Kemper Profiler MK 2

[AFKAEjay(retired)]

However, the DSP chip that runs the profiling/player is unchanged from Mk1.

I keep reading that in a lot of posts…but nowhere any reason / observation behind it, so I’m a bit uncertain wether this is true, or again some internet thing that becomes “true” cause it’s repeated so much.

I’ve seen a vid where it gets opened up…I read observations that the chip is the same brand/family, but that those come in more/less powerfull versions…doesn’t pull the fog for me

I’m curious of there is anywhere a good source that has actually determined it’s the same chip.

 

[LP59]

I was unaware that new hardware was being released without updated firmware. This seems like an unusual decision, likely driven by the unavailability of older components and low or depleted inventory of MK 1 units.

Regardless of the reason, it seriously deflates the Mk2 announcement when, basically, the only notable new feature anybody can demonstrate on their Mk2 at this point is the new paint job.

 

[KingsXJJ]

"Turbo Box" is a great name for a band.

Or a hooker.

 

[LP59]

I keep reading that in a lot of posts…but nowhere any reason / observation behind it, so I’m a bit uncertain wether this is true, or again some internet thing that becomes “true” cause it’s repeated so much.

I’ve seen a vid where it gets opened up…I read observations that the chip is the same brand/family, but that those come in more/less powerfull versions…doesn’t pull the fog for me

I’m curious of there is anywhere a good source that has actually determined it’s the same chip.

Don't believe what anybody tells you, look for yourself. Or watch a teardown video (there's one above) if you don't have one. It's not the same family, it's the same chip. There aren't any variants in the Symphony family that have dramatically different performance anyway.

But if Kemper delivers the significantly better profiling that they've promised, then what does it matter if they are using the same dsp chip? It's just an interesting question to ponder about how they were able to get more cpu power out of the same chip.

 

[Jarick]

And fwiw, at the current state of affairs, even the new units are as uninteresting as it gets. Without the new profiling firmware, any video about a Mk2 device is as lame as it gets.

I for one would like to see someone using the device to see how fast it moves around screens and scrolling through lists of profiles/effects. Especially when hooked up to a computer.

 

[GTR37]

Someone needs to make a video about his video

I know just who May
need to talk

 

[Jarick]

Why is that?

Me: I see no ill intend whatsoever in that, nor any dishonesty. Maybe it’s bad business call…idnk.
In fact, shortly after release CK was even open on their forum that the hardware was more capable, and that they were debating the option for paid upgrades.
Their line of thought seems to be: we go out of business if we sell our full development efforts at that lvl1 price, but we do want to offer the full enchilada.
Personally, I totally get that, I even think it’s better for customers cause you deliver to different customer groups with one piece of hardware…that’s cost reduction! I mean..when we buy a DAW, all seem totally fine to pay for tiers, apparently when there is hardware attached to it, not so much.

…but even if you think that’s a stupid decision, it shouldn’t be confused with dishonesty, that’s something different then a business offer/decision you don’t like.

I just don't trust them. They released a product knowing it would have a certain level of functionality but hid some of it behind a paywall, waited several months, announced they would unlock the functionality with paid upgrades, waited several months, then released some of that locked functionality for free. Now they've announced more functionality for that product, but is that also going to be behind a paywall?

Look I'm probably one of like five people in this thread that isn't ripping the Mk2 to hell and back, and I bought one of the Players last week, and I still don't trust the company.

 

[madmarcus1960]

The Player is supposed to be MK2 profile resolution ready. I guess we will see. No one has any of these profiles.
Before I got banned for a week, I also posted, in the feature request section, if there would be OEM hi res profile packs in future FW updates, just like the MK1 has had, and the Deutche-bags closed my thread and said it wasn't a feature. (Even though it's something they included from the beginning and added to w/liquid profile packs)

 

[AFKAEjay(retired)]

I just don't trust them. They released a product knowing it would have a certain level of functionality but hid some of it behind a paywall, waited several months, announced they would unlock the functionality with paid upgrades, waited several months, then released some of that locked functionality for free. Now they've announced more functionality for that product, but is that also going to be behind a paywall?

Look I'm probably one of like five people in this thread that isn't ripping the Mk2 to hell and back, and I bought one of the Players last week, and I still don't trust the company.

Moving some functionality to a free tier wasn’t exactly in my interest either, but personally I can think of quite some other reasons for that then preplanned dishonesty. Basically it devaluated my tier 3 investment, but for me it’s simular to my QC now retailing for 100,- less. They simply change their pricing to stay competative.

With regard to the “hid” part, would it been different for you if they had done the tier thing at release?
Would any of the initial buyers have been better of in that scenario?

 

[Mongillo19]

but for me it’s simular to my QC now retailing for 100,- less.

It is nothing like that

 

[Jarick]

Moving some functionality to a free tier wasn’t exactly in my interest either, but personally I can think of quite some other reasons for that then preplanned dishonesty. Basically it devaluated my tier 3 investment, but for me it’s simular to my QC now retailing for 100,- less. They simply change their pricing to stay competative.

With regard to the “hid” part, would it been different for you if they had done the tier thing at release?
Would any of the initial buyers have been better of in that scenario?

Yes, if they announced the tiers at launch that would have been completely different in my eyes

I also think the upgrade tier pricing is too high. I think if they announced it with the unlock cost around $150 that would be much easier to swallow. Or at the current price that should be lifetime for all units under your account, just like with UAD.

 

[Orvillain]

Or a hooker.

 

[AFKAEjay(retired)]

Yes, if they announced the tiers at launch that would have been completely different in my eyes

I also think the upgrade tier pricing is too high. I think if they announced it with the unlock cost around $150 that would be much easier to swallow. Or at the current price that should be lifetime for all units under your account, just like with UAD.

They shared that they where considering it, but hadn’t come to desicion at the time of release (fwiw to you)

I also think the price of tiers is a bit stiff, especially the current 3, and the account based license across units I also think would have been better. But…I don’t have any fair/unfair thoughts with it. To me it’s clear what I get at what price, an up to me if I want to buy at that price.

 

[OneEng]

All the "cocked wah" discussion is moot if the new profiling sounds better.



That's probably pretty damn accurate lol.

I guess until someone cracks open the new device we won't know for sure right? It just wouldn't make any sense for them to advertise an "upgrade processing engine" if it's just a firmware update.

It is technically accurate. The "hardware" was updated. It got a new application CPU (not DSP) and a new coat of paint.

Thing is, I don’t believe that letting marketing get ahead of software development is just an oops. I suspect that when they release the new profiling, there will be a deafening chorus of “wtf, it sounds exactly the same”. They want to get some suckers to buy before the reveal.

In many cases, I suspect you are correct. In some others (the ones that are certain to be highlighted) there will be a difference.

I don’t believe for a second that the Mk2 doesn’t have updated hardware inside, tbh..unthinkable.

3 reasons:
1 They have always been straight shooters
2 They were clear in their communication that mk2 has more power. If that is a lie…even an idiot knows that would come out, and would be suïcide of their brand.
3 If that was the game plan, why not the same for the KPP?…instead that gets all the new goodies.

As you know, I am a Kemper owner, and defender. I also happen to be an EE. What I can definitively say is:

• The Kemper Player is MK2 ready as defined by Kemper
• The Kemper Player has the SAME DSP and DSP external SRAM as all MK1 units have
• The Kemper Player has a new application CPU (which I assume is running Linux) which is faster and ARM based.

What I am assuming is:

• The Kemper operates its GUI and external interfaces through the application processor (running Linux).
• The application processor sends a "rig" down to the DSP which is responsible for executing the sound processing in real time

Based on this, there is no reason I can think of that would prevent the MK1 from running MK2 profiles. It is possible that MK1 can't STORE as many rig files as MK2 since I am assuming that the library of files is managed by the application CPU.

I keep reading that in a lot of posts…but nowhere any reason / observation behind it, so I’m a bit uncertain wether this is true, or again some internet thing that becomes “true” cause it’s repeated so much.

I’ve seen a vid where it gets opened up…I read observations that the chip is the same brand/family, but that those come in more/less powerfull versions…doesn’t pull the fog for me

I’m curious of there is anywhere a good source that has actually determined it’s the same chip.

I am still on the hunt for someone that has an "under the hood" video or images of one of the MK2 units; however, it is reasonable to assume that they will all be based on the same hardware that the player is based on if it is "MK2 ready".

The breakdown video of the Kemper Player is in this thread already. The DSP chip used in it is the same as the DSP chip used in all MK1 units. It is the NXP DSP 56720. A comparison chart of the entire 56K family is here: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.nxp.com/docs/en/fact-sheet/SYMFMCMPRTBLFS.pdf

As you can see, the 720 is the fastest in the family that ALSO has that much RAM built in. Note: It also has an external SRAM interface, but as I said, the SRAM also appears to be the same in the player.

You don't need "fog". There are images that clearly show the DSP chip and SRAM.

 

[AFKAEjay(retired)]

It is technically accurate. The "hardware" was updated. It got a new application CPU (not DSP) and a new coat of paint.

In many cases, I suspect you are correct. In some others (the ones that are certain to be highlighted) there will be a difference.

As you know, I am a Kemper owner, and defender. I also happen to be an EE. What I can definitively say is:

• The Kemper Player is MK2 ready as defined by Kemper
• The Kemper Player has the SAME DSP and DSP external SRAM as all MK1 units have
• The Kemper Player has a new application CPU (which I assume is running Linux) which is faster and ARM based.

What I am assuming is:

• The Kemper operates its GUI and external interfaces through the application processor (running Linux).
• The application processor sends a "rig" down to the DSP which is responsible for executing the sound processing in real time

Based on this, there is no reason I can think of that would prevent the MK1 from running MK2 profiles. It is possible that MK1 can't STORE as many rig files as MK2 since I am assuming that the library of files is managed by the application CPU.

I am still on the hunt for someone that has an "under the hood" video or images of one of the MK2 units; however, it is reasonable to assume that they will all be based on the same hardware that the player is based on if it is "MK2 ready".

The breakdown video of the Kemper Player is in this thread already. The DSP chip used in it is the same as the DSP chip used in all MK1 units. It is the NXP DSP 56720. A comparison chart of the entire 56K family is here: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.nxp.com/docs/en/fact-sheet/SYMFMCMPRTBLFS.pdf

As you can see, the 720 is the fastest in the family that ALSO has that much RAM built in. Note: It also has an external SRAM interface, but as I said, the SRAM also appears to be the same in the player.

You don't need "fog". There are images that clearly show the DSP chip and SRAM.

If you checked, and verified they are the same, they are probably the same

Could it be that they added other DSP that would explain why new profiling is only possible on MK2?
I’m no tech, but I could imagine rerouting DSP heavy stuff like time efx to an added DSP, allow the “old” DSP to handle additional requirements for new profiles?

 

[LP59]

I I also happen to be an EE.

I may be wrong, but I think one or two of your posts neglected to mention that, so you might want to go back and edit those to include that piece of vital information.

 

[OneEng]

If you checked, and verified they are the same, they are probably the same

Could it be that they added other DSP that would explain why new profiling is only possible on MK2?
I’m no tech, but I could imagine rerouting DSP heavy stuff like time efx to an added DSP, allow the “old” DSP to handle additional requirements for new profiles?

To be fair, I am relying on images others have taken, and I am still having issues getting a good solid image of the DSP on the back of the Kemper Player. The ones in the video seem to be too blurry to get a solid read on the part number.

I am still speculating that it hasn't changed, but you are correct, I haven't broken one open myself .

I can say that there is speculation going on over on the Kemper site as well and no one from Kemper has stepped in to dispute it (which I would certainly think would be their first inclination to head off this exact type of a conversation).

 

[Orvillain]

I may be wrong, but I think one or two of your posts neglected to mention that, so you might want to go back and edit those to include that piece of vital information.

 

[quadgear]

I am still on the hunt for someone that has an "under the hood" video or images of one of the MK2 units; however, it is reasonable to assume that they will all be based on the same hardware that the player is based on if it is "MK2 ready".

The breakdown video of the Kemper Player is in this thread already. The DSP chip used in it is the same as the DSP chip used in all MK1 units. It is the NXP DSP 56720. A comparison chart of the entire 56K family is here: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.nxp.com/docs/en/fact-sheet/SYMFMCMPRTBLFS.pdf

As you can see, the 720 is the fastest in the family that ALSO has that much RAM built in. Note: It also has an external SRAM interface, but as I said, the SRAM also appears to be the same in the player.

You don't need "fog". There are images that clearly show the DSP chip and SRAM.

It's possible the interconnect with the external memory is improved ... which was not possible without a circuit redesign (with the same DSP chip) or needs the updated CPU to manage it.

Maybe there is some offloading from the DSP to the CPU (and wondering if the fixed blocks might be on the CPU as all but the pitch shifter are relatively efficient).

Interesting that the 724 and 725 run at a fast clocker rate/higher mips but that's a tradeoff on the internal memory. Often faster versions are just ones that tested they could handle the higher clock rate. Maybe those fast ones have worse yields on the memory at that clock so they reduce the memory to avoid rejecting too many.

Definitely an interesting set of decisions on what they did and didn't change between Mk1 and Mk2 and how they rolled it out.

Hopefully they knock it out of the park so they can afford the deeper design changes that would close the gap between the Stage and the Rack/Toaster (which astonishes me they didn't make that investment in Mk2).

 

[OneEng]

Regardless of the reason, it seriously deflates the Mk2 announcement when, basically, the only notable new feature anybody can demonstrate on their Mk2 at this point is the new paint job.

It boots faster .

Now that I have had time to get over the disappointment, I have had time to reconsider the possibilities.

Lets say that they create a paid update for MK1 users that allows MK1 users to update to MK2 levels (minus the faster boot time of course since this is part of the ACTUAL hardware update in MK2). Lets say they sell it for $300.00.

Many of the existing MK1 owners paid ~2K or more (I think between my rack and fc I am all in around $2400 ... but I can't remember exactly). I personally might be willing to pay $300.00 just so I continue to get updates as they come out. Not sure how excited I would be to do it, but .... the more I think about it, the more I believe I would.

Don't believe what anybody tells you, look for yourself. Or watch a teardown video (there's one above) if you don't have one. It's not the same family, it's the same chip. There aren't any variants in the Symphony family that have dramatically different performance anyway.

But if Kemper delivers the significantly better profiling that they've promised, then what does it matter if they are using the same dsp chip? It's just an interesting question to ponder about how they were able to get more cpu power out of the same chip.

There is one that has higher MIPS (500 vs 400); however, it has less RAM internally: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.nxp.com/docs/en/fact-sheet/SYMFMCMPRTBLFS.pdf

Both of these chips (720 and 724) appear to come in the same LQFP 144 pin package.

Still, missing half the onboard RAM would likely render it code incompatible with the 720..... especially if Kemper is using lots of low level code.