What would be your killer feature for a Kemper 2 ?

    Quote from Alienator

    I don't think I understand your question. Feature requests are not about you alone, of course. I, personally, did not really "miss" Liquid profiles until they were officially introduced (well not quite true as I (and others) requested them years ago). As I said: almost all the main requested features, here in this feature request thread, that I regard as "important" for a next generation Kemper, already exist in the Helix. So, for me, look at the Helix and you have the perfect K2, if you put Kemper's Profiling technology in there, IMHO. Could you add more or improve even the features in the Helix? Yes of course.

    ..which implies the workflow and layout is preferable? Which bits? I have only had a very cursor play with a Helix and got totally lost.


    As a very small example - I asked our other guitarist to turn down his monitor and it impacted the FOH feed, I said can't you unlink the volumes and he struggled. He managed it in the end after posting on the forum, speaking to other users etc...now I'm sure it is really straight forward but I was told it was not. On the KPA its one button.... I'm sure its a bad example because it was probably his lack of knowledge but I struggle to believe there aren't real examples of issues.


    I certainly like the fact I don't have to worry about IR's...


    This isn't a Helix bash but I don't believe its perfect...so specifically what is better?

    Quote from V8guitar

    This isn't a Helix bash but I don't believe its perfect...so specifically what is better?

    Short answer: Many things but this is not the point here, it's the wrong thread for a comparison between two units. You cannot blame a device for the mistakes of the operator. You have to read the manuals or ask others, who find using it a breeze, for help, is the general rule.


    And now the long answer 😜: All I can do is repeat myself: Just read the endless (and tiring, some would maybe say) years old wish list, in the Kemper feature request thread and just compare every single request with what already is in the Helix. Helix is only an example here, because I own one. You could also take the fm9 as an example (sold mine only some weeks ago). Most of the times you will find the requested features of this forum, from us, the Kemper users, already existing in those units. Do I want to say that the Helix is "better"? No, in no way, that's not the point here.


    Maybe a core message for the Kemper team (who is very interested in what users say or want as improvements, otherwise this forum part, that was initiated by the Kemper team would not exist) is: Kemper users keep asking for features for this or the next Kemper generation. So far, so good. But many or most of those wishes already exist in the Helix since 2015. So maybe it is a good idea to not always wait for requests or to reinvent wheels but just take over brilliant ideas from other units. Many words for a short message, right? 😂


    That was my idea of a "killer feature for a K2", which is the topic of this thread. And I know for sure, that many agree, while others cannot agree because they... "don't need it" 😂. Yes, there are many who "don't need" this or that but even this is not the point here. Feature requests are always good as a beginning. So far they gave us the Stage, Liquid Profiles and many, many more features that had been requested repeatedly many years ago. Would we have the Stage or LP if they wouldn't have been requested so often in the past? Who knows, except CK.

    Better have it and not need it, than need it and not have it! - Michael Angelo Batio

    I took your comments as " go look at a Helix if you want to improve the KPA" and I think that falls down on 3 counts:


    1) One mark of a good unit is it being intuitive to work. My example only questioned if that was the case on a simple feature. Hence I would challenge whether the Helix is the right benchmark for intuitive use. That and many other units have their own "language" e.g. scenes so by definition have a learning process. Determining which is better/more intutative is not binary.


    2) Assumes the functions are needed. Just because the Helix can, doesn't mean the KPA should. Yes it gives clues and ideas but no unit is perfect. Dual amps don't and never will make any sense to me along with complex routing. Yes some people want it but enough to make it worthwhile?


    3) It rules out stuff that the Helix ( or other units) don't do. Kemper has been a leader in so many areas.


    However, I take your point that any manufacturer should analysis the competition to understand what advantages they have. I cannot believe Kemper don't have a fractal, Helix, Quad etc. to review.


    I also take your point that many requests come for users of other units - it doesn't make it right and so hence they should be called out to be discussed.


    I even read many years ago that the car companies would proactively send their latest car to the competition to avoid the song and dance of buying one as it was a reciprocal arrangement...probably not true but I like the idea :)

    Quote from Alienator

    And now the long answer 😜: All I can do is repeat myself: Just read the endless (and tiring, some would maybe say) years old wish list, in the Kemper feature request thread and just compare every single request with what already is in the Helix. Helix is only an example here, because I own one.

    I know there are many wishes to "improve" a new Kemper generation....

    But I still don't understand what YOU want to improve precisely ?

    Do you really want to find all the requirements in a future version ? Are you sure Helix can already ensure all those needs currently ?

    Do you want to have a Helix like ? But what for ?

    I have to admit that if the Kemper was like the Helix I wouldn’t have bought it. There are many things I didn’t like about the Helix when I compared them. For the avoidance of doubt, I actually believe both Helix and Fractal are fantastic products and they are undoubtedly perfect for some people just not me.


    Things I didn’t like and hope that Kemper never introduce;


    1 - Floor unit with built in expression pedals. I’m left handed/footed. And although I play guitar right handed I want my foot pedals on the opposite side from the Helix. That was a deal breaker for me.


    2 - touch screen interface. Touch screens are lovely in theory but don’t work as we’ll under pressure as dedicated buttons and knobs. Touch screens in cars is one of my pet hates they are downright dangerous compared to using buttons and switches.


    Things that I don’t personally need or think are worthwhile but I understand why some people do


    3 - dual amps, dual cabs, multiple mics with a nice graphical interface to move and swap them around.


    I think all of the major players in the digital amp market produce excellent products with their own specific workflows and unique special sauces. I honestly believe sound quality is so close between then as to no longer be a major differentiator. Instead it is user interfaces and workflow that makes each unique. For me the Kemper is still the best on the market in that respect.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but most of suggestions are possible to be implemented via update at current run.

    I'm not too much into depth, more self taught, but still it seems to me that all other equipment on the market needed physical upgrades because of CPU consumption.

    The only thing that I found desirable were USB / soundcard function (solved) and eventually two independent inputs and outputs.

    But I guess the second one is out of sphere of upgrades. For now.

    Just my opinion.

    I don't know if it's already been mentioned but rig inheritance could be useful.


    When Rig B extends Rig A, it takes all the parameters of Rig A. If you adjust parameters of the parent rig (A), all parameters of the child rig (B) that haven't been modified directly are also changed.


    For example, Rig A is the parent of Rig B and Rig C. The user modifies Rig B's gain directly. If we modify the gain on Rig A, Rig C's gain is automatically adjusted, but Rig B's gain is unaffected.


    In this way you could modify multiple performance slots from a single parent.

    • Official Post
    Quote from JAC

    When Rig B extends Rig A, it takes all the parameters of Rig A. If you adjust parameters of the parent rig (A), all parameters of the child rig (B) that haven't been modified directly are also changed.


    For example, Rig A is the parent of Rig B and Rig C. The user modifies Rig B's gain directly. If we modify the gain on Rig A, Rig C's gain is automatically adjusted, but Rig B's gain is unaffected.


    In this way you could modify multiple performance slots from a single parent.

    That sounds like a terrible idea =O

    • Official Post
    Quote from JAC

    Thanks for the feedback Don! I took the concept of inheritance from object-oriented programming. There are a few detractors in that field too!

    it would be pretty much impossible to remember which rig has which parent and is therefore affected or non-affected by a change.

    personally I wouldn't want any change in a rig have an effect on other rigs and the obvious application where such a feature might be useful is already covered with the global Distortion Sense (when you're switching to a guitar with less output, but still want the same amount of overdrive, for example)

    Yes, you would have to also display the (unique?) name of the parent rig, and then there is the UI problem of actually accessing the parent rig from a child rig to edit it. Furthermore you would have the headache of multiple levels of inheritance, or disallowing such a thing. Probably a lot of development work for relatively little gain. Thanks for talking me through it.


    Ok, double the number of fx blocks, add a physical rate knob for delay, and add some synth fx, and we'll call it a day!

    CK has synth expertise already - seems a shame not to share some of that with us in a KPA successor. More FX slots is a good idea. Doubling up on Cabs and Amps allows for using stereo FX ahead of amps for one thing and morphing between amps is a tantalising possibility.

    Quote from Antipodes

    CK has synth expertise already - seems a shame not to share some of that with us in a KPA successor.

    I've been saying that for a while now but don't see any reason why it would need a KPA 2 to achieve it. I suspect the existing hardware could easily cope with some synth processing. Just hope ckemper sees it as something worthwhile developing.

    Quote from Antipodes

    CK has synth expertise already - seems a shame not to share some of that with us in a KPA successor. More FX slots is a good idea. Doubling up on Cabs and Amps allows for using stereo FX ahead of amps for one thing and morphing between amps is a tantalising possibility.

    Absolutely this

    A brace of Suhrs, a Charvel, a toaster, an Apollo twin, a Mac, and a DXR10

    For me it would be two things:


    - A Kemper Software (Mac & Windows) Standalone and as VST3 Plugin for any DAW - so that you only need your PC interface for recording

    - A new Kemper Floorboard with Power Amp and all the features from HELIX and AxeFX. Mostly more Stomp Sections and the abillity to have mixed cab simulations for individual tones.


    Then they could go the extra mile and include:

    - A Feedbacker (like the DigiTech FreqOut)

    - Sweetend Tunings (see Ed.Van Halen)

    - Compatibillity with Neural Amp Modeller

    - A specific Kemper Audio Driver and Audio Codec

    - A Graphic Audio EQ where you can Compare 1:1 what the "Real Amp in the Room" Freq. Curve is to compare and experiment

    Quote from Guitar Flow

    For me it would be two things:


    - A Kemper Software (Mac & Windows) Standalone and as VST3 Plugin for any DAW - so that you only need your PC interface for recording

    - A new Kemper Floorboard with Power Amp and all the features from HELIX and AxeFX. Mostly more Stomp Sections and the abillity to have mixed cab simulations for individual tones.

    A powered Stage is a great idea, I never thought of that. It seems to be "only" one more work stop in the existing production flow of the current Stage and a great optional feature for the Stage 2.

    Better have it and not need it, than need it and not have it! - Michael Angelo Batio

    Quote from Alienator

    A powered Stage is a great idea, I never thought of that. It seems to be "only" one more work stop in the existing production flow of the current Stage and a great optional feature for the Stage 2.

    Would there even be enough room for the amplifier in that housing?

    Karl


    Kemper Rack OS 9.0.5 - Mac OS X 12.6.7

    Quote from karlic

    Would there even be enough room for the amplifier in that housing?

    I have the Blackstar Amped3 which has a solid state power amp so I think it could fit BUT.....power amps are generally used to run guitar cabs, which are typically at the back of the stage when a stage would be front of stage..so this means running a speaker cable between the 2. Speaker cables are generally not long length and not sure if it causes any issues ( interference, more susceptible to damage etc.).