NAM support announced by Fractal Audio

[nicolasrivera]

My point on saying that fractal decision of including NAM support is risky is because they aren't going to develop a propietary tech. I suspect that will let them on par with all the rest of brands (cheapest included). I'm taking about business risk. When you lead the market, as fractal does in the modelling world, and you quit in the race of being the best in a very important feature, you'll probably be in a weak position.

I think Line6 is taking the opposite path.

And, for me, the debate is not whether it's needed to evolve NAM/capturing or not. Yeah, as it is, plus top notch simulations, you cover pretty much everything you'll need. BUT that doesn't matter. What matters is that everything gets better. Everything evolves. And when better options are available, nobody will choose a dated option just because it's enough. Look at us... We can perfectly live with 10 years old modelling, and not a single one of us would choose a dated modeller.

So, as I said, NAM and capturing must, and will, evolve. Because We always want more.

Only time will tell if normalized free tech will succeed or if a brand will develop a propietary tech that's better and, because of that, ends up being our favourite.

The new units will have enough power for any evolution that occurs. Remember this: what Fractal is coming out with will make many current products look like Game Boys

 

[Orvillain]

many current products look like Game Boys

Yeah.. who would want to play and have fun with their modellers?!?!

 

[[Nathan]]

The whole “if everyone has NAM then it’s a race to the bottom” idea is flawed imo. If 10 new pedals came out with the same features then sure it’s a price race to the bottom. But a unit like stadium or fractal going from “no profiling tech” to having profiling tech is a big step.

There’s plenty of people running tonex ones alongside fractal units, wouldn’t need it. Some people like Kemper, don’t need it now.

It’s not like having NAM support is suddenly going to upheave everything about the axefx, it just adds to it. I can’t imagine how this is a bad thing or some beginning of the end sentiment.

 

[[Nathan]]

The new units will have enough power for any evolution that occurs. Remember this: what Fractal is coming out with will make many current products look like Game Boys

 

[Orvillain]

The whole “if everyone has NAM then it’s a race to the bottom” idea is flawed imo. If 10 new pedals came out with the same features then sure it’s a price race to the bottom. But a unit like stadium or fractal going from “no profiling tech” to having profiling tech is a big step.

There’s plenty of people running tonex ones alongside fractal units, wouldn’t need it. Some people like Kemper, don’t need it now.

It’s not like having NAM support is suddenly going to upheave everything about the axefx, it just adds to it. I can’t imagine how this is a bad thing or some beginning of the end sentiment.

To me, it is just more evidence that Line6 and Fractal are almost the only companies making modelling gear that actually listen to and respond to user requests.

When was the last time Neural or Kemper said words to the effect of "users asked for this, so we're implementing it" ?

 

[Tanax]

The best thing about this is that, while it won't stop people from requesting more amps be added to modeling, they can now use a profile instead (without having to buy another unit for profiles).

If Fractal also can track which profiles are most popular, they can use that as input into which amp models to focus on.

 

[Los-D]

users asked for this

Neural:

 

[ChordInversion]

It’s not like having NAM support is suddenly going to upheave everything about the axefx, it just adds to it. I can’t imagine how this is a bad thing or some beginning of the end sentiment.

That's only completely true if we believe the myth that adding, maintaining, and adding features to a capture implementation consumes zero of the finite resources. It is in fact a zero sum game.

Now I don't think that this will mean that modeling will get worse. I can state with certainty that by definition, it means that some effort that would have gone into modeling will be prioritized below the modeling/profiling effort - and that goes for Proxy as well. It has to. The math doesn't math otherwise. That need not constitute an upheaval, but it is a re-direction of finite resources.

BUT...I am fully willing to accept that as it has before in some instances, the market will go in a direction that doesn't suit my preferences. I can only hope that someone sees a large enough niche in a completely modeling-focused product on an ongoing basis to result in a product team (or a few) that continues to drive forward exclusively on breadth of models, quality of modeling, and new uses (to use the technology to create entire new models). If they don't, they don't. But it's magical thinking to imply that making Proxy doesn't take away from Line6 modeling, or that NAM implementation will in perpetuity consist only of a "make it once and forget it" hole that you drop NAM into. In over 30 years of implementing and developing technology, that's never been true, not even once.

 

[Sedaxel]

To me, it is just more evidence that Line6 and Fractal are almost the only companies making modelling gear that actually listen to and respond to user requests.

When was the last time Neural or Kemper said words to the effect of "users asked for this, so we're implementing it" ?

While I mostly agree... Truth be told, NDSP made several updates to the NC that were actually requested by users. In that regard, they did it great with the NC. Apart from the "internet needed" stupidity, of course.

 

[ChordInversion]

To me, it is just more evidence that Line6 and Fractal are almost the only companies making modelling gear that actually listen to and respond to user requests.

When was the last time Neural or Kemper said words to the effect of "users asked for this, so we're implementing it" ?

I can't argue with that, and I'm being consistent about it. If this is what they've heard and decided to act on, I can't call it "bad." It's just bad for me. Markets have winners and losers, on both the producer side and the consumer side. Looks like I lose. I'll live.

 

[Sedaxel]

The whole “if everyone has NAM then it’s a race to the bottom” idea is flawed imo. If 10 new pedals came out with the same features then sure it’s a price race to the bottom. But a unit like stadium or fractal going from “no profiling tech” to having profiling tech is a big step.

There’s plenty of people running tonex ones alongside fractal units, wouldn’t need it. Some people like Kemper, don’t need it now.

It’s not like having NAM support is suddenly going to upheave everything about the axefx, it just adds to it. I can’t imagine how this is a bad thing or some beginning of the end sentiment.

I agree... it´s just that I think I´m being misunderstood when I say it´s risky for Fractal.

Of course supporting captures (NAM in this case) is going to add value to the unit. It´s an improvement and I think there´s zero discussion about that.

What I say is that, as a business, as a leader company, it´s risky to go for the free standard tech... becasue you´re giving free space to the competition (Line6 in this case) to take the leadership. I´m especulating about company strategy. No doubt Fractal units will absolutely benefit from having NAM.

And, I´m not only especulating... but I´m doing it without a clue about companies strategic theory... I just find funny to try to predict what can happen to brands, modelling and capturing. And about where this tech will go, and how it will evolve. That´s why I opened the debate.

 

[nicolasrivera]

The best thing about this is that, while it won't stop people from requesting more amps be added to modeling, they can now use a profile instead (without having to buy another unit for profiles).

If Fractal also can track which profiles are most popular, they can use that as input into which amp models to focus on.

I’ll tell you this: I was using NAM extensively before TONEX released the V2 upgrade to their capturing tech. Since then, I haven’t used NAM at all. IK Multimedia has achieved nearly identical quality with a much simpler and more convenient capture process, plus faster processing time.

 

[[Nathan]]

That's only completely true if we believe the myth that adding, maintaining, and adding features to a capture implementation consumes zero of the finite resources. It is in fact a zero sum game.

I think you dislike profiling so much that you’ve got blinders on and are just thinking “I wish they were spending more time on what I want.

You can use the same argument for every feature in a device that you dont use. It’s very short sighted to not think that a multi effects unit will try and cater to a vast audience. There are so many things in all of these units that a player will never use, it’s just bound to happen. I mean I guess you can live in fantasy land and wish that everything you don’t use was nuked and it only had the exact feature set you want, but it’s not really realistic.

I can only hope that someone sees a large enough niche in a completely modeling-focused product on an ongoing basis to result in a product team (or a few) that continues to drive forward exclusively on breadth of models, quality of modeling,

Cliff couldn’t do more for the modelling world, the amount of updates the axefx3 has had in its lifetime is unfathomable. I don’t think it’s reasonable to say that adding support for a nam block is going to take meaningful time away from the rest of the unit. It’s obvious they would have discussed all these things internally, and deemed that it’s a worthy thing to add.

If anything adding support for a NAM block is a lot easier than having an entire capturing workflow. Think of how much time is saved by having the underlying tech done for you, not needing to add a capture workflow, no actual training on the unit or cloud infrastructure, and more. Just supporting the NAM files is a pretty good way of having an entire feature on your unit with a lot less work

And again this is a feature that players want and have requested time and time again, and I guess that’s why it’s being added to the fractal units. The customers want it, Cliff is happy to add it, kind of case closed. If he thought it was useless or would be a time sink or risk for whatever reason, they wouldn’t be adding it.

To circle back, I think it’s unreasonable to armchair manage their dev time and resources because you don’t like a particular feature.

The irony here is that I’m not even a profiling defender, I prefer models. Profiling however has its time and place and I see what consumers are into and the whole thing just seems like a perfect fit.

 

[KHAAAAAAANNNNNNN!!!!!!!!]

Some of you guys are nucking futs.

 

[[Nathan]]

What I say is that, as a business, as a leader company, it´s risky to go for the free standard tech... becasue you´re giving free space to the competition (Line6 in this case) to take the leadership. I´m especulating about company strategy. No doubt Fractal units will absolutely benefit from having NAM.

Yeah the concept makes sense and the mental question is valid. If the only two realistic choices on the table are “we can support a NAM block” or “we won’t have any profiling on the axefx of any kind” then I think NOT having profiling at all gives more space to the competition who has it.

Adding support for a NAM block at least puts things neck and neck on paper.

 

[JiveTurkey]

I think you dislike profiling so much that you’ve got blinders on and are just thinking “I wish they were spending more time on what I want.

You can use the same argument for every feature in a device that you dont use. It’s very short sighted to not think that a multi effects unit will try and cater to a vast audience. There are so many things in all of these units that a player will never use, it’s just bound to happen. I mean I guess you can live in fantasy land and wish that everything you don’t use was nuked and it only had the exact feature set you want, but it’s not really realistic.



Cliff couldn’t do more for the modelling world, the amount of updates the axefx3 has had in its lifetime is unfathomable. I don’t think it’s reasonable to say that adding support for a nam block is going to take meaningful time away from the rest of the unit. It’s obvious they would have discussed all these things internally, and deemed that it’s a worthy thing to add.

If anything adding support for a NAM block is a lot easier than having an entire capturing workflow. Think of how much time is saved by having the underlying tech done for you, not needing to add a capture workflow, no actual training on the unit or cloud infrastructure, and more. Just supporting the NAM files is a pretty good way of having an entire feature on your unit with a lot less work

And again this is a feature that players want and have requested time and time again, and I guess that’s why it’s being added to the fractal units. The customers want it, Cliff is happy to add it, kind of case closed. If he thought it was useless or would be a time sink or risk for whatever reason, they wouldn’t be adding it.

To circle back, I think it’s unreasonable to armchair manage their dev time and resources because you don’t like a particular feature.

The irony here is that I’m not even a profiling defender, I prefer models. Profiling however has its time and place and I see what consumers are into and the whole thing just seems like a perfect fit.

The post you are responding to (no offense other poster) is insane. Cliff could go into Sleeping Beauty Mode™ for a decade and still be ahead of the game for contributions to amp modeling.

 

[deadpool_25]

I think you dislike profiling so much that you’ve got blinders on and are just thinking “I wish they were spending more time on what I want.

You can use the same argument for every feature in a device that you dont use. It’s very short sighted to not think that a multi effects unit will try and cater to a vast audience. There are so many things in all of these units that a player will never use, it’s just bound to happen. I mean I guess you can live in fantasy land and wish that everything you don’t use was nuked and it only had the exact feature set you want, but it’s not really realistic.



Cliff couldn’t do more for the modelling world, the amount of updates the axefx3 has had in its lifetime is unfathomable. I don’t think it’s reasonable to say that adding support for a nam block is going to take meaningful time away from the rest of the unit. It’s obvious they would have discussed all these things internally, and deemed that it’s a worthy thing to add.

If anything adding support for a NAM block is a lot easier than having an entire capturing workflow. Think of how much time is saved by having the underlying tech done for you, not needing to add a capture workflow, no actual training on the unit or cloud infrastructure, and more. Just supporting the NAM files is a pretty good way of having an entire feature on your unit with a lot less work

And again this is a feature that players want and have requested time and time again, and I guess that’s why it’s being added to the fractal units. The customers want it, Cliff is happy to add it, kind of case closed. If he thought it was useless or would be a time sink or risk for whatever reason, they wouldn’t be adding it.

To circle back, I think it’s unreasonable to armchair manage their dev time and resources because you don’t like a particular feature.

The irony here is that I’m not even a profiling defender, I prefer models. Profiling however has its time and place and I see what consumers are into and the whole thing just seems like a perfect fit.

 

[ChordInversion]

I think you dislike profiling so much that you’ve got blinders on and are just thinking “I wish they were spending more time on what I want.

I don't dislike it that much. I tried it for a long time. It just doesn't work for me. What I dislike is the profiling fans insisting that it must be in every single modeler in the universe. I'm not going to lie and claim that this annoyance doesn't make me a bit more strident.

You can use the same argument for every feature in a device that you dont use. It’s very short sighted to not think that a multi effects unit will try and cater to a vast audience. There are so many things in all of these units that a player will never use, it’s just bound to happen. I mean I guess you can live in fantasy land and wish that everything you don’t use was nuked and it only had the exact feature set you want, but it’s not really realistic.

That's being a bit binary. Not all features are of the same lift. I am estimating the long term commitment to profiling will be more than for other features.

Cliff couldn’t do more for the modelling world, the amount of updates the axefx3 has had in its lifetime is unfathomable. I don’t think it’s reasonable to say that adding support for a nam block is going to take meaningful time away from the rest of the unit. It’s obvious they would have discussed all these things internally, and deemed that it’s a worthy thing to add.

I have nothing negative to say about Cliff at all. My appreciation for his work is manifest in my desire to benefit from as much of it as possible. My opinion on this topic is not a critique of him in any way.

If anything adding support for a NAM block is a lot easier than having an entire capturing workflow.

Certainly true. Line6 disappointed me more.

Think of how much time is saved by having the underlying tech done for you, not needing to add a capture workflow, no actual training on the unit or cloud infrastructure, and more. Just supporting the NAM files is a pretty good way of having an entire feature on your unit with a lot less work

And again this is a feature that players want and have requested time and time again, and I guess that’s why it’s being added to the fractal units. The customers want it, Cliff is happy to add it, kind of case closed. If he thought it was useless or would be a time sink or risk for whatever reason, they wouldn’t be adding it.

I already acknowledged that. The market is going a direction that I don't like. It's happened before, and it'll happen again. But I'll state my preference on the small chance that someone will consider people like me a market worth seeking.

To circle back, I think it’s unreasonable to armchair manage their dev time and resources because you don’t like a particular feature.

That's not what I'm doing at all, and I don't appreciate the insinuation. I am operating from the perspective of a consumer, applying a similar process to one I have applied in other contexts. Example: I have an email/calendaring/file sharing account with a service. They've pivoted toward putting a lot of energy into things like crypto wallets and 'AI' writing assistants. I don't like those priorities, as there are still lots of features to add to their core products. That feature rollout progress predictably slowed when they changed priorities. I found that to be a bummer, and I eventually moved to another service with priorities (which are indeed reflected in features) that more closely match my own. It doesn't have to be a pathology just because you don't agree. It's no more (possibly less) armchair managing their dev resources than it is when people say (as many here have) that "every modeler must have NAM support as 'table stakes.'"

The irony here is that I’m not even a profiling defender, I prefer models. Profiling however has its time and place and I see what consumers are into and the whole thing just seems like a perfect fit.

I'm not telling them they're wrong. Two guys I play with all the time use Kempers. I'm saying that not every modeler has to have a profiler built in (and vice versa, for that matter).

BUT...once again, I admit that yes, my opinion is in the minority. I don't understand why it's so important to you to invalidate it completely. I may state it now and then, but I've also stated that I'll live, I'll move on, there are other options. And I'm not selling the FM9T that I really like based on this news. I may, however, choose not to buy a future product. It all depends.

 

[Fireproof]

I can see why they would want to add a “NAM block” to their modeler. Certainly, as stated above - adding the ability to “play” the NAM profile is a whole lot different than adding profiler/capture technology to make your own. Does seem like it would be a fairly easy (comparatively speaking) lift to add that to future gen product.

But (and I don’t know much about the underlying code), building your device on open source code seems like it would introduce some other challenges. Now, not only do you have to focus on your own tech bug fixes and feature enhancements, but as the open-source code changes, won’t you have to now keep up with that. Being dependent on ever evolving open-source code seems like it might come with its own share of challenges…. But maybe it’s not that big of a deal??

 

[Shask]

Fractal added the Tone Match Block eons ago, and it didn't kill the Cab block....