NAM: Neural Amp Modeler

MirrorProfiles said:
Ha I may as well reveal now (I think only you and @Deadpan guessed). I'm not sure I even like the tone now, I'm pretty sure I just used the first IR that came up in my default Libra patch (which is a greenback mic'd dead centre - something I'd never use on a rectifier).

B was NAM, C real amp. A Helix, D STL. What surprised me most was I dialled this in in the room, recorded the line out from the amp while the cab was connected. Didn't even adjust the tone to how it sounded recorded. But the sound I dialled in the room was basically the sound I have saved as my default in Helix give or take. Kind of nuts how our ears just push us in a similar direction regardless of the gear being used.

PM me @northern_fox if you'd like the NAM files (I know you have your own Recto and probably tons of models made already)
Click to expand...

DM'd!

Also I really like super bright tones, so those really did it for me. And yeah - 100% - I always find myself trying to dialing the same sound on everything. Those were all *really* close for being not all captures though, I'm surprised
 
I got the Evo - comparatively, it's substantially bigger than the jogg. But it does seem to have more DSP in gig performer, which is a little confusing (as opposed to CPU, but it's still labeled CPU?) I'm not really clear on what that means, but it's about 50% lower on the evo, even though the actual "cpu" use is the same in reaper. Referring to this:

1685172177062.png


I don't discern any difference in quality audibly, but there does seem to be some difference in the waveforms - mainly that the jogg seems to drift phase during playback. Now that I realized I was being an idiot with the noise reference, neither is what I'd call noisy. The Evo can do other sample rates, but it isn't really relevant for NAM anyways.

A big plus for the Evo is the TRS outputs - which even in TS mode are louder than the TS out on the jogg, and I'd be able to use both T + R for an extra power amp boost if I really need to, while still having a free output for FOH. Downside of course is that that there isn't an XLR output - but that's not a dealbreaker since I can just carry an adapter.

Its roughly a bit bigger than a regular can of soda. Dunno, a bit of a toss up from a realistic/UX standpoint. Both fit with the laptop just fine, but I'll probably use the evo just because it seems to be spec'd a little nicer and because of the volume boost.

PXL_20230527_071324409.jpg
PXL_20230527_071331699.jpg
 
@northern_fox
With your Clarett that has 15dBu for Instrument Inputs, what are the Peak and RMS readings in DAW with gain at minimum and guitar connected and volume at zero?

Oli's Jogg report with -120dB RMS seems to be too good to be true.

EDIT:
Oops, I see you already shared that.

EDIT2:
Or was it through the reamp?
"I've been testing everything via reamp - so out of my main PC, through reamp, into the other interface."
It would be great if you can remeasure without the reamp chain.
 
Last edited:
James Freeman said:
@northern_fox
With your Clarett that has 15dBu for Instrument Inputs, what are the Peak and RMS readings in DAW with gain at minimum and guitar connected and volume at zero?

Oli's Jogg report with -120dB RMS seems to be too good to be true.

EDIT:
Oops, I see you already shared that.

EDIT2:
Or was it through the reamp?
"I've been testing everything via reamp - so out of my main PC, through reamp, into the other interface."
It would be great if you can remeasure with out the reamp chain.
Click to expand...

Yes, you should ignore those #'s - that was a relative comparison only. And they are higher than they should be because of some added interference from reamping I think. I will try to do some a better measurement this tomorrow now that I know a little more about how to go about it thanks to Oli. I did also find this randomly: https://www.wiregrind.com/doffset/

The published specs on the jogg seem fairly sparse also, so some things are hard to really compare
 
Helix Floor via SPDIF (calibrated as 12dBu input):
Helix Floor SPDIF.png


-127dB RMS unweighted.
Playing the capture of my amp in NAM is quieter than the actual amp, it's a very quiet amp already with DC heaters.
 
The DC offset is weird.
You'd think that any modern audio interface would have some DC coupling at every input and output.
 
Just pondering two workflow approaches and their trade offs. I was thinking today that there are very valid advantages of using NAM over an amp+load box. Load boxes are an EXCELLENT compromise for a lot of situations, but ultimately they are a compromise. Using NAM also has its own pro's and con's and its just kind of weighing up what matters more.

I think given how sensitive some amps are to load boxes, in some cases I'd actually rather model an amp with a cab connected, blast my ears for a few minutes and then use a model over using an amp and inferior load box. Sometimes its worth just using a load box and adjusting the amp a bit differently to account for those differences, but it irks me that its never going to be quite the same (nor would 2 cabs give the same load). Probably missed a bunch of other points but fuck it.


Amp+Load box (or amp DI and cab).

PROS

Ability to easily adjust any settings, freedom to dial in tone.
Ability to choose from whatever load response is available to you (what ever load boxes and cabs are available to you)
Familiarity in gear - its the gear you are used to/like the sound of
Less/No digital artifacts
Tactile experience, THE REAL DEAL etc

CONS

Cost/Space/Power/Maintenance/etc
Can't adjust the tone after the fact (I guess this is sometimes a positive when it forces you to make decisions)
Limited by the loads available to you and whether they are the best fit for your needs. A model made with a load box may not be a suitable compromise.
Noise in the room, if using a cab
Ground loops/weirdness from using lots of gear with transformers, magnetic fields, high voltages etc.
Requires more I/O, more complex routing at times
Hopping between different tones (from the same amp or other amps) is a bit more cumbersome

Capturing tech

PROS

Convincing/indistinguishable tone
You can use accurate captures made of EXACTLY the gear and set up you want to use, with no compromise
Ability to store and recall these sounds later
Practical volume levels when in use
Low cost of entry (although if you are already using amps and load boxes you may already have everything you need to work with NAM)
Lower overall space/electricity use/additional gear/reliability/cost concerns

CONS

Reamp+Training times mean you have to dial your tones in well in advance of being able to use them.
If you aren't making your own models, you have to hope you can find EXACTLY what you are looking for, both in gear and settings (and the quality of the capture).
The process of finding the right sound isn't really intuitive, its just a list of files and you have to go off memory of how they sound, or pot luck.
A lot more optons (can be a pro, but ultimately you are opening up infinite possibilities - far beyond what anyone would need).
You're at the mercy of software being supported, updated, working correctly, not changing in behaviour over time
The best results are when you own the real gear already and make your own captures, bespoke for each requirement.
Regarding accuracy, you are tied to the original capture - you lose the ability to adjust EQ/poweramp/switches/channels etc while preserving the accurate behaviour of the amp.
 
I would take fun, hobby, visceral experience and inspiration of real amps over captures.
Even the process taming a super loud tube amp, taking care of it, and years of experience and effort of making tube amps and cabs sound like the records I love is something I would personally call fun.

Yes, getting the end result has never been easier, but walking the road was a huge part for me.
Maybe that's something that the new generation of younger guitarists do not want nor care to experience.
 
I think NAM dropped like a ton of bricks on the guitar modeler industry, companies were expecting that to happen but not that soon or quick.
IK with ToneX were really clever to jump on this bandwagon that early.

Also, the randomness of captures is a real issue, it is foolish to ignore that, ToneHunt and ToneX capture databases are the perfect example.
Start by fixing the biggest issue, GAIN, by providing the proper information of how to create gain accurate captures.
Until then, captures are just a fun little experiment.
 
I think there’s also a fine line between gatekeeping and the barrier of entry being essentially zero. There is absolutely zero quality control on any of the gear or methods used. It can be really hard to know what you’re getting, unless you do it yourself.

I suspect many will disagree here, but I think making your own is where profiling really works best, I think the ability to share and try other people’s stuff out is more of a bonus than an ideal way of working. You dial in the tone you want for your guitar, your playing style, your song etc. You can validate the results and trust it’s correct. There are so many small variables out of your control that may or may not be what you want.
 
I would say "strongly recommended" guidelines instead of gatekeeping.

A good DVM costs nothing compared to the gear you already own and want to capture.
A lot of time and effort go down the drain if it sounds unpredictable/bad on other systems.
 
oh for sure. But I mean the people who are using gear in weird ways or capturing stuff in a sort of botched together way. There’s no gatekeeping at all - everyone is free to make whatever they like, so that means there’s a lot more to sift through and make sense of.
 
MirrorProfiles said:
oh for sure. But I mean the people who are using gear in weird ways or capturing stuff in a sort of botched together way. There’s no gatekeeping at all - everyone is free to make whatever they like, so that means there’s a lot more to sift through and make sense of.
Click to expand...
That’s what happens when stuff are free, or without monetary price cause nothing is free, the sifting costs your time.
But really if these last few posts are indicative of our problems I think we’re ok.
 
Oli Larkin is on fire on github. Looks like the next version is going to have a feature that will make multi capture packs much more convenient to use.

github.com

Add NAMFileBrowserControl to group Model/IR loading controls by olilarkin · Pull Request #242 · sdatkinson/NeuralAmpModelerPlugin

This PR adds a new control NAMFileBrowserControl, which is used for the Model and IR loading. It Groups all controls into a meta control Implements browsing through adjacent files in the same dire...
github.com github.com

Now if only people start making captures for 12dBu, Gain 1-10, and not crank the Master volume, that will be just great.
 
Last edited:
I'm not really intending on making anymore tbh. ToneX too. Just can't be arsed. It takes too long, I get nothing from it, and it just distracts from making music.
 
Orvillain said:
I'm not really intending on making anymore tbh. ToneX too. Just can't be arsed. It takes too long, I get nothing from it, and it just distracts from making music.
Click to expand...
totally get this though. There’s no way I’d make bigger packs of gear without some kind of payment, it’s too much work and not a fun or good use of my spare time. Thankfully there is plenty of good free stuff out there. No idea how they’re doing hundreds of models and giving it away for free but fair play.
 
I see capturing as a useful personal tool, I use it for what it is, a tool to photograph my real rig so I can use it later digitally on any computer.
If your main focus is on how to monetizing it, especially open source with zero infrastructure, you ought to be disappointed.
I don't seek to get anything from it, my effort is rewarded by playing my amp without the extra heat, noise, and electricity bill. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top