If I remember correctly from last year, the kone algorithm will work ok with a frfr speaker. If I understand correctly, the kpa cab/speaker is relatively flat, but of course idealized to pair well with the kone settings. Maybe this gives the ability to get a more amp in the room sound when using an frfr?
If the kone speaker and software mimic specific speakers, it doesn’t act as a frfr, where you would send the cabinet sim to the frfr as you would direct to FOH? You would still have to treat it as a regular guitar cab and turn the cab sim off going to the kone and use the kone software to to mimic the speaker you use as the cab sim in the rig that goes to FOH? Or am I missing someth
I'm thinking that however they lay it out, you'll continue to be able to send the cab portion of a profile or cab IR to any output, but with the additional ability to send a Kone filtered signal to any output as well. And I'd imagine that you'd be able to change the cab and what Kone per Rig. So that, for example, you send a regular studio profile with cab actived to the FOH using the main outputs, while sending the Kone affected signal (minus the cab sound going to the just the mains) through the monitor or speaker output, where you plug your kone cabinet.
When I first heard the marketing about the KPA 7 years ago or so, I was skeptical because I assumed it would probably profile a 2-dimensional, digitally harsh, and less responsive version of the amp/cab it was capturing. Or some some sort of "something's not right" when you try to put it in the mix. The difference is, at least to my ears and virtually everyone here, is that the KPA has lived up to the hype. It's just as dimensional, no harshness, and just as responsive to the original, with all the benefits of a digital solution.
To that end, I don't see how anyone could improve the core sound of the original KPA. How do you improve on virtually indistinguishable? Whatever the process of this new product uses to "capture the sound" the relevant question is not how much processing power is included or utilized in the capture, but if it actually sounds, feels, responds, sits in the mix, like the original and/or a real amp and cab does.
At the same time, should this product function similar to the Helix, regardless of accuracy of the "profiles" I want no part. Organizing sounds for live use on the Helix is an endless mess because of the lack of spillover and even a large audible gap between presets. The fact that you can do so much within a single preset means nothing. If I have a couple specialty combos of effects/amps saved to a preset, say a ideal autoswell for ambient stuff, I can't just plop that preset next to a song specific preset and toggle between them in the song, because of the gap. I have to make sure I have enough left over DSP in the song specific preset and copy and paste all of my individual effects from the autoswell preset into the song specific preset, and then set up a "snapshot" to use it. Nor do I want to go back to volume matching hell between presets, when I decide to increase or decrease the gain in the amp section of one rig. The KPA is still the only digital unit that solves this problem as well.
There is a swell preset in one of new delays as a good starting point, I'm pretty sure it has swell in the name. But if starting from scratch, I believe the mix of the delay has to be all the way up, and just because the parameter says 100% keep turning it up to the right as some of those keep going up till is says 100/100 or something like that to where you are not hearing the original signal at all, put only the repeats. The swell effect is applied to the repeats only, thus you want the mix up to the point where you are only hearing the repeats, and zero of the original signal. In this case if the delay time is set too long you will notice a long delay between when you strum the strings and you hear the swelled sound begin. If so, shorten the delay time to taste and lengthen the repeats.
And just a pointer to make any autoswell from any company sound convincing and like using a volume pedal. If you let notes or chords sustain on your guitar and don't lift up slightly or mute before hitting the next note or chord, the next note or chord may not be swelled in, because the volume of the incoming signal hasn't dropped enough to cross the threshold and the autoswell just keeps the gate open allowing your percussive attack come through. If you stop the sound coming from your guitar itself between notes and chords, this of course could lead to audible gaps between those notes and chords depending on the settings of your swell effect. But this is why it's best to place a swell effect BEFORE dedicated delay and/or reverb effects. This way, the swell effect handles the swell, and the delay/reverb effect continues to ring out even though you've muted the sound with your hands for half a second.
You can also set it to be instantaneous and have it toggle with the bottom row of buttons on the remote. This way you could, for example back off gain a certain amount while increasing delay. And go back and forth instantly between those two settings. Quite often I find this useful where I don’t need a certain effect to turn completely on and off in a song, but perhaps more or less subtle from one section to another. Rather than having a second almost duplicate rig with one setting different than the original.
lol. What a cluster* that was! It took years and never worked.
TC Electronic really drove off a cliff. when the G-system came out it was cutting edge and FINALLY was a product that allowed you to set your real overdrives up the way you like them in four loops, control your amp with a 5th, and use them independently within an-all in one high end digital effects system without tap-dancing. And high end effects from a company that was at the time considered top shelf in the post effects department. And the thing was serious tour grade, not a 2000's line6/boss multi-effects modeling toy. Then when all the ambient/shimmering delay/reverb stuff started coming out, (and is now made by everyone) and TC is still partying like it's 2005. They still sell that silly Nova System which has a huge audio gap when you change presets with the built in overdrive and which doesn't switch presets until you release the switches.
I hear what you are saying, but it's not quite the same.
The Stage has 2 loops, so that is definitely an advantage over the head.
On the flip side, it's all in one, so if any component fails (in the processor or the remote), then you're screwed.
But in the head and remote situation, if your remote goes out, then you can still use a midi pedal.
Personally, I thought about getting a remote, but decided against it.
I use a midi pedal with 10 patches (or 2 performances) which covers all the sounds I generally use.
It seemed like I would have to do more tap dancing with the remote (or a Stage).
That could change if I decided to try to get into tone matching or using the harmonizer.
But for now, it works for me.
BTW, I wouldn't write off the possibility of a Kemper 2.0 at Winter NAMM.
As noted, the Stage has 2 loops, and that could be the basis of a new Kemper 2.0.
Unlikely they would release a new Kemper model just for that, but you never know.
To me, the Remote is the simplest plug and play option for the head IF you don't need other effects than what you place in the loop or loops or midi functionality beyond what you can do with the slot settings, AND if the ability to *only have four dedicated switches to turn things on an off with in a rig is sufficienct, on top of seeing with an led the morph status and the convenient possibilities of toggling that with the 1-5 switches. With midi controllers, you always have to make sure the led status matches up properly. Add in having a built in tuner at your feet and one less thing to plug into an AC outlet.
I'd seriously doubt a 2.0 at Namm what with all the never-ending work they've done to get a working editor and enhancements for the firmware of the current generation. And for that matter, if rolling out a 2.0 head/rack in 2020, why go through all the trouble of developing a 1.0 floor model in 2019, when you could just role out all three products in the same upcoming generation? Like I said years ago, they could have made a floor version very quickly once the development of the Remote was finished, the hard work for a Stage was done. All they really needed to develop was a floor-shaped metal container that held the hardware of the head and remote, and perhaps streamlining a few knobs and controls.. Going forward with 1.0, Stage, head w/remote and rack w/remote, they have three products: that have virtually the same hardware/firmware/software/editor to roll out new features for. This ensure that future rigs will be cross compatible with the three.
I went with the stage for two reasons, first off is the form factor. I like the all in one design of the foot controller for its compact design and easy transport. Second was the cost compared to buying a toaster and controller. I liked the form factor of the Helix and if it was not for their editor I would have left that product a lot sooner then this past August. At this point if I could trade the stage for a toaster and controller, I would but no one would make that trade.
I'd consider making that trade! And you could probably easily find someone willing to do so straight up. The falling resale of a used unpowered head+remote is partially due to the fact that one can buy a brand new Stage (which is feature wise the same thing as the head and remote in a single floor-shaped box) for $1700. I don't think I'd get close to $1700 if I tried to sell my head and remote, unless I found someone locally who wanted one without losing money on shipping costs and seller fees. (Even if the buyer pays shipping, this just reduces the total cost he's willing to pay for the product.)
Do you think this is more or less dangerous than announcing "a couple of days" when the product is months from being ready ?
No youre right, it's not less dangerous. But if "maybe days" is the actual case, and they said such, isn't it then a bit extraneous to bother mention such beta testing? If it's days away from a public beta release, you'd expect private beta testing to precede it. My suspicion (knowing nothing about programing) is that the delay has had more to do with getting the firmware straightened out, and perhaps even that kemper cone thing, as they need the editor they roll out to function with the kemper cone thing vs. rolling out the editor, then having to roll out new enhancements for the editor as soon as they release the kemper cone thing when it's ready. The Kemper cone thing would also be tied in with the whole preset/library/ organizational side of things for which the editor would need to accommodate. And for that matter, depending on what their workers specialize in, at the moment fixing the glitchy firmware and issues with the roll out of the Stage as the holiday sales season is upon them needs to take priority; that's how they'll afford to keep the development department churning out new things.
Tone junkies being well known or “Obscure” or not is besides the point. Either way It’s info coming out from a third party, not an announcement from kemper and perhaps not an announcement they were pleased the third party shared. In any case the fact that there are some beta testers perhaps tasked with looking for specific issues doesn’t tell us that there aren’t other issues kemper told the beta guys they are still working on. There could have been beta testers back in January who tested the seemingly perfectly functional and demoed Namm version of the editor. However the moment Kemper officially announces beta testers, this inevitably ramps up the “any day now” assumptions and rumors leading to more disappointment if it takes longer. Last quote I saw from the company first hand was perhaps weeks it might be ready, barring unforeseen issues. Apparently a half dozen pages back on this thread there was an indication of possibly even days? So if they’re at one of those two stages, baring potential and unpredictable setbacks, is there really a compelling reason they need to make an official announcement about beta testing?
By the way, we should care, at least indirectly, about Stage sales and the overall success of the KpA line of products if we like new features for our kpas or hope for new products from the kemper company in the future. Bills have to be paid, teams of paid employees that develop editors, roll out new effects and firmware improvements, as well as ongoing customer and product support and continued compatibility with Mac and Windows over time isn’t cheap. New sales provide the means.
So to summarize 115 pages of comments and many other editor threads over the years. What we know for sure:
When the editor arrives, the net time it will save us and the convenience it will provide in our lives will be vastly exceeded by the hours we spent thinking, hoping, discussing, and arguing about it before it is actually released.
I started to use the performance mode. I assigned rigs to the slots and saved the performance. Then I noticed, for some of the slots the rig name written on the second line (inside the "boxes") is wrong, while the one written beneath the performance name is right. I don't know if it happened with the previous OS ? I sent a message to the support team.
I've never quite understood the naming that shows up on the remote in performance mode. The way I organize my sounds for has always been to make song-specific rigs and load them into a couple performances in the order I'll need them for live that day. (most songs I only need one rig since i utilize the morph feature set to instant with the remote footswitches) While I have dozens of song-specific rigs, they're all based on no more than 4 profiles; what's song specific is the various effect combinations and tempo settings, perhaps a tweak of the gain when morphed. Over the years, I've swapped out some of the profiles to different ones. Therefore, seeing the name of the original profile that the song-specific rig was originally based on is pointless, since what I need to see most live is the name/part of the song not the name of the profile, which is the same in many song specific rigs I use.
The problem is that what should and should not be included. No effects you say? Then others would complain about that. Everyone has their own vision of what a cheaper version should be like. And is there a market for it? For sure? Would it be a gain or pain for Kemper? Is it more profitable with the kemper as it is now? Maybe they have discussed a cheaper version but came to the conclusion no. We don't know and they will not tell us anyway.
True true. Perhaps a product along the lines of a Line 6 stomp, or whatever the smallest version of the Helix is? But yes, whatever they rolled out some people would complain, and some are complaining now because nothing has been released. I for one hoped they'd role out a full pedalboard version along the lines of the Helix type unit. 4+ years ago they released the Remote and could have done nothing more than designed a metal case that housed the contents of the head and remote and from a software/firmware standpoint would have been identical to a head connected to a remote. Thus not really a new product they'd have to support. The hard work of coming up with a system for a remote that worked with the head and the continued support and integration of the two units was the hard part. Craming them both into one pedal-board shaped metal box would have been the easy part.
A cheaper version would make sense, but not by eliminating the ability to profile. The real savings is making a smaller product, cutting out hardware and building a smaller product. The easiest way to do this is to design a 2-3 footswitch pedal KPA that has no effects and solely handles profiling, and serves as a convenient DI on a pedal board. This alone would eliminate half the knobs and switches and a few jacks. It would also serve another market, users that are dedicated to traditional pedal boards and want the profiler to just be a small piece on their pedal board, vs. running four cables back and forth to an unpowered head.
LOL! I think OS 7 will deserve a brand new thread of its own
That's what I was thinking. Although, since these verbs were to be a part of the new big operating system update coming this summer, perhaps someone should create a Ionosphere/Formant Reverb Thread under Discussions. When the new 7.0 beta comes out, a new thread for that where we review our actual experiences with it, versus our current speculation of it, which is what this current thread is about. All that to say, I loaded up 6.0 and love the new verbs and their presets. Curious as to why they didn't just label the new reverb OS 5 point (whatever number comes after the last update) since just two new reverbs hardly justifies it's own whole number OS.
The irony is we’re all evaluating the sound of a cab designed to produce the elusive “amp in a room” (which sounds good btw) by listening to the mic’d sound uploaded onto the internet.
My core issue with presets is really about how the Kemper manages files. It doesn't behave like a regular computer where you can have one version of a file that can be accessed multiple times, by multiple files. You can't edit a preset and save it - you have to save as new file, and that new file can have the same name. You can have ten different Green Screams tweaked ten different ways, and not know which is the one you are looking for. You can't tweak a file in one place and have it show up in multiple.
I see no indication that this has been addressed. However, if the editor lets me see what preset a rig is using and gives me an easier and faster way of tweaking, and then copy/pasting it into multiple other places where it may be used, that MAY help make things easier. But, if I don't know everywhere that preset is used, and the system doesn't tell me, then there is a chance I will miss one.
Thats the core in a nutshell.
I had a feature request for such a thing a couple years ago
In a nutshell: if you select any preset, be it the entire amp section, a single effect like a OD, delay, or reverb, or the a-d slots saved together, or x-rev saved together, you could ALSO choose designate it with a tag: Then in any rig that you desire to use that same preset, instead of browsing for that preset like we do now, you could opt to browse for the tag as well. This would effectively dial up the preset in these other rigs, but whatever settings you make to the preset would be mirrored in all of the rigs that use the matching tag of this preset. If however, later you desire to untag the preset in one rig that you're using it, you could just untag it, leaving you free to edit and save it independently, like the way presets function now. Thus anyone that prefers to have some go-2 certain things set more globally (but not always, like using the lock function) could do so.
For example, you use a compressor in all your live clean rigs, and find yourself wanting to tweak it one way when using a particular guitar, you'd only have to do it once, not go to each and every clean rig your using that day before a gig and do the copy-paste-save-save-save thing over and over.