Darkglass Anagram - NAM profile player & multieffects unit

[Sascha Franck]

AFAIK, Zoom G5n cabs were IRs. That´s the first use of them I´m aware of. Maybe there were others before...

I seem to remember Digitech being among the first. And given how horrible Zoom's cabs sounded all throughout the years, it would've been really bad IRs they've used.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

No, Pod's A.I.R technology was built around EQs.

It's going back further than I can remember, but (apologies for summoning the ghost of Mitchell) that not just a very low resolution IR?

either way, the point stands that it makes it a lot easier to support external IR's when the internal cabs are already using them

 

[Lysander]

It's going back further than I can remember, but (apologies for summoning the ghost of Mitchell) that not just a very low resolution IR?

It's actually the other way around - IRs can be thought as very fine EQs Point is, A.I.R was more cab modelling than what recording impulse signals through them, as far as i remember.

@Digital Igloo would know for sure thou.

 

[Sedaxel]

I seem to remember Digitech being among the first. And given how horrible Zoom's cabs sounded all throughout the years, it would've been really bad IRs they've used.

Maybe they were something with similar tech as a current IR, but not that refined. Who knows...

 

[laxu]

Haven’t IR’s outdated modellers by a long time? Pretty sure the Pod V1 was using IR’s and so has basically everything since. I don’t think the ability for users to load their own was really a technical limitation (because modellers already used IR’s) as much as figuring out an elegant way for users to import and manage them.

TLDR is that IR’s are surely easier to support because the tech is in there already. Adding NAM support to something that isn’t using something similar already is much trickier.

Like already said, the PODs used EQs for cab sims. The first modeler I remember using with IRs was the Axe-Fx Standard from 2006.

Now a lot of the DSP chips used have accelerators for IR processing which makes them close to "free" in terms of performance. It's why a lot of modelers support specifically 1024/2048 sample IRs, but a very specific number of them at once so you can't just keep slapping IR blocks in.

Who knows, now that AI accelerators are starting to show up on some products, maybe in the future those will allow for NAM loaders to be a similar feature.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

the PODs used EQs for cab sims

Is the EQ being used to approximate a specific mic/speaker/cab/room/mic pre the same as a very low resolution IR (much in the way that Kemper's butcher an IR to be able to run on their platform).

I can't really see how else they would have done it. I always figured the cabs were just low resolution IR's and they just made use of the CPU and storage that was available. I suppose someone with a Pod can easily make an IR of the cab block and see for themselves how basic the EQ is.

I certainly remember running external IR's in a DAW with PodXT's and they were nothing new then. I think companies outwardly using the term IR's in marketing came a good bit later, even though they were commonly being used already.

 

[laxu]

Is the EQ being used to approximate a specific mic/speaker/cab/room/mic pre the same as a very low resolution IR (much in the way that Kemper's butcher an IR to be able to run on their platform).

I can't really see how else they would have done it. I always figured the cabs were just low resolution IR's and they just made use of the CPU and storage that was available. I suppose someone with a Pod can easily make an IR of the cab block and see for themselves how basic the EQ is.

I certainly remember running external IR's in a DAW with PodXT's and they were nothing new then. I think companies outwardly using the term IR's in marketing came a good bit later, even though they were commonly being used already.

Yes pretty much. Being digital, maybe it just had more EQ bands to use than most analog cab sims that plague so many line-outs on old amps.

BluGuitar says that the analog cab sim on my Amp 1 uses 7 filters. It doesn't sound bad honestly, and at loud volume would be fine. It's just nowhere near as good as IRs.

I'd be interested in seeing if someone could make a good modeled cabinet system these days now that we have massively higher processing power available. It's possible that it just doesn't sound any better. There have been a few e.g neural network cab sims and they sound pretty much like IRs.

 

[AFKAEjay(retired)]

It's all pretty interesting. Then there's the marketing angle. On the one hand, more is more. On the other hand, you counterfeit yourself a bit, and maybe a lot. If you add captures and people like it better than your modeling in the ultimate A/B test (on the same device), your flagship product just became an extremely expensive Tonex with some extra effects. The branding people probably hate the idea. They're trying to sell the notion that "our brand has secret sauce tied to our skills (and in Fender's case, history) that cannot be matched." To go commodity capture implies that the secret sauce doesn't really matter as much as they say it does.

While complete true…the pivot point is the moment when consumers consider modeling or capturing a commodity. Personally I’m at that point, Tonex, Kemper, NDSP…doesn’t matter which..they all do the trick.
No one sells smartphones anymore by promoting it has internet and email

they can, adding NAM block support would work against that goal - and on an ongoing basis. It has to.

If I had a dev team making models…I’d ask myself if new models would bring me new customers.
With what the portfolio of L6 and Fractal already offer..I think that’s questionable. Maybe it mostly pleases existing customers?

My hypothese is that the cost difference of putting amp sounds in hardware..between modeling and capturing, is going to increase exponentially. Devs that model amps versus a whole user community that stuff your gear with sounds for free. Its gonna get harder and harder to stick to the current business model of free updates of amps..while the “capture competitors” don’t have those costs.

Maybe if the group of users that want “knobs to respond like the amp” is bigger then I think it is and that “issue” doesn’t get resolved in the capture tech, maybe then it’s maintainable.

 

[ChordInversion]

While complete true…the pivot point is the moment when consumers consider modeling or capturing a commodity. Personally I’m at that point, Tonex, Kemper, NDSP…doesn’t matter which..they all do the trick.

To me, capture is pretty much commodity. Modeling is not. Modeling lets you fully interact with the modeled amp, using all of its controls in real time. Capturing does not.

If I had a dev team making models…I’d ask myself if new models would bring me new customers.
With what the portfolio of L6 and Fractal already offer..I think that’s questionable. Maybe it mostly pleases existing customers?

It's a valid question to ask them, though I don't know that they'd want to be public with their strategies. Fender clearly needs more models, so I think it's obvious they should stay focused on that.

Maybe if the group of users that want “knobs to respond like the amp” is bigger then I think it is and that “issue” doesn’t get resolved in the capture tech, maybe then it’s maintainable.

I sure hope so. I'd go back to using only physical amps if my only option was captures as we know them. I need to be able to dial in my amp for the guitar, the song, and the room - using a tone stack, presence controls, and so on. I really like how that works, and I really dislike the results when I turn a knob on a capture.

The other possibility is that modeling starts adding more along the lines of the BOSS X-Amps: using modeling code to create models with no existing physical equivalent, all with functional tone stacks, gain stages, amp reverb and tremolo, and so on. Personally, I'd love that.

BUT...maybe I'm part of a small minority. I guess we'll find out.

 

[laxu]

My hypothese is that the cost difference of putting amp sounds in hardware..between modeling and capturing, is going to increase exponentially. Devs that model amps versus a whole user community that stuff your gear with sounds for free. Its gonna get harder and harder to stick to the current business model of free updates of amps..while the “capture competitors” don’t have those costs.

I agree that adding more amp models to a component modeling system can be a cost - at least if you want to do it right by getting the real amp and painstakingly measuring it, comparing it etc. Fractal is clearly able to pretty easily slap in a new Marshall variant by changing some values of an existing model. They probably have most amp circuit permutations modeled at this point too.

So it's not like they can't keep adding more models, but there's already so many that if you can't find your tone out of those...you aren't looking for something to play. You are looking for something to collect without spending money yourself.

The pivot I'd like to see is leaving the entire "This models this and that amp" model to captures, and instead creating an entirely new set of amps like Line6 has done already.

At the turn of the century, I owned the Yamaha DG80 combo. It had 8 amp models, with generic names like Clean 1, Clean 2, Drive 1, Drive 2, Lead 1 etc. You could kinda trace the inspiration, e.g the Lead 1 was clearly inspired by a Soldano SLO etc. But nowhere did it advertise such things.

A friend of mine had the Line6 Flextone, which made a big hoopla about how it models this and that tube amp. People who tried that amp were often saying things like "eh, it's fine but it doesn't sound like the real deal". People who tried my Yamaha DG never said that, they just said it sounded nice. They were able to evaluate it on its own strengths and weaknesses instead of immediately going for "does this sound like the real tube amp" comparisons.

In the same way the Boss Katana for example never gets "It doesn't sound like a Marshall" comparisons, but people say stuff like "It doesn't sound as good as a tube amp". Which tube amp never comes into the discussion.

 

[Rev. Irreverent Revenant]

We really need more bassists yelling at clouds over here

You rang?

 

[ChordInversion]

The pivot I'd like to see is leaving the entire "This models this and that amp" model to captures, and instead creating an entirely new set of amps like Line6 has done already.

I'd like the same thing. I mentioned the BOSS X-Amps in a previous post. In addition to my modelers, I have a Katana Artist MkII, a Nextone Special, and a THR100HD. I also have Roland Blues Cubes, which reference known amps but clearly aren't the same, and that's not an accident. So yes, I also like using modeling not to emulate any specific amp. I'd love to see more and more of that.

 

[AFKAEjay(retired)]

To me, capture is pretty much commodity. Modeling is not. Modeling lets you fully interact with the modeled amp, using all of its controls in real time. Capturing does not.

If it’s not…it’s super close to it imo. When it gets hard to identify the difference between manufacturers, and price fighters start to take parts of the market..you are at least close. Couple years back you couldn’t get a decent modeled sound under 1000,-….these days..200,- gets 90% of users something perfectly acceptable. (You and me probably in the remaining 10%)

sure hope so. I'd go back to using only physical amps if my only option was captures as we know them. I need to be able to dial in my amp for the guitar, the song, and the room - using a tone stack, presence controls, and so on. I really like how that works, and I really dislike the results when I turn a knob on a capture.

I do exactly that with captures, with to my ears perfectly fine results. (Albeit not 100% the same as the original an p with the same settings on the dial) Obviously with a generic tonestack, but I can do what I need done. So…can’t say I share the same observation. I actually prefer a generic tone stack…cause it gives predictable results, doesn’t feel limiting at all.

 

[ChordInversion]

If it’s not…it’s super close to it imo. When it gets hard to identify the difference between manufacturers, and price fighters start to take parts of the market..you are at least close. Couple years back you couldn’t get a decent modeled sound under 1000,-….these days..200,- gets 90% of users something perfectly acceptable. (You and me probably in the remaining 10%)

I'm not looking at acceptable. I want awesome tom my ears. I owned a Tonex for a couple of years. It's for sale. That approach is not for me. I'll go back to amps before I move to captures.

I do exactly that with captures, with to my ears perfectly fine results. (Albeit not 100% the same as the original an p with the same settings on the dial) Obviously with a generic tonestack, but I can do what I need done. So…can’t say I share the same observation. I actually prefer a generic tone stack…cause it gives predictable results, doesn’t feel limiting at all.

Sounds completely wrong to me. Not just in terms of where the bass/mid/treble controls cut, but where in the signal they take place. It sounds like it's being applied at the board, and that really matters in terms of how the amp sounds as a result. Generic doesn't work for me, because an AC30 and a DR have different tone stacks, and sound different in large part because of them.

 

[timbuck3]

I'd like the same thing. I mentioned the BOSS X-Amps in a previous post. In addition to my modelers, I have a Katana Artist MkII, a Nextone Special, and a THR100HD. I also have Roland Blues Cubes, which reference known amps but clearly aren't the same, and that's not an accident. So yes, I also like using modeling not to emulate any specific amp. I'd love to see more and more of that.

wow you are a roland boss guy

 

[Chocol8]

If you need to adjust the tone to the room, digital EQ is a WAY better tool than the quirky interactive tone controls on most amps, real or modeled. I find the complaints/debates about capture vs modeling to be quite silly. Anyone arguing strongly for one over the other usually comes across as a stubborn old curmudgeon or ignorant/inexperienced in the use of one tech or both! They both can sound great, and get you there quickly if you know what you are doing.

I agree that every vendor is not going to rush to add NAM support as it probably is not in their best interest from a business perspective. From a consumer perspective, I would certainly love an industry standard that is supported by all, but I am not sure it is going to happen any time soon, and I am not sure NAM is going to be the answer.

 

[ChordInversion]

wow you are a roland boss guy

Yeah, it kinda worked out that way. What I really am is a gear accumulator, as I hate selling. I've got an FM9, TMP, and Tonex as well. And lots of pedals. It's a little silly, but a lot of fun.

 

[ChordInversion]

If you need to adjust the tone to the room, digital EQ is a WAY better tool than the quirky interactive tone controls on most amps, real or modeled. I find the complaints/debates about capture vs modeling to be quite silly. Anyone arguing strongly for one over the other usually comes across as a stubborn old curmudgeon or ignorant/inexperienced in the use of one tech or both! They both can sound great, and get you there quickly if you know what you are doing.

Insult taken! I've said repeatedly: people have their preferences, and I don't begrudge anyone theirs. I like amp tone controls better because of what they do, and how it is reflected in the sound base don where in the chain they lie. Post-EQ has value, but is not the same (and modelers can do that, too - just drop an EQ at the end of a chain). You don't like the amp tone controls as much. That's cool. Besides the room, adjusting for switching guitars is, IME, much, much better done with amp tone controls than with post-EQ. I think we're going to see continued availability of both options for a long time, so nobody has to lose.

I agree that every vendor is not going to rush to add NAM support as it probably is not in their best interest from a business perspective. From a consumer perspective, I would certainly love an industry standard that is supported by all, but I am not sure it is going to happen any time soon, and I am not sure NAM is going to be the answer.

I can see why some people want it for sure. Industry standards can also be confining, of course. But we're definitely agreed - I don't think the big name vendors are rushing to add NAM.

 

[Chocol8]

You don't like the amp tone controls as much. That's cool. I think we're going to see continued availability of both options for a long time, so nobody has to lose.

I like amp controls for dialing in an amp. I don't like amp controls for adjusting my amp tone to the room. Different tools for different purposes.

I love tube amps and will never give them up. I like building and restoring them, and I enjoy playing a loud tube amp more than anything. That said, they have their downsides and adjusting a loud amp to the room and fitting it in with the PA to get good sound everywhere is not where they shine. We have made it work for decades, but that doesn't mean it is the best solution.

I have also been into digital for more than 2 decades now and I really like some of the advantages digital brings to the table. As far as modeling vs capturing, they get me to the same place and these days that is scary close to a tube amp when using a real cab, and even better when recording. The two approaches have different work flow, but neither workflow is perfect and neither is bad when you learn it and adjust.

 

[ChordInversion]

I like amp controls for dialing in an amp. I don't like amp controls for adjusting my amp tone to the room. Different tools for different purposes.

Fair enough. I like amp controls, and while the room was one thing I listed using them for, there are many others (like switching guitars).

I love tube amps and will never give them up. I like building and restoring them, and I enjoy playing a loud tube amp more than anything. That said, they have their downsides and adjusting a loud amp to the room and fitting it in with the PA to get good sound everywhere is not where they shine. We have made it work for decades, but that doesn't mean it is the best solution.

No argument there.

I have also been into digital for more than 2 decades now and I really like some of the advantages digital brings to the table. As far as modeling vs capturing, they get me to the same place and these days that is scary close to a tube amp when using a real cab, and even better when recording. The two approaches have different work flow, but neither workflow is perfect and neither is bad when you learn it and adjust.

Each works better for some players. Some players like both. None of them are wrong or simply unwilling to learn. I tried captures for years. I just prefer using modeling, in part because of how I like using modeled amp controls. People who dig capture will have lots of options, as will people who prefer modeling.