Axe FX II and Kemper Profiler (Yes, another one...please read!)

axes said:
I get what you're saying and if I'm correct you're probably thinking about something like the Nova System or POD or such units that have dedicated guitar inputs. These are multi-effects units. The MFC and the Kemper Remote are dedicated midi controllers for "nothing else" than sending MIDI messages and controlling the device they're hooked up to. Introducing audio there would just complicate things and make them outrageously pricey without any real benefit other than using a tad shorter cable.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Note that my question wasn't a complaint; I'm genuinely curious as to why this hasn't been done, especially in all-digital rigs.
 
I own and like them both.... a lot, but these days Michael Britts profiles on the Kemper seem to be dominating my guitar playing time. When G3 FW release happens that very well might change a bit. ; )
 
Last edited:
mbrown3 said:
'm genuinely curious as to why this hasn't been done, especially in all-digital rigs.
Click to expand...
Good question.

In order to be compatible with industry standards, most foot controllers communicate via MIDI. And MIDI doesn't know how to handle audio. Adding audio capabilities to the controller would force the controller to work with only one kind of device.

Another reason: guitar processors have to be able to accept analog audio. If they didn't, how would you plug in your guitar? You'd have to duplicate that capability in the foot controller. That would mean added cost, and that would make the controller less competitive in the marketplace.
 
Whats the point of this thread now???

It was actually pointless from about the second page

Random walks in, asks a bunch of questions that cant be answered, ignores everyone and buys a kemper, hilarity ensues

Personally i vote to delete the thread... It makes the place looks messy, and clutters my whats new list for no good reason

stop_zpsa27c86ea.jpg
 
Bojangles said:
Whats the point of this thread now???

It was actually pointless from about the second page

Random walks in, asks a bunch of questions that cant be answered, ignores everyone and buys a kemper, hilarity ensues

Personally i vote to delete the thread... It makes the place looks messy, and clutters my whats new list for no good reason

stop_zpsa27c86ea.jpg
Click to expand...

We'll I for one am curious to read the outcome of the OP's 'shoot out'. If nothing else this thread has provided him with an opportunity to A/B it against an AxeFX.

Some here seem to forget that newcomers are being turned on to game changing devices like the AxeFx every day. Earnest suggestions like 'you should just buy both and sell the one you don't like' don't help everybody either. That's real affluent innovator / early adopter type talk - which is fine, but apart from professionals who can also do that, it only addresses a tiny fraction of the emerging market for these devices. Most 'mainstreamers' do not think like that, nor would ever behave like that! They wait, research (mostly looking for negatives), wait some more, compare, see if they can win it, wait, compare more... Then they buy once and usually get it right for themselves. These emerging forum users will be increasingly skeptical, aloof (can be mistaken as disrespectful by the faithful) and will want to compare products until everyone here is blue in the face! Welcome to the future! Best thing fractalites can probably do for the mothership, as all-things-fractal (especially future lower cost items) increase in popularity, is to try to tolerate & eventually embrace / help this type of new user.

A) there's a lot of them out there b) you're going to see more of them in here c) money from this new market will fund even more groovy R&D for you to enjoy c) they are not that easy to win and keep as customers - they won't be bullied, or easily fooled - so you really gotta work for these guys or they will shop elsewhere.

Personally I've done my research and have committed my funds to fractal for my new XL last month. So far I'm happy with my decision. There's little chance I'll still buy an alternative for comparison now, but if I do, it'll only happen if something compelling In a comparison thread such as this prompts it. I've often pondered the question of whether it is wise or not for product manufacturers allow comparisons on their forums. I don't know what's best, however I guess if it's already going on on public forums, then by allowing it take place on a private forum demonstrates conviction, courage and transparency. Perhaps there is value in that? Just my 2c...
 
Last edited:
mbrown3 said:
The ethernet cable can't carry audio, or doesn't? I think it should be able to easily carry audio signals, and probably do it better than instrument cable (since it can carry far more bandwidth). Wireless units lose audio quality. I've used a bunch, and while some are better than others, I end up getting frustrated with quality and interference, and going back to cables.

This isn't entirely a wish list (at least, not yet), I'm more just curious if there are some reasons why this hasn't been done. There may very well be numerous reasons...I'm just not aware of them, and would be curious to find out. That said, I know this is a bit off the topic, so I'm fine if it gets moved.
Click to expand...

You could conceivably do it if using Ethernet (CAT-5/6) cable between the foot controller and the unit. In this case you would need an A/D converter in the controller and then transmit the digital data up one of the pairs. The unit would need a digital receiver. This all adds cost though.

In our case we've moved away from CAT-5 cable. It's too fragile. Even "heavy duty" CAT-5 cables just don't hold up to the environment. So we use standard XLR cables for our FASLINK protocol.
 
Rex said:
Good question.

In order to be compatible with industry standards, most foot controllers communicate via MIDI. And MIDI doesn't know how to handle audio. Adding audio capabilities to the controller would force the controller to work with only one kind of device.

Another reason: guitar processors have to be able to accept analog audio. If they didn't, how would you plug in your guitar? You'd have to duplicate that capability in the foot controller. That would mean added cost, and that would make the controller less competitive in the marketplace.
Click to expand...

Makes sense. I guess I'm thinking that since the MFC-101 (and Kemper remote, for that matter) are designed specifically/only for that device, and the entire rig is digital, why not put the converters in the foot pedal? But I get that this would add cost to the foot pedal, though, so I understand what you're saying.
 
FractalAudio said:
You could conceivably do it if using Ethernet (CAT-5/6) cable between the foot controller and the unit. In this case you would need an A/D converter in the controller and then transmit the digital data up one of the pairs. The unit would need a digital receiver. This all adds cost though.

In our case we've moved away from CAT-5 cable. It's too fragile. Even "heavy duty" CAT-5 cables just don't hold up to the environment. So we use standard XLR cables for our FASLINK protocol.
Click to expand...

I hear you. Thanks for clarifying. So, if using XLR via faslink, can't audio signal be sent over that, without need for converters in the footcontroller?
 
mbrown3 said:
I hear you. Thanks for clarifying. So, if using XLR via faslink, can't audio signal be sent over that, without need for converters in the footcontroller?
Click to expand...

That XLR cable is busy being used for the midi communication and power. Audio requires a fully available cable without all that stuff at the same time so I doubt they could cram more information into that cable.
 
mbrown3 said:
Wireless units lose audio quality. I've used a bunch, and while some are better than others, I end up getting frustrated with quality and interference, and going back to cables.
Click to expand...

Try something like ULXD. It doesn't lose sound quality and doesn't have interference problem )))
 
What about Line 6 Pod? Let's compare all that too.

Actually... Jesu is my favorite artist that used a Line 6. Great unique tones.
Why all the fuss? It's a bore at this point.

 
FractalAudio said:
You could conceivably do it if using Ethernet (CAT-5/6) cable between the foot controller and the unit. In this case you would need an A/D converter in the controller and then transmit the digital data up one of the pairs. The unit would need a digital receiver. This all adds cost though.

In our case we've moved away from CAT-5 cable. It's too fragile. Even "heavy duty" CAT-5 cables just don't hold up to the environment. So we use standard XLR cables for our FASLINK protocol.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the CAT5 cable thing is great on paper, but I've been leery of it because of my experience in using it in AoIP studios. Now the advantage there is that everything is going to be mounted and fixed so you don't have to worry about it being moved, but it is not very robust in my opinion, especially in cases where you are going from RJ45 on one end and trying to solder to an XLR on the other end. The only thing that I could find that was acceptable was to make sure that we used stranded CAT5 or CAT6 which is usually reserved for patch cables. Once you get stranded the reliability improves a lot. It is a lot easier to work with on the solder side....it flat out sucks when making the RJ45 end.

I came up with a cheat where we'd strip the outer jacket about 4", strip the individual wires about 2.5" and then tin them so that they were stiff. Then you can feed them into the connector one at a time and pull them up to jacket and crimp (note, this only works with EZ-RJ45 connectors where you can pull the wire all the way through the connector). Not super relevant to this discussion, but if someone reads it and it helps them then it's all good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom