After using the software more, my gut feeling is that the product would have been stronger if (to begin with) it JUST focused on the capturing tech.
If it was $40-50, and was ONLY a plugin+standalone software for making Tonocracy captures with the existing tech/system, as well as for playing Tonocracy and NAM models.
If it features:
- Simple guided process for making models
- Levels automatically calibrated and stored as metadata
- Cloud training with queue system for sets of captures
- deep and easy to use system for entering metadata
- a cutting edge, smart browser for both finding AND organising both NAM and Tonocracy models (with the ability to add/edit metadata)
- user pages for the cloud, ability to search users, save as favourites, add as friends, share privately, "llke" etc
- Beautiful and simple UI with minimal clutter
- Continued support for OS updates, different DAW's, iOS/tablets etc
IMO that is a much clearer and more concise product, and it would entice a TON of users that haven't delved into NAM - either because of the need to work at different sample rates, who don't want to use Colab or manually process files, or who prefer having a company that offers support and updates rather than an open source platform. Its at a price that competes with what ToneX typically sells for and would improve a ton of aspects that users do not like about that ecosystem.
I think that could be built up and developed to support IR's in a slick and elegant way, then perhaps adding software to help create IR's (in the same way that it walks you through making captures).
I think when that is in a good spot, that can be incorporated into an all singing, all dancing behemoth plugin that does it all. Releasing that first would have bought more time to make more amp models/fx/cabs etc and made both feel more complete. Just personal opinion here, but I feel like with plugins its more often than not makes sense to fragment the software into smaller and cheaper blocks that are concise and THEN offer the do it all one. With HW units, its a little different because the HW has to perform the routing functions of the DAW, the I/O of the interface etc. Its working with totally different constraints.
At the same time, I also feel like the amp modelling side of Tonocracy would benefit from a similar level of focus. As it stands, the lines are pretty blurry between the modelled amps and the captures, and IMO the modelled amps SHOULD be the flagship. The GUI's should look the ABSOLUTE BEST they possibly can, and should visually match the pride and devotion thats gone into the modelling. The amp models should at least be on pair with what the competition offers, with amp modes and channels in the same UI, a dedicated modern cabinet section, (hopefully) the ability to match the poweramp/impedance behaviours with the loaded cabinet. If there is a limited amount of pedals, I don't think complex internal routing is THAT important - its so easy to route things in a DAW, and I think a vast majority of users are more than happy to just have guitar->pre FX->amp->cab->post FX. I think when there is a deep selection of FX and amp models to combine, the appeal of more complex routing becomes greater, but I think its a risky feature to add as it can bloat software up.
I also think it a massive oversight of the plugin to not support right clicking at all. Simple things like locking parameters, saving as default for blocks, copy and paste, MIDI learn, favourite etc could live in there.
Likewise, on the signal routing section, I would MUCH prefer to just right click somewhere on the line, and a contextual dropdown menu appears with categories with say:
- Amplifiers - > List of amps
- Captures -> Tonocracy
-> NAM
- FX -> Drives
-> Modulation
->Delay
->Reverb -> IR's -> HW Units -> Plates
-> Halls etc
-> Physical Units
- Cabinets -> Tonocracy
->User IR's
At any one point in time, I could be looking at the list with almost everything I am NOT looking for. The list on the left could be so much smarter if it was more contextual, had a search feature, tags, metadata, colours, graphics, deeper info etc. There are small graphics next to the name of each item in the list, but for instance the graphic for captures and algorithmic models are almost identical. And when looking at text, one could be a delay, one could be a capture, one could be a cab. This is where colours, graphics, context dependency all help you find what you are looking for faster and more elegantly.
Similarly, this:
Feels like such a waste of screen estate. All but 2 of the knobs are duplicated, and seeing both at the same time just looks odd and unnecessarily awkward to focus on. The numerical value could be displayed as a pop over the knobs, there could be an option for Skeu/flat design in preferences, deeper controls could be hidden or using a different type of knob to distinguish them.
Similarly, this is a user capture
and this is an algorithm based model of a TOTALLY different amp:
Our brain is automatically going to assume that the modelled amps are some kind of extention of captures, or maybe some sort of factory captures. Or maybe they just seemed like something added last minute reusing some UI elements. It doesn't make the algorithm modelled stuff SEEM like its the proudest achievement of cutting edge technology when its presented like this. The same is true for the JTM45, 1959 and BE100 all sharing the same UI elements.
![[Nathan]](/data/avatars/m/0/613.jpg?1726885163){kind=avatar}
