NAM: Neural Amp Modeler

[Sascha Franck]

so you just go around saying they are awful on every forum now, because you felt it was unreasonable of them to ignore you?

Stop spreading lies, will you?

 

[Sascha Franck]

And btw, I never said it was unreasonable of them to ignore me - but I said it was unreasonable of them to not do proper market research before release. And as well unreasonable to miss out on some things that are pretty much standard these days. All of these weren't Mr. Francks personal wishes. Nobody likes the switches and knobs crammed together so tightly on a unit you're using live. Pretty much everybody I know would prefer endless encoders (for the most obvious reasons ever). Pretty much everybody I know likes editors for their modelers. Or a simple onboard audio interface, so you can easily jam with just the unit. Etc.

This is why they're getting criticism, not my personal agenda. I even said so multiple times by now: I absolutely applaud anyone trying their luck in this tough market. And I applaud the Dimehead folks even more because apparently the unit is a most accurate NAM player, which is also the most accurate capturing format by now, it's got stunningly low latency as well and can run 2 captures and even an IR reverb in addition. So, I give them a big fat *WOW!* for all that. It's in fact checking plenty of my own boxes. And I always (!) said so.

But none of that will change anything with the fact that some hardware design decisions are just not the thing most (!) people would like to see. And some of them are simply getting in the way. And in case you ignore them, you're still paying for them.

I mean, just one example: you have a nice box with 4 switches already. More than sufficient for quite some gigs. But really uncomfortable to use due to the spacing. And I keep reading (even in this very thread) things such as "well, add a little MIDI controller!". Yeah, great. Maybe add an expression pedal, too. Then we're easily in the financial realm of some of the big fishes, especially in case you're also looking for 2nd hand devices. And it'd still be a *way* less capable setup, it's single advance being NAM support at lowest latencies. You gotta deliver more to create a winner. Or do a barebones version at a competitive price. But as is, there's just too many things that absolutely deserve criticism - and you won't just wipe them away with your "but dual NAM, but low latency, wooohooo!"s

 

[Dom Mcsweeney]

Re: shill ...
no, I am merely a happy customer.

Re: spreading lies
I'm not spreading any lies - you do seem a little on the negative side... and it's getting a bit weird.
I think it would be refreshing to see some positive conversation in a thread about NAM, and technology that supports NAM, instead of someone venting for months about some company not doing what you want.

 

[laxu]

TBH, this is exactly the problem with this stuff. One man proof of concepts isn't what is needed. A respected player in the game with the resources to properly deliver on a full end-to-end vision, they need to be doing this stuff.

I mean, NAM itself started as someone's hobby project that blew up.

Tonex or Two Notes Genome is what you get when a company goes at it.

 

[2dor]

I mean, NAM itself started as someone's hobby project that blew up.

Tonex or Two Notes Genome is what you get when a company goes at it.

Two Notes have been dropping hints they'd be coming out with some hardware that could match Genome... just hasn't happened - yet.
Maybe we'll hear something at this month's event in Europe (think it was in Germany the weekend with 27)

 

[Sascha Franck]

I'm not spreading any lies

so you just go around saying they are awful on every forum now

That's a lie, period.

instead of someone venting for months about some company not doing what you want.

That's a lie as well.

I think it would be refreshing to see some positive conversation in a thread about NAM, and technology that supports NAM

I'm doing just that. Whenever it's appropriate.

 

[Sascha Franck]

Two Notes have been dropping hints they'd be coming out with some hardware that could match Genome.

That's something I'd be genuinely interested in because, as said before, I think the NAM block in Genome is absolutely excellent (I actually wish that some modeler makers would add something like it to their amp blocks. They needed to sort out file organisation, though. But then, on a hardware unit, that'd possibly be less important as you'd just load some tried'n'trusted captures and call it a day.
Otoh, their Opus thingy, while coming at a sort of decent price tag, is nothing I'd ever want to deal with on my pedalboard. 2 encoders to operate a fullblown amp modeler - no thanks, that's as bad as it gets.

By now I'm with @Orvillain, I really think it's about time some of the big players simply adds a NAM block to their hardware (in case that's possible/w existing devices).

Tonex or Two Notes Genome is what you get when a company goes at it.

I'd rather see Line 6, Boss, FAS or whomever going at it.

Or even Dimehead coming up with a new HW revision - and yes, I am absolutely serious about this. Just that they should do some better research beforhand. Multiple NAM captures long IRs *and* super lowest latencies, wow, that's really quite something already. Now come up with decent hardware and it'd be all fine. Could be debated whether it should be an extremely feature reduced "hey, I'm just a NAM/IR player box!" or a fullblown live-capable board (or rack unit, whatever). Personally, I wish the Boss GT-1000 and the Dimehead unit would have a child.

 

[laxu]

Nobody likes the switches and knobs crammed together so tightly on a unit you're using live. Pretty much everybody I know would prefer endless encoders (for the most obvious reasons ever). Pretty much everybody I know likes editors for their modelers. Or a simple onboard audio interface, so you can easily jam with just the unit. Etc.

I agree with all of that, but at the same time having all that costs money, a lot of development time, and the device would be larger with wider button spacing and maybe with endless encoders too.

I mean, just one example: you have a nice box with 4 switches already. More than sufficient for quite some gigs. But really uncomfortable to use due to the spacing. And I keep reading (even in this very thread) things such as "well, add a little MIDI controller!". Yeah, great. Maybe add an expression pedal, too. Then we're easily in the financial realm of some of the big fishes, especially in case you're also looking for 2nd hand devices. And it'd still be a *way* less capable setup, it's single advance being NAM support at lowest latencies. You gotta deliver more to create a winner. Or do a barebones version at a competitive price. But as is, there's just too many things that absolutely deserve criticism - and you won't just wipe them away with your "but dual NAM, but low latency, wooohooo!"s

To me it was a small company reacting to market demand for a NAM player. Being the first to market matters for that matters (see Tonex), and I don't think the way they did it is necessarily bad, just far from ideal. The small display is not great for seeing your settings, so maybe that's why they went with regular pots?

The price might also be the best they can reasonably do, which unfortunately puts them at a price bracket where they are close to Kemper Player, HX Stomp, Hotone Ampero II or Boss GT-1000 Core.

I think it's just very tough to enter this market when the established players have put the bar so high for the baseline. Orange Amps recently said in a Guitar.com interview that "We’re not going to dabble in digital. Everyone else can do it better – we can’t beat them."

 

[Dom Mcsweeney]

Let's not forget, you could also spend the same money as a Dimehead nam player (500+tax) on approximately 3 or 4 boss pedals, and some random bits and bobs, which would have way way way less functionality and you'd still need an amp/or whatever.
I really don't think price is something to complain about here. If it doesn't have certain features that a flagship floor modeler has, then so be it. That was never the point of it as far as I'm aware.

It now has a tuner, 2 nam slots, 3 effects (trem,delay,rev), an fx loop, an expression/midi input, and a cab IR loader, with outputs for di / line / headphone.... and probably things I can't even remember.

It's got some seriously awesome features, and does way more than what Tonex can do.

Maybe it won't fold up your washing and make you coffee for breakfast, but for what it can do, I think it really is actually a fair price.

 

[Sascha Franck]

I agree with all of that, but at the same time having all that costs money, a lot of development time, and the device would be larger with wider button spacing and maybe with endless encoders too.

Yeah, it costs money. But then, other devices have all that already.

I mean, for any such a thing to become a broader success, you need a compelling reason for people to buy it in favour of, say, an HX Stomp (which is just 50 bucks more new and which you can grab for 100 bucks less used). For now, there's these:

- NAM support. Even dual NAM support. Absolutely great but also coming with the burden of option paralysis and, possibly even more so, the fact that the captures' input level demands are all over the place.
- IR support. Yeah, fantastic too - and something I'm into quite a bit myself. But if I was using it live, I also wanted stereo support as an option. For all "standard" reverb needs, I don't need IRs. And I'm quite sure this is true for plenty of other folks, too - add to this the additional rabbit hole.
- Super low latency. Just great. Yet, very little people seem to actually care about it too much (given the amount of folks I read about, nesting, say, their Tonex'es and other devices in the loops of, say, their Stomps).

And that was it already. Regarding each and every other aspect, the Stomp would kick the Dimehead's butt left and right big time. Just to name these:

- Great amp modeling with plenty of models, all of them being useable, no real duds.
- Dito for the cabs.
- Great roundup of FX.
- Endless encoders. As you may know, I'm not happy with the parameter order, would as well love some more knobs, but all that yaddayadda aside, you can still edit the Stomp fairly well on the unit, especially once you've done your homework as in doing the basic layout at home. Which leads to the next point:
- There's an editor. Which one may or may not want/need, but personally, I think it's a must, even more so in case you want to keep your unit(s) on the floor.
- Audio interface. Get a Stomp and start recording professional guitar takes without any additional money spent. Nice.
- Very flexible signal routing.
- Incredibly flexible switching.

The main customer base I can see going for the Dimehead would be folks that are basically sorted already and now possibly wanted their own rigs in a pedalboard or gigbag friendly format. Then throw in some nerds buying anything new anyway.
For recording, you absolutely don't need it, there's plugins and low latency interfaces. As a standalone unit for smaller gigs, IMO there's better alternatives, see Stomp comparison above.

The small display is not great for seeing your settings, so maybe that's why they went with regular pots?

Maybe. But then, a display offering enough contrast (which is more important than the size) shouldn't cost an arm and a leg. Even the super old GT-10 has a sufficient display already (these kinda displays should cost pennies). Plus 4 endless encoders below. Almost a perfect role model for devices of this kind.

The price might also be the best they can reasonably do, which unfortunately puts them at a price bracket where they are close to Kemper Player, HX Stomp, Hotone Ampero II or Boss GT-1000 Core.

Absolutely this! Hence my comparison with the Stomp. You can market NAM loading and low latency all you want, in the end, that's niche/nerd stuff. People will have a look where to get the most worth out of their money.
And well, yeah, maybe the price is the best they could come up with, given that they're sitting in Germany. But then, how about 3 instead of 4 switches and 2 stereo full/mini TRS expression inputs? That way you could actually operate the switches with larger feet as well and add switches at will. Exactly what people (myself included) are doing with their Stomps, GTs and what have you. I also don't think that endless encoders would add too much to the overall cost. An HX Stomp encoder (press-switch option included) is €1.60 for a mere end user. Peanuts.

In the end, while I still applaud the efforts of those guys (and I really do), I will as well still say that they could've done their homework better. Maybe even a lot better. To me, in all honesty, the Dimehead pedal looks like a preliminary testing device rather than like a product that has been put through a lot of tests in actual guitar playing related environments.

 

[Sascha Franck]

Let's not forget, you could also spend the same money as a Dimehead nam player (500+tax) on approximately 3 or 4 boss pedals, and some random bits and bobs, which would have way way way less functionality and you'd still need an amp/or whatever.

That's completely irrelevant. And I'm sure you can find out why.

 

[laxu]

Absolutely this! Hence my comparison with the Stomp. You can market NAM loading and low latency all you want, in the end, that's niche/nerd stuff. People will have a look where to get the most worth out of their money.
And well, yeah, maybe the price is the best they could come up with, given that they're sitting in Germany. But then, how about 3 instead of 4 switches and 2 stereo full/mini TRS expression inputs?

While 3 switches would have been better spacing, I can see wanting more for more instant switching. 3 always feels like it's just not enough and a 4th one would add a lot of utility.

I also don't think that endless encoders would add too much to the overall cost. An HX Stomp encoder (press-switch option included) is €1.60 for a mere end user. Peanuts.

Don't forget that there's a development cost involved. Endless encoders are more complicated to work with, you will want to have some acceleration curves involved to make them feel intuitive (something many bigger player devices still get wrong). I do think they would have been a better choice.

Maybe I am not seeing something but it's weird so many new products still go for pots over endless encoders, even when they have a display. BluGuitar Amp X looks to do it even though it makes its effect adjustment more complicated. Strymon Bluesky MX uses pots even though they could have opted for a larger display capable of showing the saved and current values.

It's frankly amazing that companies aren't copying the Hydrasynth Explorer for a cheap solution. That little display surrounded by four knobs works extremely well and can't cost much. Also note the page up/down location, really close to the knobs and display so you don't have to move your hand from the knobs.

 

[Sascha Franck]

While 3 switches would have been better spacing, I can see wanting more for more instant switching. 3 always feels like it's just not enough and a 4th one would add a lot of utility.

Oh absolutely! But then make the unit wide enough to operate the inner two switches without hassles.

Maybe I am not seeing something but it's weird so many new products still go for pots over endless encoders, even when they have a display.

Completely weird IMO. Maybe they want to attract oldfashioned users. But then, from all I know, most people, even oldfashioned boomers like me included, just hate parameter jumps, no visual control and what not. For instance, the endless encoders and LED rings have been what made the VAmp stand out over the POD *big* time regarding ease of editing. And we're talking about units which were largely going for a parameter/encoder = 1/1 approach (so at least for all basic things, there's been one dedicated encoder for one certain parameter). Once tons of parameters come into play, it's getting subsequently more absurd having standard pots as their values pretty much never represent the digital value anymore. Now, for the Dimehead pedal, it's less of an issue as the parameter amount is pretty limited. But otoh, all the other parameters share one single encoder, which is pretty absurd IMO.

Don't forget that there's a development cost involved. Endless encoders are more complicated to work with, you will want to have some acceleration curves involved to make them feel intuitive (something many bigger player devices still get wrong). I do think they would have been a better choice.

I'm pretty sure you could find an existing pre-made framework to make things work properly. Also, for the kind of stuff the Dimehead pedal is doing, I don't think they needed acceleration curves. At least I never missed those on the VAmp. Usually, acceleration is needed when the parameter is covering a very broad range while smaller increments could still make sense, such as on delay time knobs. But then, as long as you're not dealing with tons of these kinda parameters (which the Dimehead isn't), you could possibly as well get away with a range switch (such as the Boss DD pedals).
And as far as other companies not getting acceleration right, I actually think that very often its sheer lazyness or stubbornness. Or a decent mixture of the two.
Your Hydrasynth example perfectly proves it's possible to do these things within a very tight budget.

 

[PippPriss]

I always was a quiet reader of some posts here on TGF, but thought I might join in the discussions and fun, so I am pretty new. And yes, I have entered the ring to defend the NAM Player somewhat, and Sascha will know what I say when I use the German term "eine Lanze brechen für Dimehead", because I really like this product, and think it falls under too much scrutiny for too less of downsides it has.

I do fit perfectly into the group of people which Sascha has pointed out as:

"The main customer base I can see going for the Dimehead would be folks that are basically sorted already and now possibly wanted their own rigs in a pedalboard or gigbag friendly format. Then throw in some nerds buying anything new anyway."

And yes, since I have pretty close ties to Dirk in the sense that I have gave a lot of feedback on functions and made a few videos on the NAM Player - so call me a shill, even though I am certainly not paid in any fashion - I am basically a happy customer.

When ToneX came out, it was a dream come true for me, because I always wondered why the heck nobody made a plugin capable of capturing amplifiers - if a hardware decive from 2012 could do it, certainly a PC and proper reamping setup in the 2020's could do it. I think it was late 2022, when ToneX was finally released (could be off by a year, sorry if so), and I was immediately hooked. Short after, I found out about NAM, and I was truly blown away by the accuracy for what I do - boosted high gain metal amps. And many felt the same way. I didn't care about being free, I already had ToneX MAX bought - it just was the better solution, just looking at the results, and leaving out the painstakingly complicated process to get things running (compared to the competition).

Some have pointed out that ToneX captures always have a bit weird top-end roll off, exaggerated boomy bass and slightly undergained - at least for very high gain captures like I use them. But adding treble and gain a tad undid some of the inaccuracies, enough to live with them. And ToneX was also short after releasing the pedal, which was a great to bring that setup to the stage.

However, once Dimehead release the NAM Player, I was, the nerd buying new toys I am, gushing all over it - and in my opinion rightfully so. I have read through some of your latest replies here Sascha: There might be the complaint that the switches are way too close, and I do agree with that complaint - for me, it's not relevant, because I use a small MIDI-Toggle to simply switch between two sounds, as I don't need more. I guess most people will plant the NAM Player into a pedalboard setup, and if you combine it with a Stomp, then you will anyways use the Stomp perhaps as a MIDI controller, if the footswitch placing suits your needs better.

You also have spoken about "market research not having been done with due diligence", and I totally disagree on that. Because the market gap the NAM player was supposed to fill was "be the first to deliver hardware solutioni to NAM technology", and on that, they have delivered. They also added some nice cool features which further enhance the product, like IR support, the low latency.

Where does it crush it's competition? Especially in the flexibility of routing - allowing for one IR loaded output and one Output being routed where you seem fit is absolutely great, and something which I and other people have asked from ToneX since day one. Also, the possibility to load two NAM files, like on drive and one amp capture, is something which people have scratched their head about why ToneX can't do that since day one, and still can't do.
Also, NAM Player now has a delay, which can be abused to be a generic Chorus, a Reverb (60s) and Tremolo. It has a quite accurate Tuner, a noise-gate that finally does not cut your signal off like a bored sugar-daddy cuts off the money supply but instead more reacts like a noise-surpressor a la NS-2, ISP G-String II (I gave heavily feedback on that particular function, since I hated the initial implementation of it).

I read an ad a few months ago where Strymon was being CELEBRATED for FINALLY bringing a 15 second convolution reverb. I have to truly scratch my head over the fact why people were gushing over it, since we are talking about a 700€ reverb, while a ~600$ unit (taxes included) can do 60 seconds, and much more. (I am not belittling the Strymon Big Sky, it's a great reverb masterpiece, but the point I will make will explain my confusion).

All in all, yes, the Dimehead NAM Player will be limited to people wanting to bring NAM on stage in small form factors, but, all marketing mumbo-jumbo aside, did it ever strive to be anything different? In my opinion, no. And it does most of the things better than the competition, while being absolutely reasonably priced in that sense.
Also, in regard to "taking feedback" - I have started out my relationship with Dimehead/Dirk being a somewhat pedantic customer, just giving feedback (all started with me complaining about the Noise-Gate). My feedback has been gladly taken and implemented, until we have perfected that feature - within three small sub-revisions and within 24 hours.

Same happened after that with several other features, where we have discussed things, and all of my wishes (tuner specifically) have been granted and taken into consideration, to work out the best that particular feature we were addressing could be.

I really like the design of the menu (but I lived in the generation where I played Gameboy, so maybe there is an element of familiarity to that ;-) ) - by far superior to the 7-bit segment display of the ToneX pedal.

Also; I have gigged with both, and my ToneX pedal died at some point during rehearsal - no output signal on any output - seems it's a known problem, and it took me 6 weeks, 5 mails to Music Store in Cologne and actually 4 mails from their side to IKM and a threat of breaching consumer protection rights (due to long repair wait times) to get my old one repaired. IKM did not bother with anything in regard of compensation, sending a loaner replacement or what the heck else. On the other hand, I report a small bug to Dirk, and the next day, or sometimes even hour, I get a new firmware revision to test, so that it can be potentially placed into an small firmware update. And I am sure, that this quickness would also be reflected in handling RMA requests.
The major firmware update has been released within months after releasing the NAM Player. ToneX Pedal users are still, to this day, waiting to be able to drive a signal with IR and without IR in parallel from the pedal, 1,5 years after release.

So, what is here to complain about? What is the actual constructive criticism which people point out "break" the pedal being a good product?

In my personal viewpoint, the criticism which I have read on the last pages on this thread is pretty much unjustified and wildly exaggerated (Things got heated however, there might be some more constructive assessment of tghese points, which I'd have to search the forum for). Of course, to the people criticizing the pedal, their own points may be important, and that is okay to express themselves. But since this seems an open forum, where thoughts are challenged, I thought I'd throw my hat in the ring and add my viewpoint - I think this pedal is possibly one of the greatest pieces of hardware I had so far.

It might become obsolete, as soon as one of the big players add a hardware device to their portfolio capable of running NAM. But at the current time, NAM Player is the only device so far on the market able to provide a hardware to play standard architecture NAM profiles, and that should encourage people to use this product, and not empower them to scrutinize a small company trying to do their best.

That was a long first post! However, I am happy to join TGF and see what happens. :-)

 

[Sascha Franck]

There might be the complaint that the switches are way too close, and I do agree with that complaint - for me, it's not relevant, because I use a small MIDI-Toggle to simply switch between two sounds, as I don't need more. I guess most people will plant the NAM Player into a pedalboard setup, and if you combine it with a Stomp, then you will anyways use the Stomp perhaps as a MIDI controller, if the footswitch placing suits your needs better.

See, that's absurd right there already. You're just the next person to say that one would use something else to switch the Dimehead pedal anyway. So: Why not place the switches better in the first place, when even avid users are saying their placement is not great (to put it carefully)? A little bit of research before actually producing the units would've adressed that in advance.

I read an ad a few months ago where Strymon was being CELEBRATED for FINALLY bringing a 15 second convolution reverb. I have to truly scratch my head over the fact why people were gushing over it, since we are talking about a 700€ reverb, while a ~600$ unit (taxes included) can do 60 seconds, and much more. (I am not belittling the Strymon Big Sky, it's a great reverb masterpiece, but the point I will make will explain my confusion).

Sorry, but that's not even apples and oranges anymore.

All in all, yes, the Dimehead NAM Player will be limited to people wanting to bring NAM on stage in small form factors, but, all marketing mumbo-jumbo aside, did it ever strive to be anything different?

Almost completely irrelevant - because it could be suitable for plenty of more folks with very little work.
But hey, in case the developers are happy with everything, fine, more power to them.

Also, in regard to "taking feedback" - I have started out my relationship with Dimehead/Dirk being a somewhat pedantic customer, just giving feedback (all started with me complaining about the Noise-Gate). My feedback has been gladly taken and implemented, until we have perfected that feature - within three small sub-revisions and within 24 hours.

That's all fine and dandy, but the hardware won't profit from it until there's a next generation.

In my personal viewpoint, the criticism which I have read on the last pages on this thread is pretty much unjustified and wildly exaggerated

There's absolutely nothing exaggerated, let alone "wildly". Pointing out that, say, encoders are a better choice for a digital, programmable unit might perhaps be "just an opinion" (IMO it's a rather factually based thing, but hey...), but it's far, far away from exaggeration.

And fwiw, I find it pretty amusing. You folks apparently need to try to justify the Dimehead pedal pretty much at all costs, as it seems. Apparently, the thing doesn't have enough value on it's own, so you even need to compare it to the partial s***show named ToneX and tell us how it's oh so much better than that.

But since this seems an open forum, where thoughts are challenged, I thought I'd throw my hat in the ring and add my viewpoint - I think this pedal is possibly one of the greatest pieces of hardware I had so far.

No problem with that. Each to their own.

But ffs, if you folks come along, trying to defend things where there's nothing to defend (such as the switches being too close to each other or such as using pots instead of encoders), you're making yourself look like company shills.

Of course, to the people criticizing the pedal, their own points may be important, and that is okay to express themselves.

Thing is, it's not even exactly "my own points". It's even your points:

There might be the complaint that the switches are way too close, and I do agree with that complaint

See?

But at the current time, NAM Player is the only device so far on the market able to provide a hardware to play standard architecture NAM profiles, and that should encourage people to use this product

That statement is making absolutely no sense at all. Why should I feel encouraged to use a product when I don't think I'd get along with the several design flaws? Just because it's able to load NAM profiles?

That was a long first post! However, I am happy to join TGF and see what happens. :-)

Yeah, welcome!

 

[BenIfin]

I always was a quiet reader of some posts here on TGF, but thought I might join in the discussions and fun, so I am pretty new. And yes, I have entered the ring to defend the NAM Player somewhat, and Sascha will know what I say when I use the German term "eine Lanze brechen für Dimehead", because I really like this product, and think it falls under too much scrutiny for too less of downsides it has.

I do fit perfectly into the group of people which Sascha has pointed out as:

"The main customer base I can see going for the Dimehead would be folks that are basically sorted already and now possibly wanted their own rigs in a pedalboard or gigbag friendly format. Then throw in some nerds buying anything new anyway."

And yes, since I have pretty close ties to Dirk in the sense that I have gave a lot of feedback on functions and made a few videos on the NAM Player - so call me a shill, even though I am certainly not paid in any fashion - I am basically a happy customer.

When ToneX came out, it was a dream come true for me, because I always wondered why the heck nobody made a plugin capable of capturing amplifiers - if a hardware decive from 2012 could do it, certainly a PC and proper reamping setup in the 2020's could do it. I think it was late 2022, when ToneX was finally released (could be off by a year, sorry if so), and I was immediately hooked. Short after, I found out about NAM, and I was truly blown away by the accuracy for what I do - boosted high gain metal amps. And many felt the same way. I didn't care about being free, I already had ToneX MAX bought - it just was the better solution, just looking at the results, and leaving out the painstakingly complicated process to get things running (compared to the competition).

Some have pointed out that ToneX captures always have a bit weird top-end roll off, exaggerated boomy bass and slightly undergained - at least for very high gain captures like I use them. But adding treble and gain a tad undid some of the inaccuracies, enough to live with them. And ToneX was also short after releasing the pedal, which was a great to bring that setup to the stage.

However, once Dimehead release the NAM Player, I was, the nerd buying new toys I am, gushing all over it - and in my opinion rightfully so. I have read through some of your latest replies here Sascha: There might be the complaint that the switches are way too close, and I do agree with that complaint - for me, it's not relevant, because I use a small MIDI-Toggle to simply switch between two sounds, as I don't need more. I guess most people will plant the NAM Player into a pedalboard setup, and if you combine it with a Stomp, then you will anyways use the Stomp perhaps as a MIDI controller, if the footswitch placing suits your needs better.

You also have spoken about "market research not having been done with due diligence", and I totally disagree on that. Because the market gap the NAM player was supposed to fill was "be the first to deliver hardware solutioni to NAM technology", and on that, they have delivered. They also added some nice cool features which further enhance the product, like IR support, the low latency.

Where does it crush it's competition? Especially in the flexibility of routing - allowing for one IR loaded output and one Output being routed where you seem fit is absolutely great, and something which I and other people have asked from ToneX since day one. Also, the possibility to load two NAM files, like on drive and one amp capture, is something which people have scratched their head about why ToneX can't do that since day one, and still can't do.
Also, NAM Player now has a delay, which can be abused to be a generic Chorus, a Reverb (60s) and Tremolo. It has a quite accurate Tuner, a noise-gate that finally does not cut your signal off like a bored sugar-daddy cuts off the money supply but instead more reacts like a noise-surpressor a la NS-2, ISP G-String II (I gave heavily feedback on that particular function, since I hated the initial implementation of it).

I read an ad a few months ago where Strymon was being CELEBRATED for FINALLY bringing a 15 second convolution reverb. I have to truly scratch my head over the fact why people were gushing over it, since we are talking about a 700€ reverb, while a ~600$ unit (taxes included) can do 60 seconds, and much more. (I am not belittling the Strymon Big Sky, it's a great reverb masterpiece, but the point I will make will explain my confusion).

All in all, yes, the Dimehead NAM Player will be limited to people wanting to bring NAM on stage in small form factors, but, all marketing mumbo-jumbo aside, did it ever strive to be anything different? In my opinion, no. And it does most of the things better than the competition, while being absolutely reasonably priced in that sense.
Also, in regard to "taking feedback" - I have started out my relationship with Dimehead/Dirk being a somewhat pedantic customer, just giving feedback (all started with me complaining about the Noise-Gate). My feedback has been gladly taken and implemented, until we have perfected that feature - within three small sub-revisions and within 24 hours.

Same happened after that with several other features, where we have discussed things, and all of my wishes (tuner specifically) have been granted and taken into consideration, to work out the best that particular feature we were addressing could be.

I really like the design of the menu (but I lived in the generation where I played Gameboy, so maybe there is an element of familiarity to that ;-) ) - by far superior to the 7-bit segment display of the ToneX pedal.

Also; I have gigged with both, and my ToneX pedal died at some point during rehearsal - no output signal on any output - seems it's a known problem, and it took me 6 weeks, 5 mails to Music Store in Cologne and actually 4 mails from their side to IKM and a threat of breaching consumer protection rights (due to long repair wait times) to get my old one repaired. IKM did not bother with anything in regard of compensation, sending a loaner replacement or what the heck else. On the other hand, I report a small bug to Dirk, and the next day, or sometimes even hour, I get a new firmware revision to test, so that it can be potentially placed into an small firmware update. And I am sure, that this quickness would also be reflected in handling RMA requests.
The major firmware update has been released within months after releasing the NAM Player. ToneX Pedal users are still, to this day, waiting to be able to drive a signal with IR and without IR in parallel from the pedal, 1,5 years after release.

So, what is here to complain about? What is the actual constructive criticism which people point out "break" the pedal being a good product?

In my personal viewpoint, the criticism which I have read on the last pages on this thread is pretty much unjustified and wildly exaggerated (Things got heated however, there might be some more constructive assessment of tghese points, which I'd have to search the forum for). Of course, to the people criticizing the pedal, their own points may be important, and that is okay to express themselves. But since this seems an open forum, where thoughts are challenged, I thought I'd throw my hat in the ring and add my viewpoint - I think this pedal is possibly one of the greatest pieces of hardware I had so far.

It might become obsolete, as soon as one of the big players add a hardware device to their portfolio capable of running NAM. But at the current time, NAM Player is the only device so far on the market able to provide a hardware to play standard architecture NAM profiles, and that should encourage people to use this product, and not empower them to scrutinize a small company trying to do their best.

That was a long first post! However, I am happy to join TGF and see what happens. :-)

So ... in short ... you're saying you don't like the Dimehead pedal .....

 

[northern_fox]

Worth pointing out the following: Dimehead is actually like 2 people, and the hardware is actually top quality whether or not it has the features you want - you'd have to see it IRL to appreciate that I guess. Everything from the ground up too, with a TON of processing power. Competing with companies like l6,fas,ndsp on a feature level as well is simply a huge ask, given the size of the company. Consider the dev, QA and production time that would require - additional folks would need to be hired and the scale of the project (and cost) would probably increase considerably.

 

[Sascha Franck]

Worth pointing out the following: Dimehead is actually like 2 people, and the hardware is actually top quality whether or not it has the features you want - you'd have to see it IRL to appreciate that I guess.

Neither does help with the hardware being chosen wrong. IOW: The pots can be military grade all day long, as long as they're pots, they're not as useful as encoders.
And fwiw, the product should be able to speak for itself. There should be no need for any "but ToneX is even worse" whataboutism.
Also, as said numerous times before: All that is no excuse for not asking enough experienced people before starting a production run. That would've made it a better product without adding much (if anything) to the production costs.

"Hey, Mr. Live Player, what do you think about these footswitches, care to come over and give them a stepdance testride?"
"Uh, the spacing is pretty tight for my (german) size 46 feet!"
"No problem, we'll add some centimeters of space!"

As easy as that.

 

[Dom Mcsweeney]

Fortunately, it's very easy to solve the problem by plugging in a midi controller that suits your application best.. then problem is solved.

 

[Sascha Franck]

Fortunately, it's very easy to solve the problem by plugging in a midi controller that suits your application best.. then problem is solved.

You don't see or accept just how absurd these statements are, do you?