CK has stated repeatedly that they are in no danger of exceeding their CPU limits.
More power isn’t the answer for ‘better’ Profiles. The process isn’t nearly as hardware intensive as modeling. According to Christophe, the Profiling process has been taken as far as it can go. The code is optimized and the specific chip they use is a requirement for it to work.
As I understand it, to use a different chip would require major code changes to compensate. Something he didn’t sound interested in rehashing for little to no gain.
Maybe he’s found a new way to attack the problem, but if it hasn’t surfaced in 11+ years?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Display More
I hear you (and CK).
Most people would agree that you can get a KPA to profile as well as a QC with the proper refinement. So with respect to "how close" KPA gets to the actual amp, I would agree with CK's assessment.
Most people who have used both a KPA and a QC would inequivically say that the QC gets there faster and easier though. That is the part I was suggesting could be improved. I agree that the end result (for both) is so close to the real thing that it isn't worth talking about.
I would guess that most people (including me) don't profile much but instead either get free profiles from the rig exchange, or purchase professional profiles and tweak them to their needs.
Kemper's ability to "tweak" a profile is amazing IMO. I am able to make a great tone with very little effort.
Kemper's work-flow live is also outstanding. The Kemper FC is the perfect size IMO with the exact right amount of features for live work. In this regard, the QC isn't even in the same galaxy as the KPA.
I never quite understood why so many people got so fixated on minute differences in profiles vs QC or the original amp when so few people use this feature that much (I know some swear by it though).
Still, the fact remains that CK will not be able to purchase the chips he is getting today forever. A new DSP will need to be picked and it is very likely the code will need to be overhauled to work with the much newer DSP architecture. A color LCD is also long overdue.
If this is ALL the KPA2 had, it would be enough in my book.
When the day comes that a KPA2 hits the street, I seriously doubt that the reason that existing KPA owners will rush out and buy it will have anything to do with how good it sounds though. I am pretty sure the current KPA sounds convincingly good even compared to the best tube amps money can buy.
When I think of features that a KPA2 would have, I try to think about what would make it more marketable, not what would make it sound better since it seems like there really isn't much room for great sonic improvement from the KPA IMO.
As in my original post, a refresh of the chours/flanger/etc would be nice and for those that use these effects, it might be a sonic improvement.