Profile of stomps instead of entire rigs.

    I would love to be able to profile an overdrive pedal and put in a stomp slot... that would make it so I could use my favorite overdrives along with my favorite amps and not have to lug an extra pedalboard.


    It seems like the profiling technology is there... I would think it would be fairly easy (though I know that nothing really is :)


    Thanks.

    Mhhh... In order for the Profiler to be able to do this, it should process (almost) 2x the information (like running two stacks at the same time).
    I agree there's no problem technology-wise, but the Profiler's performance placement would 't most likely allow that.

    Quote from viabcroce

    Mhhh... In order for the Profiler to be able to do this, it should process (almost) 2x the information (like running two stacks at the same time).
    I agree there's no problem technology-wise, but the Profiler's performance placement would 't most likely allow that.


    I must say, I don't quite understand this. There are already modeled stompboxes in the Kemper. Is the argument that the code isn't detailed enough to model additional stomps?

    Quote from DonPetersen

    like you said: the stomps are models, not profiles.
    the OP is requesting (and this was asked many times before) to run two profiles at the same time.


    That just doesn't make sense to me. Its all code. In my understanding from reading interviews with CK, profiling is more the process than result, a way to automate the programming of "models". Are you suggesting the stompbox models are not of the same quality level as the profiles? Seems a similar automation of back end parameters could be applied to the stompboxes. Though I'm sure I'm making it easier than it is in reality...

    This would be a cool feature as I find most dist pedals in the Kemp don't sound as good as the real thing !I have 3 pedals I love and use (TS9 SUNFACE and my old Grey DOD 250) and I've tried to get the Kpa 's model to sound as good but they just don't unfortunately...And nothing in the dist sound like my Grey dod 250, tried with the dist +....

    Technically you can do this already, but, you have to profile your pedal along with your amp. This is ofcourse not quite what you want. The only limitation for this approach is not all types of distortion is profilable right now.

    Quote from Will_Chen

    That just doesn't make sense to me. Its all code. In my understanding from reading interviews with CK, profiling is more the process than result, a way to automate the programming of "models".


    so we're having this discussion again, eh? :)
    I'm really looking forward to more stomp box OD och distorsion models


    Quote from Will_Chen

    Are you suggesting the stompbox models are not of the same quality level as the profiles?


    I'd really appreciate it, if you could please stop using this 'Are you implying...' 'Are you suggesting...' construction (also see other thread).
    It's a little tiring and I'm always tempted to answer with sarcasm - which doesn't translate very well in a forum.


    ;)

    I think what CK is saying is that the FX are modeled (like on a POD) and not emulated (or whatever tech) through the profiler like the amps and cabs are.


    It would piece together why the amps sound more natural than the Screamers and ODs. Its not a bad thing, its just that storing a profile of effects in the FX bank is not gonna happen. We could still have two profiles, one with the OD and one without and switch between them as easy as turning on and off the effect. Maybe its not ideal with what a user was looking for, but it is still pretty sweet to have that option.


    My bad! I'll refrain from commenting on such topics again. Just trying to understand the tech.

    To make it simple, the power needed to process a profile is higher than the one needed to run a model (fx). To add a profiled fx to a profiles stack would imply processing two profiles at the same time, which would result in a CPU overload and poor performance. This because the KPA would be expected to be able to flawlessly process the two profiles (stack + profiled fx) plus any eventual modelled fx in the other slots.
    And what if the user wanted to run more than one profiled effect at a time, plus the stack?
    Yews, maybe the KPA could run two profiles in series. But, at design stage, performance placement must be thought for the worst possible case to ensure a smooth operation under any circumstances.


    I'm not sure this implies that models in the KPA are any worse than profiles, the different amount of power required might be explained in a number of ways so this would be pure speculation from anyone not in the know.


    Hope this makes my thoughts clearer :)

    My apologies if I stirred a pot... I didn't see any previous discussion (though I'm fairly new and haven't looked at all the historical posts.)


    It is the "Feature requests" thread so I just put in my request. I'm not real techie so whether or not it is possible with the current hardware isn't really on my mind... just that I would like it.


    And yes, I realize that I can model stomps with an amp, but that does leave one with a LOT of profiles instead of a few that can be mixed and matched.


    I'm certainly not complaining... I am loving my Kemper right now.


    Griff

    Quote from Jcaster

    The last topic about this theme was pretty self explanatory...


    OMG. Did you just steal an image from The Gear Page and paste it here?


    I suggest that the Kemper forums need more emoticons 8o


    I think profiling a pedal and running that profile ahead of the amp profile in the Kemper would be akin to running one miked sound into another miked sound.


    You'd probably get better results running the pedal you want to profile in front of the appropriate profile on your Profiler and then profiling that sound.


    Even better if you have the original amp and profile that with the stompbox in front.


    Hope that makes sense. Cause my head is spinning ^^