be that the intelligence should live in the controller, and not clutter up the KPA OS.

But for the record, I'm with you. There are too many legacy controllers and DIY controller options out there that are inflexible in some way, and a robust MIDI implementation in the KPA would add a lot of value without compromising its important qualities - e.g. tone - in any way. MIDI processing is cheap cheap cheap in terms of CPU demands, etc, and any UI complexities could be isolated to one little menu screen that most users could/would opt to ignore.

Quote from mbenigni

I think CK's argument would be that the intelligence should live in the controller, and not clutter up the KPA OS.

But for the record, I'm with you. There are too many legacy controllers and DIY controller options out there that are inflexible in some way, and a robust MIDI implementation in the KPA would add a lot of value without compromising its important qualities - e.g. tone - in any way. MIDI processing is cheap cheap cheap in terms of CPU demands, etc, and any UI complexities could be isolated to one little menu screen that most users could/would opt to ignore.

But then, why would you buy the KPA controller if any old controller would do?

Quote from Will_Chen

But then, why would you buy the KPA controller if any old controller would do?

Ah yes... a classic conflict of interests.

One would hope the Kemper controller would have added value otherwise (tuner, display, etc.) Or at the very least look extra cool.

Quote from mbenigni

I think CK's argument would be that the intelligence should live in the controller, and not clutter up the KPA OS.

But for the record, I'm with you. There are too many legacy controllers and DIY controller options out there that are inflexible in some way, and a robust MIDI implementation in the KPA would add a lot of value without compromising its important qualities - e.g. tone - in any way. MIDI processing is cheap cheap cheap in terms of CPU demands, etc, and any UI complexities could be isolated to one little menu screen that most users could/would opt to ignore.

Yeah, if CK were purely interested in maximizing user happiness per development hour, I would think granting new life to all of our legacy devices by implementing what I'm guessing would be a minor code change (minor relative to audio-intensive feature requests) would be an attractive project.

Quote from Will_Chen

But then, why would you buy the KPA controller if any old controller would do?

I have no interest in a controller that big and involved and hope that CK isn't thinking along these lines.

bump