Posts by OneEng1

    Well .... it depends IMO.


    Looks? Well. .... you aren't going to get something that looks like a top of the line PRS cheap. Does looks matter? Only to us ;).


    As for tone ..... you can absolutely get great tone out of a less expensive guitar (note, I didn't say "cheap").


    You have to start out with the basics first and foremost:


    1) The setup has to be good. A poorly setup guitar will sound bad no matter how much money you put into it.

    2) The basic intonation has to be there. After you get the setup right, some cheap guitars are simply not capable of getting all 6 strings to have good intonation up and down the fretboard. If they can ... CHECK! You are off to step 3.

    3) A good bridge and a good nut will give your strings life (oh yea, and use some strings that aren't 3 years old).


    Now, you SHOULD have a guitar that sounds good with absolutely no amplification. If you don't have that first, no amount of processing will help you.


    4) PUP's are a matter of personal taste IMO. You don't have to spend $300.00 on Lindy Fralin's or Bare Knuckles (I use these because these are what I run. I am a hypocrite) to get something that sounds really really good IMO. You will likely need something better than what comes stock in a $300.00 guitar though.


    5) Make sure your electronics are actually wired in right with good pots.


    If you start with a 3-500 guitar, put in the upgrades above, you will likely be around 600-1000 when done. I would argue you cant really get a guitar that sounds better for any amount of money. You can definitely get one that sounds different though.


    Also, the neck is important to more than just intonation. Some necks just FEEL right in your hand when you play them.


    Anyway .... that is my 20 cents :)

    The initial hype never really got me thinking seriously about the QC because it just doesn't have the live features of the KPA rack with the foot controller.


    I am still of the firm belief that within the top end digital guitar processors (Kemper, AxeFx III, Helix, QC) all of them are within spitting distance with respect to having the ability to have a good library of tones. I have always thought simply trying to sound exactly like the amp you profiled was seriously over-rated. Sure, closer is better, but at the end of the day, if you can get great tone that lies well in the mix, does it really matter how close it is to the original tube amp? I personally don't think so.


    What does matter, is how easy it is to create a set of usable tones for your purposes and be able to deploy them live (for me at least). Having a great volume of free and commercial profiles, having a system capable of easily tweaking a profile to your liking quickly, and having a bullet proof system that is gig friendly (# buttons, button spacing, readability, durability, easy to deploy live, single cable to FC on stage, etc, etc) are all things that QC currently lacks compared to the other 3 competitors.


    As an aside, MAN! the Line 6 website for Helix is SHARP. @CK, you should find out who designs their website and steal them! :) Site looks so good it made me want to buy one just because of how silly pretty it is ;). I'm here to tell you, this advertising would have worked on my wife :).

    This may have been stated, but if they made a Kemper Stage mini that was basically the size of the remote (or even smaller) with a few key knobs and footswitches. I would be one happy camper. I love the idea of the stage but overall if I was going to use an all in one versus my rack and remote, I don't need all the extra buttons. That being said, I realize I may be in the minority on several of these instances and Kemper can't cater to all our very specific minute best use situations

    That was my thought as well .... although other than the size, if they could get the price down into the $700-1K range, I think they would find they sell them like crazy (likely a good portion of the gigging musicians that already has a KPA would get one as a backup).


    With the chip shortage though, it doesn't make sense to aim for a higher volume, but lower profit margin product right now. If you can only produce a limited number of products, you want them to be the higher profit ones ;).


    When the chip shortage is over though, I think the KPA Mini would be a great way to round out the Kemper product lineup. Now that they have the tablet enabled version of the rig manager, all they need in the Mini is a wifi radio.


    I think you guys are going to get your wish .... but I am guessing not until at least 2022.

    I guess my only thought is that for any live setting, you also need a foot controller, and that and the control unit together would still be fairly large unless you seriously changed the functionality of the controller (which would not allow them to use the same code base nearly as much).


    The stage operates almost exactly like the rack and toaster. The mini would need to do the same thing except to use an app to do the tweaking (which they now have through a tablet).


    Lastly, a separate FC and head of any kind is going to be more expensive than just a FC mini. Since Kemper already has the stage product, the mini would necessarily need to be significantly less expensive not to compete with the stage.


    I do agree that I like the controller -> FC model for the stage cleanliness (less cables around my feet). I don't know how many people would be willing to fork out the extra cash for this setup more so than a stage mini stand alone though.

    You need an RJ45 crimping tool and ends. Their are many sets available out there to pick from (read the reviews for the best ones). If you have never done it before, you may screw it up once or twice. There area also testing tools that are relatively cheep that will test your splice job when you are done to ensure that your cable is correct.


    I have a KPA rack version. I purchased a Ethercon connector for the KPA end (like the one on the foot controller end) and made an Ethercon faceplate connector for my foot controller cable. This prevents breakage on the KPA end permanently.


    Of course, it is no big chore to replace the KPA RJ45 end really .... once you have the tools and know how to do it. My bigger issue is that I would be devastated if some drunk stumbled up on stage and tripped over my cable rendering my foot controller useless for the rest of the night!


    Fear based engineering :)

    I think the Kemper 2 already arrived, they called it the Stage, now I’m just patiently awaiting the hardware upgrades to be applies to the head and rack.

    Naw. There will need to be a Kemper 2 due to obsolesces of parts. Eventually all electronic devices must be re-designed in order to be manufactured because the chips they use (specifically the FPGA's, CPU's and DSP chips) get hard or impossible to find .... they also start getting silly expensive.


    I still expect to see Kemper refresh its product line within 5 years due to this fact.

    Slide is achieved with MIDI CC #84, value 0-127 (Portamento amount or pitch distance) and MIDI CC #5 (Portamento rate / speed).


    Pitch bend is created using the pitch wheel or stick on a controller keyboard.


    Pitch bends of individual notes within chords is now also possible thanks to MPS (MIDI Polyphonic Expression).

    Ya know, as soon as I posted it I thought about that too.


    Let me rephrase....


    I can't create a convincing bend or slide on a keyboard. Maybe others can ;).

    I am sorry to be the bringer of bad news, but most synths have envelopes and LFO, which are time domain functions which alter the signal. If anything kemper cant do is material with time domain characteristics, thats why you cant record and have amps with rotary effects or chorus built in. You would technically do the kemper technique to profile all the parts individually excluding LFOs and maybe some filters/envelopes, but then you are simply modelling oscilators/wavetables/simple filters, and that if only the synth allows you bypass all the other things (modullar synths allow for this, not so much east coast style synths). And yes, I am a synth nerd too which happen to love guitar a bit more than sound design.

    LFO's and envelopes (as well as everything else a modern synth does) is done through DSP today in every synth sold to my knowledge. The difference between a synth and a guitar is only the input that is triggering the sound. In a synth, it is a key that gets what key, and the velocity. In a guitar, it is an analog signal that would first have to be analyzed for key and velocity, but there is really no reason a guitar could not be the input for the DSP algorithms which could be in either a modern synth or the Kemper.


    Now, the input using a keyboard is physically capable of producing music with a persons 10 digits that no guitar could ever input. Then again, the opposite is true of a guitar. Can't do a slide or a bend on a keyboard.... or a mute.

    This!!!


    I would add that if you gig live, be sure to listen to them in the full context of the band. Lots of times I have found a sound "I LOVED" and found that it sounded like crap in the song I wanted to use it in ;).

    What I'd rather have is a wireless USB connection to the USB-B port.

    For you and others that would like this option, I think the only chance would be if CK decided to offer a Kemper USB wifi dongle.


    They would need to find a piece of off-the-shelf hardware that already has driver support for the KPA operating system (I am guessing they are using Linux, but someone feel free to correct me). Then they would need to modify their code to allow the remote ethernet commands to be transported over this new interface.


    Might be a nice upgrade CK ;). Shouldn't cost to much to private label a piece of hardware and test and validate the changes. I suspect most people would be willing to shell out $100 for something so easy to use for the new remote software.

    You can create Performances, swap rigs, slot locations and arrange performance on the KPA. You can also name everything from the KPA itself. This has been true pretty much since the unit first shipped in 2011.

    Folders would be nice - but everything else is already there. I know it works because initially, I barely used Rig Manager. Performance mode was and still is where I spend the vast majority of my time.

    If I could write my one "Set List Editor" for KPA, you would be able to assign a performance name to a song. You could create a list of songs in any order and name the set list. The KPA would then have the performance for the first song in the first performance slot, etc, etc.


    The way my gigs usually go is that we decide what songs we are going to play, write it down (spread sheet with big print so you can see it on a dark stage from a standing position when it is on the floor). If I could just have the tools for that .... it would be a great Christmas present :).

    LOL. Indeed.


    I think that we all are very fortunate to live in a time when tools like the KPA and QC are there for us to use. I know I waited a VERY long time for the KPA to come along while hauling around a metric sh** ton of tube amp gear every night ;).


    While tone definitely does matter, it has been my experience that it matters so much more to those of us who play guitar than it does to those who listen to any kind of live music. I do completely agree that having a lead guitarist that is inspired by his on-stage tone is critical to a "great" performance. In fact, I have had nights when the lead guitar player has become so distracted by his inability to achieve the "magic" he is accustomed to that he couldn't really do anything right.


    I believe that the QC is a good tool for home pluckers and a few other use models for sure. I am just not sure I buy into the idea that the Kemper's best feature is its ability to exactly mimic a specific tube amp setup (although I must admit this was the marketing that made me want to get one). Over the years, I have become much more enamored with its ability to be a killer live rig. Great FC layout, great efx, super easy to get a specific sound for a song, ultra reliable, rack version, etc, etc. Of course, I am a live player. I only rarely record, and I am much more concerned with how a specific tone sits in the mix than I am if that tone is an exact replica of the amp that was originally profiled. I am also very concerned with how easy a rig is to setup and tear down. I know ...... not really the exciting things to talk about with guitar gear, but man, I just couldn't do the whole head, cab and pedal board thing anymore.


    I do appreciate all the feedback being left here. You are right, I (at least) have been too quick to jump on Drew for things that really aren't that relevant to his good feedback on the QC just because it doesn't really work well for my specific use model.

    I've been at shows where people were using PodXT's and HD500's and Axe FX Ultra's into little FRFR combos on stage and then micing them up, and the audience notices the poor tone, and even talks about it over beers in between sets. The bands are never told straight up that their tone sucked - they go off thinking it was another successful show.


    The audience does notice. I've never really been on board with this "the audience doesn't care, so neither should you" attitude. It makes zero sense to me. If it were true, we should all be using Peavey Bandit's and Boss DD3's.


    IMO.

    This was in response to :


    It's kind of funny to me how guitarists these days will spend 100x more time and energy trying to find subtle differences in a guitar sound that won't even be noticed by most people or disappear in a mix/full band concept.


    Rather than just make music. I'm willing to bet your band would sound just fine with either unit.


    In this case "Either unit" was referring to KPA or QC.... both of which sound infinintely better than the PodXT or HD500 (and arguably better than the Axe FX Ultra as well).


    My point being you certainly appear to be making the case that people in the audience can tell the difference and even comment on it (with your examples) and therefore would also comment on the differences between the KPA and QC.


    Now, I'll be the first one to say that sometimes my reading comprehension doesn't bat a thousand, but man it certainly looks like you were making EXACTLY the point you just said you were not trying to make.

    I do not test sound sources in a mix when I am trying to analyse the qualities of the sound source. That makes no sense to me. I am perfectly capable of telling if a bass guitar has too much mud without having a kick drum blasting away over the top. If I am trying to detect harshness in a guitar recording, why would I blindfold myself by slapping loads of cymbals over it? Again - that makes no sense given the actual discussion at hand.

    I beg to differ. The ONLY place your tone matters is in context to the music you are playing with. I think you would be shocked at how bad some really great guitar riffs and chord lines sound when the guitar track is isolated and played by itself without the band.


    I guess if all you want to do is play into headphones and listen to your tone, then the context IS the guitar by itself. For the rest of us, the way the guitar sounds in the mix is the ONLY thing that really matters.


    So just for my own sanity on where your arguments lie:


    1) Do you believe you could pick out the QC, the original amp, and a KPA playing in the context of a full band?

    2) Do you believe that any differences that exist between the 3 would be noticed by an audience hearing only 1 of them live?

    I believe the contention is that somehow the audience experience would be effected by using a lesser quality amp than the QC and/or Kemper .... or that the QC capture accuracy is better therefore the audience experience would be better than a KPA because of the improved accuracy.


    Both of these are largely untrue in my experience.


    While it is less likely, an old PodXT in the hands of a guitarist that is good and can tweak and eq his tone well (and is a great musician), can sound great live. Now, just to be clear, it is much more likely that a KPA or Axe IIIFx (or QC) would sound great since they are easier to get sounding good and have more "great" sounds in them.


    Still, we are talking about what the audience experience is, and most audience members are much more effected by the stage presence of the band, the lighting, and literally a hundred other things much more than the guitar tone.


    Claim QC capture is more accurate than KPA (Ok, maybe so)

    Claim QC sounds "better" than KPA (Getting a little more shaky here)

    Claim QC over KPA in a band results in the audience noticing the band sounds better (Ahhh. Nope.)

    here I am again

    I've work on some sounds yesterday for a couple of hours and I had no problem but today I've got this message

    (see attachment)


    does anyone have any idea what this is about?

    Hope the reformat works for you.


    This is a debug screen letting engineering at Kemper know the line number, function and expression evaluated where the error was thrown (literally in C code you "throw" an error code with a function and "catch" it with error traps).


    Hope your KPA is working smoothly for you now.

    The only real advantage the Kemper has over the QC to me is 1) Proven touring record and 2) 10 years of people Profiling rigs with the thing. I find the whole "well this one profiles closer to the source!" argument to be such a tiny and ultimately meaningless thing to get caught up on.

    I also add:


    1. More ergonomic layout of foot switches (further apart)
    2. More foot switches (5 slots per performance vs 4)
    3. Less gig friendly than a KPA head or rack with the FC (too many cables around your feet and the need to have power at the performers position)

    I agree with your other 2 points as well.


    I am just kind of mystified at the amount of attention minute differences in tone gets in this discussion. It is like the never-ending discussion between Axe III Fx and KPA IMO.


    Now if some are saying that the comparison between QC and KPA is more like the comparison of a PodXT vs KPA, then I would agree. There is a significant tonal difference.