How much horsepower has the KPA

Maybe we should agree on the main strength of the KPA first. It's the tube amp simulation, right? And CK already stated many times that this core of the product isn't likely to change ever. It's there and it's as good as it gets. So the question to ask or answer is: How can this main purpose of the KPA be extended and supported in a meaningful way?

My personal take on this is this:

• Accessibility and management of existing rig collections
  This all comes down to the librarian software, the internal search and/or filter options of the KPA. There's lots of room for improvement at the moment with little requirements for internal memory consumption or computing power. Perform mode could be a huge improvment and it doesn't seem to be far away. We'll see and judge when we get it.
• Remote control
  Many folks are eagerly waiting for the KFC, but I think this isn't an extension to the core of our KPA but more of an accessory option, a second Kemper product that may replace other existing 3rd party solutions. No internal horsepower needed and nothing you can't do now with other gear.
• Dual Amping
  Well, this would be a substantial improvement to the core purpose of the KPA. But it's not likely to happen in the current generation of the KPA, I think. That's probably requiring to much horsepower from our box ... and it hasn't been part of the design foundation of the KPA we own. I would expect this to happen in a second generation KPA a few years from now.
• Internal Effects
  Ok, here's my personal take on this. It's great to have all the internal effects we already have. And they are very good quality. Every additional effect has its own memory and computing power requirements, but these don't add up without limits as long as we're limited in effects slots for simultaneous use. I for one can't see many missing effects that would seriously change my decision to buy or not to buy. The only missing effect I (highly subjective) would really love to see added at some point is a decent feedback simulation.
• External connectivity
  A pretty general headline which includes everything from USB MIDI to USB Audio to S/PDIF 48kHz to S/PDIF slave mode to other non existing connections like AES/EBU, MADI, AoE etc.
  Some of these are a real pain in the a**, others would just add a bit of flexibility but won't happen in the first generation KPA. I don't have a clue about computing power requirements for the features that could potentially be implemented with the existing hardware. That's something I would really like to read a comment from CK.

Hmm, again a pretty long answer. But I wanted to go into detail from my point of view as much as I can.

Cheers,
Martin

I hope you're wrong about the Kemper II. That was the only really substantial mistake Cliff Chase made with the Axe FX.

IIRC, the Kemper should be extendable. An extension card or an extra board with better DSP engine should be able to extend the abilities of the Kemper without obsoleting it - like the (brilliant) original plans for the power-amp which only fell through due to bureaucratic issues.

Quote from Quitty

IIRC, the Kemper should be extendable. An extension card or an extra board with better DSP engine should be able to extend the abilities of the Kemper without obsoleting it - like the (brilliant) original plans for the power-amp which only fell through due to bureaucratic issues.

While I totally understand what you mean, I can't see this happen. We're not supposed to open the lunchbox and to putter around with the internal electronics. There are no external extension slots where we could just remove a card and insert a newer one. Call it a design flaw or call it common practice. It's really hard to guess the future if you invent new technology and already have a bunch of work to get it running, support it and extend it on the software side of things. Also, it doesn't make things easier (firmware development) if you potentially generate a bunch of different hardware configurations by providing extension cards.
I wouldn't blame CK for this ... even less if I consider a potential requirement of a redesign of the whole user interface (front panel, form factor) for a next gen device. Of course, we are used to exchange hardware in our PCs easily. New hard drive, new graphic card, additional memory, new CPU, etc. ... but a PC box doesn't have a lot of "user interface" apart from the power button. Everything is done via some sort of "external gear" like the monitor, keyboard, mouse, graphic tablet, you name it. I'm pretty happy that the KPA is an all-in-one device and I don't mind to get another, improved device in a few years, if it's worth the investment. In the meantime there's quite some room for software based improvements in our existing KPA, I'm sure.

Cheers,
Martin

Of course there will be a KPA II in some time - and a AxeFx III - and new stuff from Line6, Digitech, Zoom ....

Currently is still 'horsepower' available to add new features into the KPA - as we see (Pitch effects, Performance mode, ...) - but yes, the KPA has it's limit's and sooner or later will there be a second generation.

It's the same as with all modern technical stuff - it can be enhanced for some time via new firmware - but sometimes in the future it will be replaced by a newer more powerful unit.

Compare the Access Virus synth from Kemper
1997 Virus A
1999 Virus B
2002 Virus C
...

Quote from e_del

... I'm curious to know (if possible) at what stage we are now ...

I would guess there's still one year of substantial additions and improvements to come for our KPA and its environment. But I'm sure, CK already has a secret drawer with a collection of ideas for the next generation. I wouldn't expect anything KPA II before 2015 though ... and I'll be a very happy lunchbox user at least until then or even longer.

I'd have to disagree with you, lightbox.
The virus synths added physical buttons and later DSP processors - the KPA is very sparsely populated on the inside and very conveniently laid out.
It wouldn't be much of an issue to have people return their toasters or rack units to the homebase and replace an internal board - just as was planned with the power amp.
Buttons are not an issue either, as they are software buttons and can be reassigned.
Mind you, we've got two usbs and an ethernet port - either can easily carry enough data to further expand the concept.

The only real reason i can think of this not happening is financial.

I must confess I've opened my KPA and discovered what I believe to be the DSP chip to be on a detachable (and thus replaceable/upgradeable) board...

That's the I/O communication chip for the RJ45 and the USB.

Quote from guitarnet70

That's the I/O communication chip for the RJ45 and the USB.

If you really want to dive into speculation and conspiracy theory, watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=867iDz9A-7E

Quote from timo

If you really want to dive into speculation and conspiracy theory, watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=867iDz9A-7E

I have...

"The LPC2468 microcontroller is ideal for multi-purpose communication applications. It
incorporates a 10/100 Ethernet Media
Access Controller (MAC), a USB full-speed
Device/Host/OTG Controller with 4 kB of endpoi
nt RAM, four UARTs, two Controller Area Network (CAN) channels, an SPI interface, two Synchronous Serial Ports (SSP)"

Is it not right what I said?

The guy on that video drew the same conclusion as I did, the only chip large enough for being the DSP is on a dettachable board, unless I'm missing something. Haven't pulled it out so I can't say what's the manufacturer code, but as far as the info I was able to obtain that in fact IS the DSP chip (+NXP LPC2468 ), which indeed includes the connectivity mentioned by Guitarnet70.

750hp at least.

scnr

It was mentioned on item 9 that Freescale DSP 400 mhz was used.
http://www.guitar-muse.com/kemper-profiling-amp-2949-2949

I think one day CK will upgrade to higher DSP speed as a result of features being requested by KPA users here. I also believe that the machine code for profiling will be upgraded one day not for the reason that its not god sounding but on the reason that CK is an innovator and the itch to innovate will not stop him from tinkering with a great toy like the KPA. I think this is good overall for the boys in us

I'm coming from the other side. Christoph had this idea since 2001 according to Uwe Bossert (video on the Kemper page). Releasing the product in 2012, there was a huge development of technology. I bought my first digital amp (H&K Zentera) in 2000. Kemper didn't go for a higher clocked DSP, despite having the knowledge from the Virus, i.e. how demanding "sound" processing is. I reckon he put that knowledge in the development of the Kemper and I don't see a need for a DSP upgrade for he is not modeling, but converting the analog guitar sound into the amp sound. This is obvious not done be calculating the behavior of an amp circuit, but by measuring the frequencies. This is the real genius in the Kemper Amp. It doesn't need to emulate a circuit, it works more like an equalizer.

I see the Kemper like a cab. If you like the sound now, you will keep it. The Pod or Axe FX are different, they're are promising to reach a sound, they can not produce, walking along that road you might get closer, but the Kemper Amp kept this promise from day one. The additional features are nice to have, but you could always add them with an additional device. I don't see a reason to be concerned here, and I have upgraded to any new iPhone and iPad that came out

Someone has the necessary technological knowledge to tell me if the possible future DSP/chip upgrades can be realised via an attachable board, placed on the KPAs back chamber, connecting by the existing, unused connections??????

Quote from guitarmania62

gical knowledge to tell me if the possible future DSP/chip upgrades can be realised via an attachable board, placed on the KPAs back chamber, connecting by the existing, unus

Definately not.
But guys... don't worry about numbers. It's not only the power of the DSP that counts - the algorithms are much more important.
Take the Pod HD or Axe2 for example: that modelling technique is based on modelling every part of the amp (idk if literally EVERY resistor, cap, etc is modelled or if it is based on macro-models of functional groups), of course that needs more power than the KPA's approach (I have no idea how exactly it works, but it definately required less power than simulating every single part of an amp).

This comparison is just like "hey, my amp has 7 tubes, it's better then yours with only 4"