NDSP Quad Cortex

[Jarick]

Devil's advocate, I don't see that as a contradiction. The robot is there to turn knobs and capture data, which is done without a human. And yes the machine learning algorithms would be done without human intervention. But you still need people to validate the results, and probably to set some parameters up front. Maybe they need to add some more complexities in the models or the capture wasn't setup properly.

 

[Mongillo19]

But you still need people to validate the results, and probably to set some parameters up front. Maybe they need to add some more complexities in the models or the capture wasn't setup properly.

It honestly doesn't matter, just stating that first lol

But when you say

"We’ve successfully removed all human intervention within the amplifier modeling process – ensuring an unparalleled level of precision in every model by capturing every subtle detail in the amplifier's controls."

But then say

"More often than not, you do have some iteration, where some designers give feedback to the machine learning guys, and they need to tweak things and try again."

That does contradict removing human intervention because humans are still very much part of the process by the sounds of it. Again, I really don't care and by now you should know neural is going to try and make anything they do sound innovative and advanced. Which in some aspects they have pushed the envelope (albeit many here disagree).

 

[mikah912]

Devil's advocate, I don't see that as a contradiction. The robot is there to turn knobs and capture data, which is done without a human. And yes the machine learning algorithms would be done without human intervention. But you still need people to validate the results, and probably to set some parameters up front. Maybe they need to add some more complexities in the models or the capture wasn't setup properly

They said they removed human intervention from the entire amp modeling process. Not just data capturing. Not just "full in the blank". Words still have meaning.

 

[Jarick]

LOL sure, machine learning is done by sentient robots then.

Why are we even dissecting NDSP press releases? That's about as futile as trying to fact check a politician.

There's exactly ONE thing that matters with the Quad Cortex: what did they actually release in production? Everything else, assume it's smoke and mirrors.

 

[Mongillo19]

LOL sure, machine learning is done by sentient robots then.

Why are we even dissecting NDSP press releases? That's about as futile as trying to fact check a politician.

There's exactly ONE thing that matters with the Quad Cortex: what did they actually release in production?

Jarick, we aren't the one making contradictory statements lol

Yes, we are dissecting NDSP, you should know that happens here by now. But at the same time they constantly put their foot in their mouth.

 

[mikah912]

LOL sure, machine learning is done by sentient robots then.

Why are we even dissecting NDSP press releases? That's about as futile as trying to fact check a politician.

There's exactly ONE thing that matters with the Quad Cortex: what did they actually release in production? Everything else, assume it's smoke and mirrors.

No part of this is releasable to consumers so I'm not sure I see your point here. This is strictly about behind the scenes process that they chose to publicize. They are the only reason anyone cares about this.

 

[Achilles]

Devil's advocate, I don't see that as a contradiction. The robot is there to turn knobs and capture data, which is done without a human. And yes the machine learning algorithms would be done without human intervention. But you still need people to validate the results, and probably to set some parameters up front. Maybe they need to add some more complexities in the models or the capture wasn't setup properly.

Short Version,

 

[Achilles]

They are the only reason anyone cares about this.

The only reason?



Behind the scenes updates should be a good thing, right?
All the brands should do it.

 

[SeeD]

So if we, play this game...

Cliff from FAS have said that the `model is sounding "the same" as the amp he made a model of.. 100 times` ( I`ve been a Fractal owner for over 10 years) . But he is still too this day tweaking the models all the time.
Shutting down folks that say, hmm is this model sounding ok... He then say , I`ve taken the real amp out and tested it, and it is sounding just like the model.
Nothing is wrong with the models, then 2 months later ..I`ve `remastered this amp, and this amp.. It now sounds more RAW, Punch, Raspy, POP, like Velcro, Sweet, Polished, Nasty, any of these ringing a bell

120% more real..anyone, 140 % more real, or was it just 89% real the first time hahaha.

He makes super real and cool sounding models, but he also say the the model he have worked on is, just like the real amp, all the time.

We all would like to have as real a model of an amp as we can get. It`s ok to make things better as time goes by.

 

[mikah912]

The only reason?



Behind the scenes updates should be a good thing, right?
All the brands should do it.

Well, they're the only reason we know about it.

Behind-the-scenes updates are a good idea, actually, because no one is taking an issue with the existence, methodology or deployment of TINA. It's a cool robot that reduces manual labor/error and can sometimes help speed up the modeling of an amp faster than traditional manual tweaking/measuring.

The problem is, NDSP couldn't help themselves and put out some grandiose drivel and animated video proclaiming it as the "groundbreaking" "industry-leading" and "unparalleled" blah blah blah. And then, since that wasn't enough, they just had to drop this nonsense in the same press release:

It also removes the need for painstaking and often biased human analysis and design.

There's no need! No one was pressing them on their amp capturing methods, so there's no need to glaze them up. If you want to share something about it, cool. No need to jump to hyperbole. It's doing no one any favors.

 

[mikah912]

So if we, play this game...

Cliff from FAS have said that the `model is sounding "the same" as the amp he made a model of.. 100 times` ( I`ve been a Fractal owner for over 10 years) . But he is still too this day tweaking the models all the time.
Shutting down folks that say, hmm is this model sounding ok... He then say , I`ve taken the real amp out and tested it, and it is sounding just like the model.
Nothing is wrong with the models, then 2 months later ..I`ve `remastered this amp, and this amp.. It now sounds more RAW, Punch, Raspy, POP, like Velcro, Sweet, Polished, Nasty, any of these ringing a bell

120% more real..anyone, 140 % more real, or was it just 89% real the first time hahaha.

He makes super real and cool sounding models, but he also say the the model he have worked on is, just like the real amp, all the time.

We all would like to have as real a model of an amp as we can get. It`s ok to make things better as time goes by.

Kinda knew this comparison was coming.

There is "sounding exactly" like the amp according to his state of mind and hearing at the time (as well as based on the processing power available). Then, there's does it feel exactly like the amp according to his state of mind and hearing at the time. Then, there's "do the speaker impedance curves behave exactly like the real thing?" Then, there's improving on the speaker sims/dynacabs. Etc., etc.

By the time he makes the changes to everything around the base sound of the amp, now he has to remeasure that aspect to see if he can incorporate his new knowledge gained doing the other stuff to ensure it remains as faithful as he wanted it to.

And that kicks the whole loop off again. More processing power also continues to change the calculus.

Does he make superlative statements about his products? No doubt. They no doubt reflect his personal opinion at the time.

This TINA nonsense, on the other hand, isn't even consistent or logical within their own public statements during the same period. It's also objectively stating something that they know not to be true.

 

[Achilles]

The problem is, NDSP couldn't help themselves and put out some grandiose drivel and animated video proclaiming it as the "groundbreaking" "industry-leading" and "unparalleled" blah blah blah. And then, since that wasn't enough, they just had to drop this nonsense in the same press release.

That's heads. Here's tails.

The problem is, the Quad Cortex is about to turn 3.5 years old, (released 4/21) and yet there's STILL those picking through their every word like the National Enquirer use to pick through star's trash.

 

[Achilles]

Does he make superlative statements about his products? No doubt. They no doubt reflect his personal opinion at the time.

This TINA nonsense, on the other hand, isn't even consistent or logical within their own public statements during the same period. It's also objectively stating something that they know not to be true.

The ridiculous double standard you are applying here......

Wow!

 

[mikah912]

That's heads. Here's tails.

The problem is, the Quad Cortex is about to turn 3.5 years old, (released 4/21) and yet there's STILL those picking through their every word like the National Enquirer use to pick through star's trash.

Hooo boy, speaking of hyperbole. I started my participation in today's thread talking about how I still love their form factor, how one of my favorite bands use them, and about how I'd give QC another shot down the road. Nobody says nothing.

Then, I point out after that how they completely (and repeatedly) contradicted themselves on a related subject...and I'm being an unfair hater?

 

[mikah912]

The ridiculous double standard you are applying here......

Wow!

Let's try this a different way.

You notice how I have nothing to say about the superlative parts of the TINA press release like:

"faithfully modeling the sonic nuances of a guitar amplifier to an unprecedented level"

"ensuring an unparalleled level of precision in every model by capturing every subtle detail in the amplifier's controls."

"TINA is the backbone of our robust and automated modeling pipeline, pushing the boundaries of model fidelity"

To that I say....go off, King. I believe you. Well, I believe you believe that. But whatever. I expect as much from any company out there. Why wouldn't they think they're the best?

What I am talking is an ostensibly objective facet of their communication that is demonstrably false. When you find an instance of Cliff doing the same, I'll be happy to cosign the clowning of him or it.

 

[Achilles]

This TINA nonsense,

There it is.

It's also objectively stating something that they know not to be true.

You state this like fact when it's just your own personal conjecture.

They made a statement. A few weeks went by and they learned shit and made a revised statement.

In your mind?
THEY'RE LYING AGAIN - MISLEADING US - TALKING OUT THEIR ASS - TINA IS NONSENSE.

Listen, tons more important shit in life so I honestly don't give a damn about any of this.
Just calling a spade a spade here.

 

[TheTrueZoltan!]

Let me sow peace between you agitated squabblers. Do not hold on to your grudges. Be kind, forgive and love each other. Breathe deeply, feel peace flowing through your bodies, let your souls wander and your thoughts discover new, exciting and interesting topics... like…
Reaper.

 

[mikah912]

There it is.

Says you dude.

You state this like fact when it's just your own personal conjecture.

They made a statement. A few weeks went by and they learned shit and made a revised statement.

In your mind?
THEY'RE LYING AGAIN - MISLEADING US - TALKING OUT THEIR ASS - TINA IS NONSENSE.

Listen, tons more important shit in life so I honestly don't give a damn about any of this.
Just calling a spade a spade here.

Did you miss that they're saying with TINA, more often than not, they have to redo it? There's no "a few weeks went by"? They've been using TINA for years now. There's no personal opinion of mine here. They didn't "misspeak". There's no reconciling the two statements.

 

[Mongillo19]

Did you miss that they're saying with TINA, more often than not, they have to redo it? There's no "a few weeks went by"? They've been using TINA for years now. There's no personal opinion of mine here. They didn't "misspeak". There's no reconciling the two statements.

They've also said

Plugins will be available at launch (lol that they didn't know it actually wouldn't be)

Amp models take 8 hours to make

I'd be fine if this was a statement in a vacuum but it's their record that doesn't allow me to give them grace

Again, yes this is all picking apart of statement. But welcome to guitar forums

 

[Achilles]

Let me sow peace.

Peace implies war. No war here.
Just a couple of old broads chatting while their hair dries.