That's fine. I've been in the computer world for any decades. I've seen paradigms come and go. This is one that I see as a huge waste of time.
Me as well.
This one has a history of missing delivery dates, and producing products that don't adhere to customer requirements.
Its been my experience that developers love it, and most managers dislike the results and lower productivity.
On the original topic ......
Does anyone know if there is a list of non-registered parameters for the Kemper?
I'll say this: the API "endpoints" (for lack of a better word) they've had in place since way back in FW3 seem to be VERY comprehensive. You're essentially doing call/response style NPRN integer & null-terminated string messages wrapped up in SysEx. It's cumbersome but well organized. In fact, I can't think of many parameters that aren't addressable. Of course, file operations (saving, deleting, etc.) aren't supported, but I don't think that's mission critical to a viable editor.
My point is... a comprehensive API already exists (essentially) and it's simplicity, extensibility, and minimal entry points makes it easy for Kemper to maintain its walled garden.
A editor is still a TON of work, but 98% of the tools are already in place.
Hi benvigil,
I took a quick look at the MIDI implementation. The only thing I really wanted to do was to move performances around, name them, and gather the names from the unit for display on the app. I wasn't able to find any way to do this, and the folks at Kemper informed me that extending the MIDI implementation to be able to do this was not planned.
Where are the NPRN's documented?
As a development manager, I see it as an excuse for not having specs solidified. Without a proper foundation, anything you continue to build will not be built on a solid foundation. Some managers hear a buzzword, and think it's the greatest thing, only to find that it doesn't help their project's bottom line.
Amen brother 
Additionally, the overhead of the process is painful. No better way for developers to spend their day than sitting in their meetings voting on the difficulty of various tasks they haven't analyzed themselves
Do you mean allowing a 3rd party editor R/W the Kemper?
Yes. Exactly.
It would be hard enough to introduce a full fledged editor created internally by Kemper. The work flow can be controlled, and only the series of commands that the editor actually makes need to be validated.
Creating a 3rd party API (application programming interface) opens Kemper up to a nearly infinite number of work flows and command sequences that would result in many many many failure paths.
I appreciate all the knowlege and free education here but here's a question @OneEng1:
So basically what you wrote somehow explains to me why many editors for digital devices seem to remain in beta status indefinitely keeping the acknowledgement of risk with the users. Is that the case?
Hey Dean,
I would say that many ideas get to the "give a great demo" stage only to find that the production hardened version would require way more time and money than originally budgeted for (or that a business case existed for). Once the money argument is lost, usually the idea is lost shortly after.
People throw around 'Agile' as if they know what they are talking about. Maybe you actually do, I don't know, but from my experience in my 'area of employment', it is a largely misconstrued and misunderstood, 'all-encompassing' oxymoron.
But, FWIW, we are attempting to implement a LEAN SAFe Agile methodology. It will be a cluster-f%$# for at least a year, but lets see where we wind up on the other side and talk then.
I manage at a company that has this process (and a few others).
Frequently, the Agile process is just a way for the developers to get more time to do less work IME. It works best for maintaining an existing well defined program than it does for development of something new.
It is also used as a substitute for program management tools ..... which it is not. Projects still need gant charts, critical paths, and resource leveling across multiple projects .... something not in the field of Agile's process.
As for the original topic .... remember, any software that is putting its fingers into the Kemper in real time must be put into a gated community so-to-speak. It can't be allowed to cause harm to the device, or introduce failure paths that would not normally exist.
I am the Chief Engineer at my company. I have to tell you guys. I would never approve of this idea for any of our products. It has "bad things to happen here" written all over it. I suspect the FMEA (Failure Mode Effect Analysis) alone would occupy the engineering team for a month. Then you could start working on the revisions to the design needed to fix all the failure paths found...... in other words, it is a much bigger deal than most of you are thinking it may be (at least IMHO).
My back decided that the Kemper was better than any tube amp and cab I have ever owned
Bare Knuckles "Rebel Yell" pickups for my PRS 
Yep. Either trust the sound man, or get one you can trust
While I find that many FOH engineers will set the eq on my guitar channels, all of them are pretty happy to work with the Kemper. The tone out front is always very nice.
I have been working with IEM's for over 20 years now, and wouldn't really ever want to go back. I believe that it is best to let the FOH engineer set the over-all tone and level. My performances then set the relative level and tone between rigs.
This has been a good recipe for me anyway. I guess I am with the OP. Let the FOH engineer do their job and you will be rewarded with a good band mix.
Performance mode is the nectar of the the Gods my man
While performance mode is generally most useful for live performances (thus the name), I would use it if all I did was noodle at home.
Performance mode is a method of putting your rigs into an organized set of banks. When in performance mode, the bank name is the name of the performance on the screen (you name them yourself). Each rig placed into a performance becomes a new rig. Any changes you make to that slot in the performance will only effect that performance slot (not anywhere else you use that rig).
An example of my usage is as follows:
For a given song (or type of song), I put clean rigs on the left and heavy rigs on the right. Every performance I have is setup this way so I can be assured that the far left rig will be a clean one and the far right rig will be a heavy one.
I also use performances to put the same rig into many slots, and then tweak the rig in each slot and A/B them to each other to see which one sounds best for a given usage. After I have the "golden" slot, I copy it and paste it into a real performance.
Performances are also useful for doing multiple sounds within a single song. For a song like "Kryptonite", you might have a nice clean on one slot, a crunch on the second slot, then a lead tone on the 3rd slot. You could name the performance "Kryptonite" and know exactly what you had in that set of rigs.
I wouldn't say it is water "proof"; however, I have had drinks spilled on it with no effect (other than pissing me off and making it smell bad). The LCD screen is covered with a Plexiglas cover which is tightly fitted to the metal so there doesn't seem like any leakage could get around it there. Each button has a slight key hole on the edge of it so that there is a small path for leakage past the nut that secures it to the metal base, but any liquid that is simply washing down the front will be deflected by the nut... so it is pretty safe IMO.
The KPA remote is WAY more robust than the kemper itself though. Mechanically, the remote is built like a tank and can take touring abuse without any problems.
It is also much smaller on stage (which really appeals to me).
Ahhh. After hearing the clips, I think I see part of the disparity anyway.
In both clips, the tone of the guitar was drowned by the tone of the efx (to my ears). Certainly the verb on the first clip is something I believe that is currently beyond the Kemper. At least in my many tweaking, I have not been able to get such a nice transparent verb from the Kemper (although I have found that the current verb engine is more than adequate for my needs since I use very little efx in general .... more of a spice vs a sauce approach).
You may be more at home with a AxeIIFx which sports an efx engine that is considered industry leading (not to say that the KPA has "bad" efx, it just doesn't have the complexity and depth of the AxeIIFx IMO).
I will say that as far as the dynamics and amp tone I heard in the clips you posted, I have no problem at all getting that from my rig .... and actually I feel I have a few tones that are superior to both clips ... but my taste leans to a much dryer guitar sound so take it with a grain of salt.
I know you are going to try another cab for use with your KPA, but I would still strongly suggest you try a FRFR powered speaker. Surely you can bum one from a friend. Nashville is awash with them
Good luck to you and I hope you find your tone in the KPA. If not, then I hope you find it in another solution.
First, just to get where I am coming from, I would say that I would mic the guitar and run the bass DI in a venue of any size. Having low stage volume and a good mix is critical in every venue to getting the band to sound its best.
I have (of course) played with just amps on stage and nothing miced.... but honestly, it isn't pretty (to me). As a minimum, kick and toms need re-enforcement for a decent mix (unless playing blues). Using a minimal approach with some re-enforcement I have had some really good nights though. Most places I play sound much better with re-enforced sound all around.
As for comparing the sound of a Line 6 to a Kemper ..... I must agree with those who are casting doubt on the people praising the Line 6 .... ewww.
I have been up and down the streets of Nashville and seen the various setups there. Lately, I have seen a few Kempers too There are more small, intimate setups for sure. Perhaps for these "stuffed in a corner" setups, an un-micked 1x12 tube amp would be the best solution. For any of the stages where a band was actually meant to play, a Kemper DI into the board with a FRFR monitor would seem an ideal setup (to me).
As with all things.... everyone has different taste. It is just difficult for me to contemplate someone preferring the Line 6 over Kemper. It's kinda like preferring bologna to a fillet
People that are used to their sound on-stage from a tube amp and cab often have problems with the KPA IME.
I believe that the KPA can produce better live sound than any tube amp I have ever owned (and I have owned quite a few). Out front the sound is just incredible IMO.
On stage, the monitoring rig you use is vital to what you hear. I haven't had any success using a guitar cab, but there are a few here that appear to get what they need out of one. I still think the FRFR route is best.
It seems to me that micing a guitar cab driven by a KPA is counter to the entire concept of the product. YMMV.
My setup time and carry weight has dropped so dramatically, I can never imagine lugging another 4x12 cab around again. For me, this was even more important than guitar tone. I just got better tone as a bonus
I would guess that most people play an unpowered Kemper through a FRFR speaker as a monitor.... which is how I play as well.
I have (still) an old VHT 2x12 cab which sounded great with my old VHT UL. It sounds like total and complete crap through my VHT with or without the cabinet on/off on the Kemper. I was using an old QSC amp I keep around from my passive PA to drive the speaker (which I find to be a nice amp). Nothing sounds right through it.
Before you bail out on the Kemper, see if you can borrow a decent powered speaker from someone (The DXR10 gets great reviews here) and see how you like the sound.
For me, getting the Kemper was all about lightening up my rig. As a result, going all IEM's and going direct into the mixer was a big time and weight saver. For lead work, I would highly recommend a monitor speaker on stage pointed at your guitar so you get some string action going.
If your band has a digital mixer (and it sounds like it does if you are using the ME1's), your IEM mix is completely controlled through the mixer and the ME1. On the ME1 you can eq the overall mix (3 band only).
At the mixer, the sends for each channel should have an independent eq. Have the person doing the mixer work set you up on the send for your guitar and tweak the send eq to your desire.
I think you will find this makes a world of difference.
Unless you are willing to use the same reverb and morph as paults suggests, you can't do what you're asking. It's not possible to replace an effect type once it is selected for a slot.
True; however, you can use performance mode, copy the same rig into several slots, and then replace and tweak the verb on each rig. I do this often .... and not just for reverb.
For gigging I'd go rack because safer to transport and you can easily add components...I have my wireless, power conditioner and patch panel all in one unit.
I also used to use the FCB1010 with Unochip and it was good but remote ( if you can afford it) is the way to go.
Why? seemless integration, better use of functions ( tuner easier to read, morphing easier etc) and 1 lead!!! No power or multiple midi leads...
Amen brother!
Absolutely.
I used the FCB 1010 with the Uno4Kemper chip for about 1.5 years.
It was serviceable; however, the setup was a PITA on stage. 2 MIDI cords .... which you have the chance to get swapped in the wrong direction, and a power drop that you need near your feet. It is also quite large.
I agree.... save up the money and get the remote. It is well worth the cost of admission. After all, you are playing on a ~$2000 state-of-the-art profiling amp. If you do live performances, the remote is a God-send.
