and the possibility to sort by tags in the kemper
Hugely important IMO. The manual is vague on this, but it almost implies that this is supported already, i.e. by saying that tagging will make it easier to find profiles in the future. It really only makes it easier to find profiles on the website, and then only to a limited extent.
I think I'm a bit late to the table on this one. I am guilty of naming profiles in ways that I thought would be creative without thinking through the sorting challenges that would come. For my own use I have since tried renaming the profiles I keep by amp make, followed by a brief description. This allows me to sort by amp model, all my Diezels are together, Marshalls, Fenders, you get the picture. This works best for me. A universal agreement in how to label new profiles being loaded onto the board could be useful but I still think it should stay in the realm of amp make and model. One man's overly distorted is another's not distorted enough. Give us the names and the basics, we'll be able to sort them from there.
I agree, and this is exactly what I proposed above. It's also essentially what Maurizio's done here. The only reason his explanation might sound more involved is because he's used specific conventions to account for exceptions - e.g. cases where you want a rig named after a song you're perfoming, something most all of us will want to do sooner or later. That and the fact that he's abbreviated amp mfr names, but this is really just accounting for the fact that names need to be pretty short overall.
I will say again that everyone is of course free to name their profiles however they see fit, but beginning them with your initials actually reduces value rather than adding any. There are precious few ways (3) the Kemper itself allows you to search for profiles and Author is already one of them. It adds your entire name automatically when you create a profile, and displays it all the time, too. So why not make the sort by Name option meaningful in some other way?
QuoteIt's better to improve the software of the KPA to use it with any footcontroler we want by using standard MIDI interface, good usability, and good documentation
In a perfect world, we'd have both: an excellent Kemper-specific footcontroller, and improved firmware to make things easier for DIY'er's and those of us with generic MIDI controllers. I'd really like to see more CC targets, and (I know I keep going on about this but...) the ability to toggle stomps and FX with PC messages as well as CC messages.
Fair enough, and no question I can be verbose when I want to be clearly understood.
To each his own, and Stemast if you're already satisfied then done deal. For the rest, minimal investment to check this out and see for yourself whether it helps, is all I'm saying. And indeed, all I ever meant to say in the first place.
"Best practice" for someone is most probably different to someone else.
I cannot (and don't want to) imagine specific naming instructions, is like going back many-many years when we couldn't change the preset names or when we had 4-6 spaces to input a name and we were struggling to understand what preset was it (damn, I almost gave up my age).
Please don't misunderstand me, I just believe that an approach like that is a little old fashioned.
Well, not for nothing, but you've kind of overshot the mark and put some words in my mouth here. It doesn't need to be as bleak as all of that! 
I do agree with you 100% about the necessity of naming conventions being a little old fashion, but that's basically where we're at in the absence of better on-amp sorting and searching options. I tried to wish it away for weeks, but before Maurizio showed up, I was flailing with 1500 profiles named more or less randomly.
Having said that, good naming conventions needn't be anything too involved or cryptic or restrictive, and it doesn't have to be a requirement for every profile either.
Perhaps there would be no consensus regarding a single, ideal set of best practices, but with a little applied common sense and - at worse - a little compromise, a few obvious things do begin to surface. For instance, things really come into focus when browsing hundreds of profiles as soon as you can rely on rig names beginning with the amp manufacturer. For a specific user's library and application there may be better naming schemes, e.g. songs in your band's set list, a studio's clients' projects, etc, but for general users sharing profiles of amps, the amp manufacturer is a no-brainer. There isn't sufficient commonality in terms of model name or year for that to be a helpful browsing scheme (in absence of mfr). Grouping all of your Bassmans just doesn't make as much sense as grouping all of your Fenders for example.
So it's nothing as crazy as not being able to change preset names, or limited characters (except to the extent that profile names are limited in length already); it's mainly just a matter of starting a profile with a mfr's name, and thereafter including (at minimum) a model name and (as length permits) whatever other items best define the profile, e.g. channel/ voicing, year, etc.
I have to ask, have you actually tried Maurizio's backup for yourself? It takes 10 minutes to backup, restore his file, and check it out for yourself. If nothing else, it would keep this discussion on track.
Beyond that, sure, different strokes. I know the reality is that there are already 2000+ profiles in circulation, and it will probably be up to each of us to get them named/ tagged to our own individual satisfaction. But are you really happy with the way profiles are named now? Just one example you gave: some members using their initials before rig names... that's fine on your own amp, but it makes no sense whatsoever for a rig name you intend to share; that's what the author tag is for. In other words, there are a hundred ways I might want to name my own content, but there are sensible ways to name content I intend to share.
Guys, sorry to be the party booper, but you do understand that even if the idea for consistent naming is good, there's no way to control how many people name their profiles, there are many who are not forum members, and many other different reasons (e.g some use their initials before the profile name, others use special characters, e.t.c)?
Well, of course there's no way to enforce a naming convention, and I wouldn't presume to tell anyone else how to use their equipment anyway. (Plus there will always be exceptional cases where a profile defies any given naming convention.) That said, I still say we could only benefit by establishing some "best practices" for those in the know. It couldn't do any harm, and it would improve at least some profiles considerably.
In the interim, I'm hoping for some words of wisdom from Maurizio, as to how best to improve the names/ tags/ storage of existing profiles. He obviously has a LOT of experience by now. 
Thats a great idea. +1
So let's keep bouncing this thread. 
I want everyone to try Maurizio's backup and see for themselves what a big difference it makes!
in an ideal world there would be two formats: a large one incl expression pedal(s), and the smaller one as proposed (like with the Line6 boards)
I was thinking the same thing when I saw how close the poll results were. But the fact is that the two options are so close in size, a longboard/shortboard scenario wouldn't make a lot of sense. Not unless the "longboard" got a whole lot longer, with integrated exp. pedal(s) etc.
Hey, i was wondering, could it be possible that the Foot controler take the same shape as the KPA so you can "clip" it on the back for the travel or just to have it all in one... It's was just an idea
A cool idea if you ask me.
I understand this was disabled in one of the firmware releases, on account of "timing errors" or something to that effect. Was this a firmware bug that we can expect Kemper to address, or did they realize they had a hardware problem after launch and decide to mask the problem by disabling the feature? The alternate input would actually be very useful (or at least very convenient) and I'm hoping to see it back on line soon.
We eagerly await the SPDIF to be able to send out DI output of guitar as well as the processed kemper tone. All above features would be highly welcomed too, but this one personally is a priority for the workflow that we have here
Yup, this is a good one too. I made this same request of Line 6 for quite a while when I was using a Vetta head, but they were never very receptive. It's such an obvious and practical application of the 2 available channels of SPDIF, I'm surprised it hasn't been an option (vs. stereo) on every digital guitar preamp to date.
Hi Maurizio. Still loving this backup of yours. Thanks again! Now it's time to start importing new profiles, and I was wondering if you could share your thoughts as to how to best integrate new profiles without confusing the organization that you've established. I'm concerned that if I import an entire rig pack, all of the profiles will be scattered randomly throughout, and I'll be hard pressed to even find them all, let alone get them named/tagged correctly. Newer profiles should be easy to find with the date tag, but older profiles will be easy to lose track of.
Once I have them imported, the first step is to rename them, of course. Then I have to change all of the tags, to whatever extent accurate information is even available. Then save the stack preset and add tags specifically for that preset? Am I missing anything else?
How much of this would you recommend doing on the KPA itself, and how much of it would you do with some kind of a PC editor to change the backup file itself? Obviously typing is a whole lot more efficient than turning that browse knob. 
Still wish we could get everyone to agree on this or some other naming convention, so that new profiles would fly in and play nicely by default.
I don't doubt that a real amp can sound better than even an excellent profile/model of same, provided the real amp is a good specimen in good repair, and it can be played at a volume that is appropriate for the amp in an environment that complements that volume.
But this is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, the profile/model will always be more adaptable in that it can produce a given timbre at very low amplitudes. On the other hand, hearing certain timbres at "inappropriate" amplitudes can make a modeler seem unconvincing, because we don't feel the air or perceive the power associated with that timbre.
I guess all I'm saying is that - in addition to playing real amps - you also have to consider playing these profiles in ways that are appropriate to the amps in question, the most important variable being the volume at which you play. It's a great convenience to play a 100W Marshall at bedroom volumes, but there will always be some cognitive dissonance upon hearing and feeling the amp that way, no matter how good the profile is.
And of course, there are always variables that can make a real amp sound worse than a good profile/model; I think a lot of people tend to forget this.
Interesting. I - hopefully - stand corrected!
- Real tone stack behaviour
Cool as this would be, I don't think it will ever happen. It would be a break from the entire design paradigm of the KPA, in that the timbre of an entire signal chain is captured as a set of generalized function parameters. The only things that can change from there are those same parameters (within defined bounds) and pre- and post- DSP.
In order to achieve real interdependent tone stack behavior, you have to start modeling individual components and the interaction between those components, a la Axe FX. And for what you gain in "real amp behavior", you lose profiling (for now anyway) and efficiency per CPU cycle, which (arguably) translates to improved tone in the KPA. (Or at least that's my broad understanding; I don't have a lot of specific information to draw on here.)
I don't mind the way the tone stack functions on the KPA - it may not be very authentic, but it's effective and intuitive. I do, however, sometimes wish that the volume acted more like a real volume knob, e.g. imparting power amp distortion appropriately, as opposed to acting like just another clean master volume. Similarly, the gain knob sometimes throws me in that it will happily push an amp into territory where it sounds nothing at all like the real deal. But better that a control be too flexible, than not flexible enough.
Quote5. more delay types
Well, now that you've got me thinking... the KPA would really benefit from a convincing Spring Reverb tank algorithm - preferably one that could be loaded pre (stompbox) or post (FX).
Thanks, TMV! Good news.
Thanks fretboardminer! Now can you do anything about PC messages?
Still no reply as to how this is going to be powered? That's more important to me than the size consideration, frankly.
Most important feature request for me has already been written off: the ability to toggle stomps and FX on and off with MIDI Program Change messages. I have too many devices laying around that send PC but not CC. They'd be a perfect fit for the KPA if Christoph Kemper would reconsider.
Otherwise, I'd like to know what Kemper has planned for performance mode, but Maurizio's excellent naming scheme has helped enough to hold me over.*
*New feature request: make hyperlinks work on this website. 
