Captures: Which Device/Platform?

[MirrorProfiles]

i own the Axe 3,Kemper and QC and to me Kemper is top,,i dont give a shit about null test,i have friends that still prefer the Kemper over the QC or Tonex,i dont think the Kemper sound worst

everyone has different needs and use cases. It’s been demonstrated repeatedly how Kemper’s capturing works and what the shortfalls of that approach are. Nothing wrong with liking or preferring that.

I was waiting years for Kemper to release a plugin to play profiles back in a DAW. When NAM/ToneX etc came along I never used the Kemper ever again.

 

[Sascha Franck]

My general interest in capturing isn't exactly high, as long as they don't manage to also capture pretty exotic things (such as two vastly different sounding amps that you'd run into via a crossover combined into one creature), I'm usually fine with "standard" (typically component based) modeling.
However, regarding the entire ecosystem you need to be diving in as well, also considering that I'm mainly a live player, at this very moment it'd likely be Kemper with the QC coming in second.
I would happily think about NAM loading hardware, but the only ready-to-roll thing around right now, namely the Dimehead pedal, is lacking of too many things and it's not well thought out in too many aspects. Technically, it's quite amazing, though (superb latency and accuracy).

As far as software solutions go, NAM can't be beaten IMO. I'm using it with the Two Notes Genome Codex block, which is done very, very nicely as it allows for a lot of the right tweaking options you might be asking for when it comes to captures (various tonestacks working either pre/post, a general graphic post-EQ that can even be finetuned, an "Enhancer" really doing nice things).

I should add that I don't care much about authentic sounds and don't have any stuff I really needed to capture myself, but if any of these were an issue for me, I can clearly see how NAM (and partially Tonex as well) could get you into trouble of whatever input gains being all over the place. In that case, Kemper and NDSP are quite ahead.

 

[laxu]

I've only used the QC capture process. It was vague about what are ideal input levels, and it was a pain in the ass to use when you wanted to make multiple captures in a row. The lack of capture metadata was a major issue, you had to type everything into the description box. This was 3 years ago though so maybe it's been improved.

To me the major issue on all the platforms is managing the capture metadata so you can find the right captures easily, whether your own or 3rd party. Kemper is pretty decent, QC is mediocre, Tonex is horrible, NAM seems to have limited metadata on Tonehunt.org at least.

You can split hairs which sounds better. NAM and Tonex are very close, QC is right behind and Kemper is less accurate but many still like it just fine. I don't think that's super important.

To me the workflow is what matters.

• Kemper is fine as long as you like how the hardware operates. I don't hate the toaster, but don't care for the Player design.
• Quad Cortex is very easy to use, and being able to run multiple captures at once is a big plus. Nano Cortex does not impress in its launch form.
• I find Tonex software so awful, that I don't want to touch it. I hated using it and it put me off the hardware units, even though they are well priced.
• NAM is in that "people fond of Linux will enjoy it" phase where it has some GUIs, but still a lot of command line stuff, info spread apart, alternative tools that support the file type etc. There's products that can load NAM captures that offer more user friendly workflows, but afaik Toneocracy or Gemini don't offer capturing creation. Hardware options are few (Dimehead and Poly Beebo/Ample), none of them ideal.

I own exactly one amp atm so doing my own captures is not very interesting when I could just hook up the amp to a loadbox, or even better, mic the real cabs.

 

[Lysander]

My only real experiences with captures/profiles are ToneX (plugin) and the QC. Both sounded great; ToneX captures were probably just a hair better than QC, but my god is the software a nightmare to work with.

Ultimately i discovered that i enjoy using models way better than profiles/captures.

 

[Orvillain]

There are too many variables and situations for me to answer this question. But for pure sound quality, I'd go NAM. For hardware I'd probably go NeuralDSP Quad Cortex; but I've not even done any captures with my new unit yet!

 

[Jarick]

I don’t like captures to be honest. But use cases:

QC is the only one that can do multiple captures which is actually awesome. Either drive pedals in front of amps or stereo amps in one unit. Software and hardware are great. But no marketplace so limited commercial captures.

Tonex is cheaper, sounds really good, and has a robust marketplace. You could run multiple Tonex Ones for stereo or a single ToneX with midi or easy switching. I’d probably go with the full one to be honest as I didn’t like the lack of display on the One. However the software is awful.

Kemper has the most aftermarket captures and the longest track record. I like it for low to mid gains more than higher gain though. Hardware is also more expensive. Player seems like a good grab and go unit.

Nano Cortex would be good if you want to capture your own amps and run one at a time in a pedalboard with other effects.

Haven’t used NAM.

 

[timbuck3]

So a capture or profile is a snapshot of an amp at certain settings? What if you want more gain or presence in the amps profile? Can u add it after when using the profile and it will be the same as adding it as you play the real amp?

 

[Sascha Franck]

Can u add it after when using the profile

Yes.

and it will be the same as adding it as you play the real amp?

No.

 

[timbuck3]

Yes.




No.

Ok thanx so it won’t really have the amps real dynamics because it’s a static point that was captured? Anything tone wise or gain wise added after won’t have the original amps unique tone/ gain workings?? Just generic ones but won’t interact like the amps own dynamics.. really?

 

[Mongillo19]

Ok thanx so it won’t really have the amps real dynamics because it’s a static point that was captured?

It's supposed to capture those interactions

 

[2dor]

Ok thanx so it won’t really have the amps real dynamics because it’s a static point that was captured? Anything tone wise or gain wise added after won’t have the original amps unique tone/ gain workings?? Just generic ones but won’t interact like the amps own dynamics.. really?

It's more like you dial in the amp to your liking and somebody puts a lock on the knobs once done.
Profiles are pretty much like this. They share all the nuances of your amp, how it cleans up with the volume turned down or hit with a boost, if profiled properly but you can't tweak the Presence anymore or Mids and expect a 1:1 behavior with your real amp; you'll have to dial the amp in with new settings & shoot another profile.

 

[dronerstone]

I like how NAM captures sound in Genome, but to further indulge, I'll rather wait until someone releases an affordable (and pedalboard-friendly) NAM player. It's bound to happen at some point, I guess.

Or, a NAM block in the Helix, of course. Not certain that we'll ever see one, but that'd be awesome.

 

[Frankencat]

I like how NAM captures sound in Genome, but to further indulge, I'll rather wait until someone releases an affordable (and pedalboard-friendly) NAM player. It's bound to happen at some point, I guess.

Or, a NAM block in the Helix, of course. Not certain that we'll ever see one, but that'd be awesome.

That would be amazing but a hardware host unit could be used the same way.

 

[Sascha Franck]

Or, a NAM block in the Helix, of course. Not certain that we'll ever see one, but that'd be awesome.

While I'd absolutely like to see that, it might not be too clever for them. As should be common knowledge by now, NAM capture input level requirements are pretty much all over the place. So some of them require a boost, a cut or no action to sound as they were intended to sound.
Don't get me wrong, having to deal with that would be fine with me. I'm a knob twister at heart and I don't care for much authenticity either. But there's less experienced users a) not knowing about the input level issue, b) not willing to fool around much and c) expecting instant gratification. And they'll end up like "that Recto capture sounds so meh, no tightness, all mud!" - just because the input gain might be way too high.

Also, while they're not *that* huge, NAM captures are at least considerably larger than IRs (in their HX-saved form at least). And we're limited to just 128 IRs already, so maybe storage would really become an issue (no idea whether the L6 team kept some "for future plans" storage headroom free).

 

[2dor]

While I'd absolutely like to see that, it might not be too clever for them. As should be common knowledge by now, NAM capture input level requirements are pretty much all over the place. So some of them require a boost, a cut or no action to sound as they were intended to sound.
Don't get me wrong, having to deal with that would be fine with me. I'm a knob twister at heart and I don't care for much authenticity either. But there's less experienced users a) not knowing about the input level issue, b) not willing to fool around much and c) expecting instant gratification. And they'll end up like "that Recto capture sounds so meh, no tightness, all mud!" - just because the input gain might be way too high.

Also, while they're not *that* huge, NAM captures are at least considerably larger than IRs (in their HX-saved form at least). And we're limited to just 128 IRs already, so maybe storage would really become an issue (no idea whether the L6 team kept some "for future plans" storage headroom free).

I agree. Any of the big players that would be toying around with their flavor of NAM will probably want to lock it down to be very specific to their hardware/ecosystem. With the wild variations in NAM profiles (and their quality), you'd want your customers to not have to suffer slogging through a gazillion meh profiles until they find one that sticks.

 

[Sascha Franck]

With the wild variations in NAM profiles (and their quality), you'd want your customers to not have to suffer slogging through a gazillion meh profiles until they find one that sticks.

Yeah.

But then, OTOH, it's pretty much the same with IRs. There's such bad ones around, good to destroy pretty much any tone.
Not sure what I'd do as a company.

 

[Humbug]

To be fair, I haven't actually made many captures yet - I was going to, but the process led me down a seemingly bottomless loadbox rabbit hole that I'm currently crawling out of - but I've found NAM to be the most accurate and accuracy is most important to me.

 

[2dor]

To be fair, I haven't actually made many captures yet - I was going to, but the process led me down a seemingly bottomless loadbox rabbit hole that I'm currently crawling out of - but I've found NAM to be the most accurate and accuracy is most important to me.

Saw you're building your own. Those graphs looked pretty damn cool. If you settle on a final circuit & BOM for a more common 4x12 cab (like a Marshall 1960BV) I'd love to try assembling one as well. So far, the testing I've done has led me to settle on the St. Rock React:IR II which is, in my honest opinion, the better choice on the current market.

 

[Humbug]

Saw you're building your own. Those graphs looked pretty damn cool. If you settle on a final circuit & BOM for a more common 4x12 cab (like a Marshall 1960BV) I'd love to try assembling one as well. So far, the testing I've done has led me to settle on the St. Rock React:IR II which is, in my honest opinion, the better choice on the current market.

This will probably/maybe happen when I get the remaining bugs fixed. I feel uneasy about providing a "lego" solution, as it's kind of a risky thing to build if you don't have at least some understanding of what's going on. I don't want anyone to blow their amp up and blame me :lol:

For now, the current values for the T652 based load are posted in the other thread, and I will _probably_ build and test a T1220 (8 ohm greenback) based load next.

I apologise for veering off topic :)

 

[Humbug]

To bring the thread back on track from talking about my load - I have now made my first NAM model that I feel is of good enough quality to share. My reamping setup needs some improvement (hello again rabbit hole, I hope you are shallow), but the capture still turned out really quite good. There's a slight difference in how it responds to the volume control, it's a hair more compressed, and it's a tiny bit slimmer in the lows (I could be imagining this), but I find myself reaching over to adjust the real amp only to find that it's off.

NSH Duver | ToneHunt

This is a 2xEL84 amp, accidentally inspired by Ken Fisher's Trainwreck amps. Channel switching is seamless and done with the guitar's volume knob. The capture was done with a BFL652 reactive load which mimics a 412 with Celestion T652 alnico speakers, and I recommend using IR's in the same...

tonehunt.org