Let's just put it this way.. DSP engineers are not a dime a dozen. I'm not a signal processing guy but I am a software engineer. I would say working on this amp would be a pretty fun/attractive project to have on your Resume. I would find it really fun to work on this kind of thing after a career of mostly enterprise software which is full of BS. (Though there are still lots of interesting problems for me around performance and fault tolerance.) So even though it's a pretty fun job as far as software/hardware/engineering go none of the guys who are going to do a great job at Fender on this are in any danger of having trouble finding a job. They are probably commanding salaries at Fender well into 6 figures. If Fender didn't want to pay that, well their modeling amps probably won't be that good. My guess is they do pay well cause they know it's worth it. Now how many guys/gals were required to work on this? I don't really know. The Fender reps have claimed this stuff took years to engineer. It does not take that many engineers working "years" to cost millions and millions of dollars in development cost. Then they have to figure out how many of these amps they think they can sell, and how many years the sales will continue to come in. They've gotta have a pretty nice test lab too to gather data to make the amp sound great, that stuff is not cheap either. That is why they are expensive. It's way too easy for people to take computerized stuff for granted. This stuff is *amazing* if you think about history. 1 of these amps probably has more electrical components in it than every single component Fender ever bought for the analog amps for most of their history. That amp has more processing power in it than the whole Apollo Space program.