Lysander
Rock Star
- Messages
- 2,525
A bassist acquaintance of mine mentioned several times the model in his HX Stomp sounds just as good as the pedal.
Darkglass Anagram - NAM profile player & multieffects unit
- Thread starter 2dor
- Start date
A bassist acquaintance of mine mentioned several times the model in his HX Stomp sounds just as good as the pedal.
Lysander
Rock Star
- Messages
- 2,525
Beh, that's 100% on the implementation. Embedded Linux can even support real time applications out of the box, if I/O timing is critical.
Rev. Irreverent Revenant
Groupie
- Messages
- 21
This isn’t complete nonsense, but I imagine with a minimum of effort you could get it the rest of the way there.
Rev. Irreverent Revenant
Groupie
- Messages
- 21
Entirely fair, though I do think the point still stands if you’re wanting any of their other offerings. :)
![[Nathan]](/data/avatars/m/0/613.jpg?1726885163){kind=avatar}
[Nathan]
Roadie
- Messages
- 652
BenIfin
Shredder
- Messages
- 1,191
You have a level of faith that is nice to see, but is complelty unknowable :)
Stick a Digital device in that Loop and you will easily hit around ~10ms .... not horrendous but far from great.
BenIfin
Shredder
- Messages
- 1,191
And the null test results to see how close the Anagram is to the NAM software - I'm guessing a separate video :)
Chocol8
Roadie
- Messages
- 341
He needs to milk this for as many clicks as possible.
iaraya19
Newbie
- Messages
- 2
I don't know. At that price point, you might as well get a powerful notebook + a good audio interface + a MIDI controller, and easily run multiple NAM instances using Kushview’s Element. Besides, all the bundled digital Darkglass slop does little to make the unit more appealing.
Sascha Franck
Rock Star
- Messages
- 7,699
Which is one of the reasons why I really like my current main setup. Even with 3 complete ADDA cycles in series, RTL is at around 3.5ms. Quite amazing, really.
BenIfin
Shredder
- Messages
- 1,191
Not familiar with ^this^.
=> does it run NAM full/standard Captures natively -or- does it do some internal "conversion" to run them ?
=> I know its interface dependant, but is it stable at ultra-low latencies ie: 16 smaples / 32 samples ?
Sascha Franck
Rock Star
- Messages
- 7,699
Well, using a laptop live isn't even remotely as trivial as it may seem (at least for guitar players). "Where to place it?" being *the* all important question. These things not only don't stand a beer shower, no, even a bit of drizzle may just kill them.
Also, I know plenty of folks using modelers live enjoying the "pedalboard is all you really need" environment as much as I do. Not possible with a laptop, either.
And fwiw, yes, I've been there already. Still considering to try it again one day, but those two things are keeping me away.
It's a plugin host. So you can run any amount of any quality NAM captures.
Last edited:
BenIfin
Shredder
- Messages
- 1,191
Looks like its -not- iPad [PadOS] compatible ?
ChordInversion
Roadie
- Messages
- 288
This is why I am 100% in the modeling camp and 0% in profiling/capture. Well, that and because Kemper's "liquid profile" effort notwithstanding, I can't actually use an amp tone stack with them. Post EQ is fine but it's a not a substitute for a tone stack, even (perhaps especially) when not trying to emulate a specific tone.
On the TMP Discord, there are people clamoring for NAM blocks to be added. I don't want that at all - in the TMP or in my primary modeler, the FM9. I'm selling my Tonex. A major modeling name would be insane to effectively declare NAM to be equivalent to their proprietary secret sauce, which is what dedicated development resources to a new parallel project roadmap fro NAM would do. They'd be declaring themselves a commodity hardware manufacturer, and that's a race to the bottom.
For me, the whole player experience of captures just doesn't work. Find a capture that's close but not quite to your liking? Or one that works well with one guitar but not another? Back into the nigh-infinite pool of captures you go. I can turn a few knobs on my modeler and have a sound that nobody has ever captured and that suits the song I'm working on perfectly.
But that's just me. A guy I've been talking/playing music with for decades loves his Kemper and might buy my Tonex. He's all capture, no modeling.
ChordInversion
Roadie
- Messages
- 288
That summarizes it for me as well. They can sound great. But I find them unpleasant to work with, like trying to fix things in post rather than at the amp.
Last edited:
2dor
Shredder
- Messages
- 1,177
Well I have a few pieces of gear I want replicated as accurate as possible so that I can have that tone and not haul stuff around, risk accidents / theft etc.
I like both modelling & profiling and I think any vendor adding NAM support to their platform can only benefit from it in the long run.
ChordInversion
Roadie
- Messages
- 288
Sure, I get that. We all have different preferences and desires.
My background in tech, including in engineering management at a pretty big tech firm, leads me to conclude otherwise. There are a lot of potential complications and a lot of "it depends" involved in adding that support. I could see a capture device manufacturer deciding to support any format they can. The overall software philosophy is probably fairly similar, from I/O to interface and beyond. I think for a modeling company to do it is to introduce a significant parallel development roadmap that would leech resources away from their core product development. This would, 100% guaranteed, not be a one-and-done, "there, I fixed it" kind of thing. Integration of proprietary code with an open source spec that is undergoing active development - the directions and timelines for which the manufacturer by definition cannot control - is a significant undertaking. At the same staffing, you'd have to permanently pull people off of improving the modeling and adding new models in order to do it.
2dor
Shredder
- Messages
- 1,177
Can we not bring background in tech / professional path into the conversation? Just feels like an ego thing when posts like that pop up; at the end of the day you never know who's at the other end of the conversation.
As far as NAM profiling's concerned, the tech's already there. Vendors that want to support it need to bear the expense of porting it across but still without the expense of a full-on R&D effort - legwork's already done. It's mostly about cost & setting boundaries so it stays manageable & can still squeeze a margin / profit.
There's nothing stopping vendor X of setting boundaries on how large (number of paramenters in the neural profile) can be & the NAM repo already has several pre-canned architectures which favor accuracy or sacrifice some of it to allow slower machines to run it.
ChordInversion
Roadie
- Messages
- 288
It's not ego. I appreciate it when people who have relevant experience to what they're talking about identify themselves. Could they be lying? Sure. But that pretty much always reveals itself. I'm trying to establish a basis for assertions about development resources associated with this kind of integration. People gloss over that, and it matters. The standard existing and being open source \doesn't make it drop-in. Nothing is drop-in to a proprietary product - especially when both the product and the open source standard remain in active development.
Yes, but the integration into their proprietary code is not done. And it's a significant effort. And NAM is under active development. What it takes to implement it will absolutely change. To adopt it means a perpetual development roadmap. Integration of open source standards always does. It has to.
Margin would have to be measured in sales that you have strong reason to believe only happened as a result of the implementation - relative to sales that would have resulted had the same engineering effort remained focused on the main code base.
I have indeed poked around at the repo. I was speaking specifically to high end modelers - Fractal, Line 6, TMP. This would, IMO, not at all be a good choice for them. For an existing capture/profile-based device? That case seems stronger. But it's a whole new parallel development path for makers of modelers. I will be surprised if they adopt it. They'll make their choices regardless of what threads like this say.
Last edited:
[Nathan]
Roadie
- Messages
- 652
I’ve seen a few people staunchly against the TMP getting captures. I see the pros and cons but ultimately I think it would attract more users to the platform because it’s a feature people seem to love. I’m personally indifferent but I think it would open up their customer base a lot. They currently do updates every 6 months or so and add a couple of amps and pedals. It’s not a crazy output at the moment so it’s not like adding captures is going to insanely slow things down even more.
It doesn’t take away it only adds imo. The QC seems to be doing fine with captures and models from day one and I can kind of see this path happening for line6 and possibly fender at some point.
As far as NAM and being at the mercy of open source dev. I can see them forking NAM and doing their own thing to stay in their own lane away from constant nam development. In theory if they test things out and it works then the future dev is upto them, they’re not at the mercy of an evolving open source platform.
It doesn’t take away it only adds imo. The QC seems to be doing fine with captures and models from day one and I can kind of see this path happening for line6 and possibly fender at some point.
As far as NAM and being at the mercy of open source dev. I can see them forking NAM and doing their own thing to stay in their own lane away from constant nam development. In theory if they test things out and it works then the future dev is upto them, they’re not at the mercy of an evolving open source platform.
