IK Multimedia TONEX
- Thread starter eggpl@nt
- Start date
Chocol8
Roadie
- Messages
- 423
No, it is about more efficient modeling running on more compact and more affordable hardware with the ability to sound like whatever the customer wants.
![[Nathan]](/data/avatars/m/0/613.jpg?1726885163){kind=avatar}
[Nathan]
Roadie
- Messages
- 664
They've already got that in the bag.
Considering the scope of their dev and ecosystem, adding the ability to run a reamp, change the amp, run a reamp, rinse repeat and have a batch of files ready to train is easy enough. That way I could leave my computer running overnight (I mean they could offer cloud training as well but Im not even talking about that).
As far as capturing and levels goes there just has to be some optimum way of doing things that isn't reflected on their current calibration. If I follow their levels its going to sound bad. If I hit it with a hotter signal where it shows RED in their GUI then they usually come out a lot better. Many other capture folk experience the same as me where things are hit or miss, and many others seem to capture things fine. Surely after this time they have some observations and some tips and tricks or heck even a new training mode or two which lean towards high gain perhaps. They can do all of this within the scope of the models still running on their hardware.... but im yet to see any improvements to this side of things.
If I just wanted to run captures on a board then a tonex or tonex one pedal really is crazy good value, its just a shame the capturing side hasnt seen any updates (which ironically benefits owners of the pedals in the long run)
- Messages
- 8,022
It isn't.
It is about being able to deliver thousands and thousands of sounds to the end user, being able to talk about it in marketing assets, and drawing people in; all while you don't have to pay senior DSP developers to work on component modelling. The same way that UI tech has been moving away from raw C++ to webview's and JS front-ends; on the whole it is a cost cutting exercise. Except in many cases it hasn't worked out that way, because now JS developers are almost as expensive as C++ developers!
Another thing to consider - people who freely give their captures to a platform, are feeding into the idea that the user is the product, in the same way that when we all use Facebook or X or Reddit et. al, we are willingly making ourselves the product by adding value to the platform.
I've kinda lost the shine for capturing these days. Just don't like being limited by it.
Chocol8
Roadie
- Messages
- 423
I get that some of you don't like capture tech, but your arguments against it are nonsense. For most users it isn't about thousands of sounds, it is about a handful they use. Just like modelers could produce a near infinite number of presets, far far more than captures available, but normal users use small number. It is just two different ways to get the same flexibility so thousands of people with different tastes can all find the sounds they prefer.
Last edited:
JiveTurkey
Goatlord
- Messages
- 19,116
Only you have no way to adjust captures realistically with basic BMT, gain and presence controls like you do amp models.
Chocol8
Roadie
- Messages
- 423
I agree that batch processing is a big step they really should prioritize now that the editor is out. Better level setting and better high gain training would be good things as well. That said, the vast majority of their sales come from people who will never capture at all, and the next biggest group will only make a small number of captures, so focusing on the UI and user experience first was the correct choice IMHO.
Chocol8
Roadie
- Messages
- 423
That's not really true. You can make modest adjustments to BMT and larger adjustments to presence and gain. Larger BMT adjustments can be made with controls that actually work as advertised but not "realistically" like the interactive controls in most amp circuits, but that is offset by the ability to have captures at different settings. Other than some of the current high gain artifact issues, there isn't any amp tone a modeler can produce that a capture can't. Just different paths to get to the same result.
- Messages
- 8,022
It isn't relevant how much users actually use. What is relevant is that access to thousands of profiles/captures of amps that the user could never possibly hope to own, is a HUGE marketing win for capture technology. It is the predominant reason that people want capturing. Most people don't capture their amps using any of these platforms, because they don't own a lot of amps. Less than 10% of people even use it to this degree.
It is the same with Fractal - probably only 20 models are regularly used. But they still have a shit ton of amps because it becomes a very saleable thing.
This argument is simply not nonsense. You just don't understand it.
JiveTurkey
Goatlord
- Messages
- 19,116
So as long as I am fine waiting for someone who has the exact same ears and tastes as me capturing amps; I am good. I am not fine waiting
Chocol8
Roadie
- Messages
- 423
So as long as I am fine waiting for someone who has the exact same ears and tastes as me capturing amps; I am good. I am not fine waiting
It doesn't have to be the exact same. In only has to be ballpark.
- Messages
- 8,022
Graphs say otherwise. ner ner ne ner ner.
- Messages
- 8,022
For me it has to be exactly the same. No debate.
JiveTurkey
Goatlord
- Messages
- 19,116
You're not going to convert me to captures. I've been at this for more than a few ice cream seasons and they just don't interest me. Nor does some Tone-X turd. Or NAM. The "worst of the bunch" is really the only one I would ever use again in a gigging capacity and that's not going to happen again either.
laxu
Rock Star
- Messages
- 6,869
To me the big argument for captures is that the user can avoid having to learn literally anything about the amps modeled.
Take for example a Mesa Mark series amp. It's pretty complicated to dial in even for experience people, and way too much for someone who is still trying to figure out how to dial in a 3-knob Marshall tonestack that doesn't have much range to begin with.
But captures have the work already done for you, all you need to do is try a few of them until you hit something that you like and now you are done. It might as well be a mystery box that sounds good to you.
I know there's so many subtle flavors that captures will never cover until someone invents a truly parametric setup for them. But that's not necessarily an issue for the majority of users who have never used the real amp anyway.
It's not a way I like to work, no more than say those Bogren one-knob things (which have their place too). I want to learn the amp, I want digital versions of it to work like it too.
Chocol8
Roadie
- Messages
- 423
The argument is nonsense because modelers have exactly the same issue. As you said Fractal or Helix can give you thousands and thousands of different tones as well, and it is just as much part of modeling marketing as it is capture marketing. And yes, it IS a significant upside to digital technology so it should be part of the marketing. "Buy this one box and get any amp tones you could want vs buying dozens of amps."
There may be some option paralysis people who can't stop tweaking their models or downloading more captures, but they are a tiny fraction of actual users. Plus you get the same behavior in the amp and pedal board world where people can't stop changing pedals and tweaking physical knobs. Same self inflicted behavior, different tools. That's not a reason to dismiss capture tech. You just don't like it.
Chocol8
Roadie
- Messages
- 423
If the capture is close, it can be tweaked, so no, it doesn't have to be exactly the same unless you are too stubborn or mentally unable to use the tools provided.
- Messages
- 8,022
What argument do you think is being made exactly?? Have a go and try to steel man what I've said. See if you can figure it out.
My ears are too good. I can't accept the lies. Whether it is Fractal, Helix, or the various capture platforms. "good enough" might be good enough for you. But it isn't for me, and you don't need to imply that I'm mentally deficient in order to make yourself feel like you made the right choice.
Chocol8
Roadie
- Messages
- 423
I don't care what you use. As I said, just different ways to get to the same result. Personally I still prefer real amps where they are not too impractical, and I have been using digital for more than 2 decades where it makes sense to me.
Jkist7
Roadie
- Messages
- 139
I watched the Andy Wood stream before it was posted here. He's usually a pretty solid dude, but he was definitely on a tantrum. I am willing to bet his issue wasn't even with IK, its probably just a matter of routing within his interface software. Either way, not a good look complaining like that before looking to get any actual help.
He's always going on about how amps are physical, and you can easily fix and diagnose problems because they're physical, whereas the digital stuff is impossible to diagnose. That's mostly untrue. Even digital stuff usually has a breadcrumb trail you can follow to figure out what is going wrong and where.
He's always going on about how amps are physical, and you can easily fix and diagnose problems because they're physical, whereas the digital stuff is impossible to diagnose. That's mostly untrue. Even digital stuff usually has a breadcrumb trail you can follow to figure out what is going wrong and where.
