NAM: Neural Amp Modeler

total recall bomb GIF
 
Orvillain said:
But I wasn't getting a 500mVAC signal until I attenuated the sine in the DAW by -17dBFS.
Click to expand...
You need to send a known dBFS sine tone from your DAW and attenuate using an external volume control.
ie. you send a -9.8dbFS sine tone and use a volume control on your reamp box to adjust the signal until you read 1.00v.
 
James Freeman said:
You need to send a known dBFS sine tone from your DAW and attenuate using an external volume control.
ie. you send a -9.8dbFS sine tone and use a volume control on your reamp box to adjust the signal until you read 1.00v.
Click to expand...
No, what I mean is....

Line output 1..... unbalanced 1/4" jack plugged into it .... exposed wires on the other end..... touch multimeter probes to each wire..... I get a 500mV measurement when the output is -17dB.

I was following the 1st steps in your calibrate levels for Helix Native guide.

The next step I took was to take the same line output signal... go through my reamp box... into my Neve DI box... and then balance the output of the reampbox so that the signal was the same level going in as what was coming out.
 
Ah got it, you basically checked your input level to see by how much you need to adjust the input to reach -17dB, you got -18.9dB at the input right?
You can do it the other way around, send a -18.9dB signal from Line Out 1, and adjust the reamp box to read 0.500v, that way you don't have to boost by 2dB when playing with the capture, makes sense?
 
James Freeman said:
Ah got it, you basically checked your input level to see by how much you need to adjust the input to reach -17dB, you got -18.9dB at the input right?
You can do it the other way around, send a -18.9dB signal from Line Out 1, and adjust the reamp box to read 0.500v, that way you don't have to boost by 2dB when playing with the capture, makes sense?
Click to expand...
Yes correct. If I take the reamp-box out of it and go from line out to Neve DI in, I was getting -18.9dB. So I'm using the reamp box to make up for the extra 2dB.
 
Orvillain said:
Heheh. You could compile the Kemper, QC, ToneX, and NAM training tracks all into one long-ass thing.... wonder if it would do anything different??
Click to expand...

I've done this - it will work but it will take FOREVER to train. Well, on my end anyway. The length of the DI is directly related to the training time per epoch. The easiest way to do it is to use the original v1_1_1 and split it in the middle, adding your own stuff there (as much as you want) - that will keep the alignment blips and test data the same. I personally uses a modified version with a bunch of guitar in the middle.

Deadpan said:
I added a short guitar DI to the NAM input file. I have only tested it once though it did seem to improve the feel of the capture when using that specific playing technique.
Click to expand...
James Freeman said:
Okay, using my own DI track the result is MUCH better, no compression of fuzziness now.
The sped up bass and guitar in v1_1_1.wav is garbage.

Apparently ESR isn't everything....
Click to expand...

I definitely prefer doing this too - as mentioned above, in the middle of the file unless you want to go full manual and adjust the config files for delay and test sections. ESR isn't everything, because a single scalar can't fully describe a time-dependent measurement. Likewise, a super low ESR feather model won't sound the same as a super low ESR standard model. ESR is just a good way to quantify accuracy, but doesn't give the entire picture - the plot at the end is very useful too.
 
BenIfin said:
Anyway - back to the issue - check-out this clip posted in the last day or so - Real Amp vs Tonex vs Proteus vs NAM - can anyone realistically and credibly claim or say that Tonex sh%ts on NAM, or NAM sh%ts on Tonex, or NAM Captures the Amp "better" than Tonex or Tonex Captures the Amp "better" than NAM (?) I don't / cant. Maybe if I had the original .WAV files and could be bothered, and went back and forth quickly between clips etc. I might be able to pick some small differences between Tonex and NAM .... but what's the flying-f%ck point of that ?
Click to expand...
I am noticing the high end being sharper in the NAM captures in every one of those examples. I listened with both my monitors, a set of

AKG Pro Audio K240 and Beyerdynamic 770 Pro headphones.​


PS. How that got into bold and large, I have no clue and it won't go back. lol
 
riffy said:
I am noticing the high end being sharper in the NAM captures in every one of those examples. I listened with both my monitors, a set of

AKG Pro Audio K240 and Beyerdynamic 770 Pro headphones.​


PS. How that got into bold and large, I have no clue and it won't go back. lol
Click to expand...
There’s definitely something wrong with his NAM captures. Not sure what happened with them, but that high frequency fizz is not right.
 
I was wondering about that because, my NAM captures are not sharper and more high-endy than my source amplifier.

Honestly, for my purposes, NAM, Tonex and the Kemper, are simply almost interchangeable.

When putting all three of them into a mix, I can't tell the difference between them.
 
Tonex is a great product, so is NAM. I enjoy them both. If I want to play something like Highway star, the Loner, or ZZ top, I'm probably going to fire up NAM. If I'm in the mood for some Hendrix or SRV, Tonex works great for that. We're spoiled for choice.
 
SwirlyMaple said:
There’s definitely something wrong with his NAM captures. Not sure what happened with them, but that high frequency fizz is not right.
Click to expand...
I mean.... I've already posted two clips where everyone says it's indistinguishable, so I'm not really gonna pay much attention to his video. You can't replace actual experience with an opinion vlog.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Tried to match some more Vox tones with NAM
Replies
0
Views
136
bikescene
B
Back
Top