Atomic Tonocracy (Inc NAM support)

Ahhhh, nothing like a true professional to let a single semi-sketch comment by an anonymous poster on the internet, not directed at any specific person, turn the thread tint one about him rather than the product under discussion....
 
Ahhhh, nothing like a true professional to let a single semi-sketch comment by an anonymous poster on the internet, not directed at any specific person, turn the thread tint one about him rather than the product under discussion....
Thats how you wanna frame it now?
 
Hi Enchilada, Thanks for upgrading to the full version! Sharing captures is easy - right click on the capture name in the library and select publish. Then sync and you should be all set. An icon will appear next to the capture name immediately following. Looking forward to checking out your captures!

I need to double check if the auto sync is in this release or the next but it won't hurt anything.

-TK

A.A / Tom. On a tangent.

Not sure if this has already been asked / responded too .....

=> further FW support and updates for the AA3, AA6 and AA12 are now done-never-to-be-revisited (?)

When asked this in the TGP forums in the last few years you have always responded with words to the effect that "updates were imminent / just around the corner" but nothing ever materialized.

Ben
 
As someone who is making lots of models, I’d put myself somewhat in the target market for this. A lot of the unique features are things I specifically requested for Amplitube (even in their official request forum).

I’m hoping I can be won over.

Out of the entire customer base of Kemper and ToneX users, what percentage of them are going to make a model? There’s definitely a significant portion of them that aren’t buying these devices/software to make models, but only to access the library created by others.

For these users, the fast and queued cloud training isn’t really going to win them over - a big advantage for them would be the NAM support, because at the moment the NAM pool of free models is significantly bigger than of Tonocracy models. I suspect it will always remain a good order of magnitude bigger too just based on the fact it doesn’t cost to get into. I think it may be a tougher sell to the average NAM or ToneX user who has either invested money or time into one of those formats, and where both formats have built up quite sizeable libraries already.

For users like myself, who makes a lot of models (and sells them), then obviously the capture process and free cloud training is ideal. For the free cloud training to continue, there would need to be a steady stream of sales. I don’t think it’s possible to guarantee that the free cloud training will always be offered, even if a small % of users are responsible for most of its usage. IK were first on the scene with this tech, and have a lot of access to huge social media followings and media outlets - they have a massive online presence, and were first to offer it to people. For a creator to sell packs, there’s obviously lots of issues but to have any kind of success with sales there needs to be a large userbase. ToneX has a low price of entry, and a very affordable pedal. I know people that have gone that route who hate IK, but because the price, features, sound quality and pool of models are all quite favourable. They’re not fussed about the training because most won’t make a model, and even if they do they might have a good graphics card, or they might only make a handful of models and the wait would be acceptable to them.

IK didn’t see how offering cloud training could work numbers wise. I hope the release of Tonocracy forces them to rethink their position, but my gut feeling is they’ll think “most users don’t need this, the small number of people that do can just buy a graphics card/new computer instead”.

One other aspect is as someone who creates his own content, the included models and IR’s has zero bearing on my desire to buy it. No matter how good the included stuff is, I’m always just going to use my own models and IR’s. I knew the included ToneX stuff would be cack, so I opted for their cheapest version that allows me to make my own models. It works well to pay less and avoid buying bundled things you don’t want (even if they’re great).
 
Last edited:
IK didn’t see how offering cloud training could work numbers wise. I hope the release of Tonocracy forces them to rethink their position, but my gut feeling is they’ll think “most users don’t need this, the small number of people that do can just buy a graphics card/new computer instead”
I don't think it's that, more like they just didn't want to take the quite significant time to implement it. When the Tonex came out, the capture tech was Kemper and QC, hardware processing. Cloud processing for captures wasn't really a thing and the main reason why NAM can do it is that Google Colab exists, just like both NAM and Tonex are a thing because PyTorch exists.

I agree that cloud processing is not a huge selling point unless it can make creating captures significantly faster compared to e.g a high end CPU/GPU. Even then it really only benefits capture vendors because less processing time directly means they can complete their product faster or provide more options for better value.

The only time I have made captures was when I had the QC and some real amps. Even though creating the capture was quite fast, the real chore was filling in all the data for it and having to start the capture setup all over again for each capture, and not having the ability to listen to it with cab sims at the time when QC was released without first going out of the capture view. With these issues, I could be bothered to make 27 captures for two amps. With the new QC computer editor a lot of this is probably easier.

The average user will not do even that much no matter how convenient the process. Most are basically "virtual amp collectors" where they go through captures on offer and pick ones they like, or spend some money buying them from their preferred vendor.

IK is the last company I would expect to make any improvements. If they say Tonex is one of their best selling products, why are they doing almost nothing to make it better? Their MO is "dump it on the market, do a few fixes then release a paid upgrade later."
 
I don't think it's that, more like they just didn't want to take the quite significant time to implement it. When the Tonex came out, the capture tech was Kemper and QC, hardware processing. Cloud processing for captures wasn't really a thing and the main reason why NAM can do it is that Google Colab exists, just like both NAM and Tonex are a thing because PyTorch exists.

I agree that cloud processing is not a huge selling point unless it can make creating captures significantly faster compared to e.g a high end CPU/GPU. Even then it really only benefits capture vendors because less processing time directly means they can complete their product faster or provide more options for better value.

The only time I have made captures was when I had the QC and some real amps. Even though creating the capture was quite fast, the real chore was filling in all the data for it and having to start the capture setup all over again for each capture, and not having the ability to listen to it with cab sims at the time when QC was released without first going out of the capture view. With these issues, I could be bothered to make 27 captures for two amps. With the new QC computer editor a lot of this is probably easier.

The average user will not do even that much no matter how convenient the process. Most are basically "virtual amp collectors" where they go through captures on offer and pick ones they like, or spend some money buying them from their preferred vendor.

IK is the last company I would expect to make any improvements. If they say Tonex is one of their best selling products, why are they doing almost nothing to make it better? Their MO is "dump it on the market, do a few fixes then release a paid upgrade later."
I do think with IK they have the resources to do whatever they want, but they’re also the sort of company who’ll puff their chest out and say “we’ve been doing this stuff longer than anyone else, this is our best selling product, I think we know what we’re doing thanks”.

They’re probably also inclined to think, if it’s selling well that there is no need to sink a load more money into changing or fixing it. If it’s good enough and selling, they’re happy.

That attitude is so annoying but it’s also somewhat useful to be able to draw a line somewhere and make sure that the product is actually viable and not some kind of directionless money sink.
 
As someone who is making lots of models, I’d put myself somewhat in the target market for this. A lot of the unique features are things I specifically requested for Amplitube (even in their official request forum).

I’m hoping I can be won over.

Out of the entire customer base of Kemper and ToneX users, what percentage of them are going to make a model? There’s definitely a significant portion of them that aren’t buying these devices/software to make models, but only to access the library created by others.

For these users, the fast and queued cloud training isn’t really going to win them over - a big advantage for them would be the NAM support, because at the moment the NAM pool of free models is significantly bigger than of Tonocracy models. I suspect it will always remain a good order of magnitude bigger too just based on the fact it doesn’t cost to get into. I think it may be a tougher sell to the average NAM or ToneX user who has either invested money or time into one of those formats, and where both formats have built up quite sizeable libraries already.

For users like myself, who makes a lot of models (and sells them), then obviously the capture process and free cloud training is ideal. For the free cloud training to continue, there would need to be a steady stream of sales. I don’t think it’s possible to guarantee that the free cloud training will always be offered, even if a small % of users are responsible for most of its usage. IK were first on the scene with this tech, and have a lot of access to huge social media followings and media outlets - they have a massive online presence, and were first to offer it to people. For a creator to sell packs, there’s obviously lots of issues but to have any kind of success with sales there needs to be a large userbase. ToneX has a low price of entry, and a very affordable pedal. I know people that have gone that route who hate IK, but because the price, features, sound quality and pool of models are all quite favourable. They’re not fussed about the training because most won’t make a model, and even if they do they might have a good graphics card, or they might only make a handful of models and the wait would be acceptable to them.

IK didn’t see how offering cloud training could work numbers wise. I hope the release of Tonocracy forces them to rethink their position, but my gut feeling is they’ll think “most users don’t need this, the small number of people that do can just buy a graphics card/new computer instead”.

One other aspect is as someone who creates his own content, the included models and IR’s has zero bearing on my desire to buy it. No matter how good the included stuff is, I’m always just going to use my own models and IR’s. I knew the included ToneX stuff would be cack, so I opted for their cheapest version that allows me to make my own models. It works well to pay less and avoid buying bundled things you don’t want (even if they’re great).
It seems the state of affairs you are citing is a contradiction.
You say most people won't create models but you say the server support will be too much of a burden for it to be sustainable. I made three yesterday morning, that process was occupying server time for maybe 40 minutes. Can't the actual demand dictate the supply? If few are using the capacity it doesn't need to be like a server farm rivaling Amazon's. If many start using it then it gets increased. If many use it then sales are increasing...revenue incoming....servers funded...

If you are right that the cost will be prohibitive and ultimately become a fee then that still works because by then a larger pool of models will be in place so Tonocracy has a better inventory, those people like you who can profit from server use can afford to pay for the fee , new customers who might create a few models are given first month free access so Tonocracy gets their models added to the cloud.
If the fee becomes too much and content creators start cutting the supply of models off then Tonocracy can turn the training over to end users and content creators can make them slower but still sell them, either through third party sites or Tonocrasy would likely still provide the download/storage server to keep all that content readily available.
I just don't see the scenario becoming a catastrophe for end users, content creators or the parent company.
Things change, people adapt, life goes on.
 
Last edited:
I do think with IK they have the resources to do whatever they want, but they’re also the sort of company who’ll puff their chest out and say “we’ve been doing this stuff longer than anyone else, this is our best selling product, I think we know what we’re doing thanks”.

They’re probably also inclined to think, if it’s selling well that there is no need to sink a load more money into changing or fixing it. If it’s good enough and selling, they’re happy.

That attitude is so annoying but it’s also somewhat useful to be able to draw a line somewhere and make sure that the product is actually viable and not some kind of directionless money sink.
Budgets and business concerns are of course always a factor, and you need to put out products at some point rather than try to make them 100% right from the start. But it still bugs the hell out of me when companies are not interested in making a better product, nor receptive to user feedback etc.
 
If few are using the capacity it doesn't need to be like a server farm rivaling Amazon's. If many start using it then it gets increased. If many use it then sales are increasing...revenue incoming....servers funded...
It's most likely already something running on Amazon, Microsoft or Google cloud services. These can be scaled up/down on demand, even automatically.

There is still a cost to running these at the base level so too few users and you are paying for the service without enough usage to warrant its existence. Too many users and the increased costs can make it not profitable because the service costs make for bad profit margins from plugin sales. Then you either take the service down (just the capture processing part), raise prices or sell the capture processing as its own service.
 
You say most people won't create models but you say the server support will be too much of a burden for it to be sustainable
I didn’t say it’s not sustainable, I just mentioned that it’s a feature that isn’t guaranteed to remain and that there’s obviously balancing act to making the numbers work. As it stands, users who don’t create any models at all are paying extra to support those who are using the cloud to make models. I actually think this is quite fair but I’m not sure all users would see it that way, especially when the products they’re used to don’t charge for this.

I think for the model to work, it needs enough paying customers being attracted to the platform who aren’t making models but want to access a large library of unique and bespoke content that isn’t available elsewhere. Getting a big number of users onboard might not be easy.

I’m not making any definitive statements because I have no idea what will happen. I’m just pondering on what the situation is with the information we’ve been given. These aren’t attacks at all on the company or the product - it’s a totally new concept that hasn’t been offered by someone else before and there’s clearly going to be pro’s and con’s to doing it like this.
 
Let's talk about how to make a split in the signal path.
And what's the best way to boost the levels of NAM captures that are too low? output level of the block or clean boost before or after? Does it matter?
 
Last edited:
Let's talk about how to make a split in the signal path.
And what's the best way to boost the levels of NAM captures that are too low? output level of the block or clean boost before or after? Does it matter?
You make a split by dragging the block under or over the existing block.

If volume of a capture is too low id use that output.
 
I cant remember where it was discussed (or even if it came from anyone at IK) but either way - cloud servicing would carry a cost and that would tighten the margins they have to work with. As much as I'd like IK to add this feature, I think the only way they'd include it is if Tonocracy made a serious dent to their sales. If it doesn't have any impact on their sales, then at best maybe they'd add it as a subscription tier. Not sure they'd gift it for free if they've been successful without needing to offer it.
 
Me: "Maybe IK will see the calibration tool this has, and fix ToneX! This is great! Competition!"

IK:
This Is Fine GIF
 
Me: "Maybe IK will see the calibration tool this has, and fix ToneX! This is great! Competition!"

IK:
This Is Fine GIF
You forgot the guy in the corner plotting out how they can separate the calibration tool into three parts, one of each being included in a bundle that substantially, but not completely, overlaps with another bundle containing one of the other parts of the tool, such that you have to buy all three bundles for $299 each or $79 during Black Friday or one of their 10 annual sale events.
 
You forgot the guy in the corner plotting out how they can separate the calibration tool into three parts, one of each being included in a bundle that substantially, but not completely, overlaps with another bundle containing one of the other parts of the tool, such that you have to buy all three bundles for $299 each or $79 during Black Friday or one of their 10 annual sale events.
Total Ultimate Max Complete V5.45 (doesn't include the 3 most recent releases, no upgrade price from V5.40)
 
Back
Top