NDSP Quad Cortex

[Whizzinby]

Not really. Their fully realized amp models (as opposed to captures) have as many params as, for instance, Helix or other “white box” modelers. Whether those QC amp models are composites of black box captures or not, I couldn’t say. I know that’s been the rumor for some time.

Yeah in terms of standard controls it’s all there, but you can’t say “swap tubes” or disable power amp simulation, because their modeling method doesn’t distinguish between various components of the amp. It’s just an end sound. “If this gets turned, the resulting sound is this.” Their method is kind of cool, but has its advantages and disadvantages.

 

[mbenigni]

Yeah in terms of standard controls it’s all there, but you can’t say “swap tubes” or disable power amp simulation, because their modeling method doesn’t distinguish between various components of the amp. It’s just an end sound. “If this gets turned, the resulting sound is this.” Their method is kind of cool, but has its advantages and disadvantages.

Agreed, but I don’t thing any of this, in itself, evidences black box modeling conclusively (even though it’s likely true, based on NDSP’s own comments.) If it did, we’d have to conclude Helix and a half dozen other platforms were also black box, which we know isn’t true.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

Yeah in terms of standard controls it’s all there, but you can’t say “swap tubes” or disable power amp simulation, because their modeling method doesn’t distinguish between various components of the amp. It’s just an end sound. “If this gets turned, the resulting sound is this.” Their method is kind of cool, but has its advantages and disadvantages.

Depends if they are black boxing the entire amp end to end or splitting into sections. Pretty sure the plugins have separate models for preamps and power amps. I know some companies will mix and match black box and white box, only using black box for highly non-linear parts of the circuit.

 

[Whizzinby]

Agreed, but I don’t thing any of this, in itself, evidences black box modeling conclusively (even though it’s likely true, based on NDSP’s own comments.) If it did, we’d have to conclude Helix and a half dozen other platforms were also black box, which we know isn’t true.

Yeah I don’t know about white/black/taupe-box modeling. I just know Doug said they don’t have that sort of granular customization because their modeling approach doesn’t account for it. Which, makes sense to my dumb brain if it’s largely a capture/mlm approach.

I desperately need another cup of coffee.

 

[JiveTurkey]

I think the whole "we don't do it like that" approach allows them to play selectively dumb as they feel and then avoid getting into any sort of accuracy discussions with their product. Which, oddly enough; never seem to come up?

 

[MirrorProfiles]

any sort of accuracy discussions with their product. Which, oddly enough; never seem to come up?

Their plugins have always checked out as extremely accurate for me. They even posted A/B examples of their Nameless plugin vs the real amp which way too few companies are prepared to do:

 

[Whizzinby]

I think the whole "we don't do it like that" approach allows them to play selectively dumb as they feel and then avoid getting into any sort of accuracy discussions with their product. Which, oddly enough; never seem to come up?

Disclosure: I’m a dumbass… but it seems “simple” that they are “basically” feeding an input, having Tina work the knobs (NSFW) and they measure the resulting output. They do this with enough control variations to feel confident to interpolate the rest of them.

Which I don’t think is a knock. Their models sound great. (But explains why there are some limitations if you want to go full fantasy-amp-designer)

To my knowledge you can’t disable power amp sim on QC models. (Or couldn’t when I had it) When asked Doug said they couldn’t (at that time) because they don’t account for specific sections of the amp. But my memory grows dim.

 

[JiveTurkey]

Disclosure: I’m a dumbass… but it seems “simple” that they are “basically” feeding an input, having Tina work the knobs (NSFW) and they measure the resulting output. They do this with enough control variations to feel confident to interpolate the rest of them.

Which I don’t think is a knock. Their models sound great. (But explains why there are some limitations if you want to go full fantasy-amp-designer)

To my knowledge you can’t disable power amp sim on QC models. (Or couldn’t when I had it) When asked Doug said they couldn’t (at that time) because they don’t account for specific sections of the amp. But my memory grows dim.

 

[laxu]

Disclosure: I’m a dumbass… but it seems “simple” that they are “basically” feeding an input, having Tina work the knobs (NSFW) and they measure the resulting output. They do this with enough control variations to feel confident to interpolate the rest of them.

Which I don’t think is a knock. Their models sound great. (But explains why there are some limitations if you want to go full fantasy-amp-designer)

To my knowledge you can’t disable power amp sim on QC models. (Or couldn’t when I had it) When asked Doug said they couldn’t (at that time) because they don’t account for specific sections of the amp. But my memory grows dim.

It's anything but simple. There was a research paper (can't find the link atm) that discusses their approach to this and it's definitely innovative stuff to get around the fact that it would take a shitload of time to analyze every possible permutation of even a single channel amp's knob positions. Their method seems like a good shortcut to avoid that.

It's an approach that allows them to shortcut things like carefully measuring the real amp at various points, building simulations of gain stages and stuff like that. If you look at e.g Fractal, Cliff is constantly correcting, improving and evolving their modeling system as he gains new insight. A machine learning model doesn't know about any of that stuff. Instead the hard work is figuring out the math to make those models do the things they need.

In the end the development effort probably ends up being similar, just from totally different perspectives. There's a possibility both companies will eventually end up at their respective models that are so close to the real amps that any further development becomes unnecessary. Then it comes just a question of how all that scales to adding new amps and whatnot.

So far for Neural DSP it seems it hasn't. There's still no updates to existing models and very few new models released since the announcement of TINA.

 

[Whizzinby]

It's anything but simple. There was a research paper (can't find the link atm) that discusses their approach to this and it's definitely innovative stuff to get around the fact that it would take a shitload of time to analyze every possible permutation of even a single channel amp's knob positions. Their method seems like a good shortcut to avoid that.

It's an approach that allows them to shortcut things like carefully measuring the real amp at various points, building simulations of gain stages and stuff like that. If you look at e.g Fractal, Cliff is constantly correcting, improving and evolving their modeling system as he gains new insight. A machine learning model doesn't know about any of that stuff. Instead the hard work is figuring out the math to make those models do the things they need.

In the end the development effort probably ends up being similar, just from totally different perspectives. There's a possibility both companies will eventually end up at their respective models that are so close to the real amps that any further development becomes unnecessary. Then it comes just a question of how all that scales to adding new amps and whatnot.

So far for Neural DSP it seems it hasn't. There's still no updates to existing models and very few new models released since the announcement of TINA.

I thought air quoting “simple” would imply I was talking conceptually, not that it was actually “simple” to execute.

Though I think we come to the same conclusion on it.

 

[2dor]

Folks with a QC updated to the latest & greatest release: anybody willing to record the "Neural Capture V2" training signal & share in a PM? Wanna try it out in NAM - thanks!

 

[Dez]

Mixing the new Dumble device with Cory Wong is a fast track to great TOOL tones. Not even using an overdrive, just compressor/dumble/post cab fx

 

[deadpool_25]

Mixing the new Dumble device with Cory Wong is a fast track to great TOOL tones. Not even using an overdrive, just compressor/dumble/post cab fx

Tool? Huh? I wouldn’t expect Dumble and a CW amp to be in the same sentence as Tool. Color me intrigued.

 

[Dez]

Tool? Huh? I wouldn’t expect Dumble and a CW amp to be in the same sentence as Tool. Color me intrigued.

That lower gain Adam Jones goodness - I sent my preset to you in the cloud - let me know if I’m nuts

 

[Dez]

How it feels here whenever NDSP drops something new lol

 

[deadpool_25]

That lower gain Adam Jones goodness - I sent my preset to you in the cloud - let me know if I’m nuts

I will when I get moved into the new house. That’s happening on Monday so hopefully soon after!

 

[Sedaxel]

Yesterday I was with a couple mates testing things. A local guitarist borrowed us a JCM800 2204... so We took it to our cave and put it to its paces. What a jewel. That sound is just pure rock and roll. We used a Bogner 4x12 cab, and compared it to a JCM900 and a Laney (don´t know the model). All with the same cab. The difference was CLEAR. No contest... the JCM800 is so much more pleasant, balanced, full... the attack is delicious.

We hadn´t time to make a V2 capture with the QC because We blew a fuse in the amp... (We were playing VERY LOUD, must say), so then We plugged the QC to a Seymour Duncan Power Stage 700 and to the Bogner cab. We loaded an V1 JCM 2203 capture (don´t remember which one), and cranked it up. Man, We couldn´t make a direct A/B, but the Cortex was so much better sounding than the JCM900 and the Laney... And very similar to the JCM800. In a direct comparison We´d maybe notice differences between the QC and the amp, but all in all, the QC was fantastic, and by all means a totally valid tube amp representation (with a real cab, you know).

NOTE: is the Duncan 700 excessivelly mid/bass sounding? Ours was lacking A LOT of high frequency response. We had to dial the hi knob all the way up to get the sound similar to the amp. Really, it was SO WEIRD. it wasn´t the capture (We tried several others, and different amp ones). All the sound through the Duncan was missing everything from 2kHz on... Maybe this unit is faulty.

NOTE: the 800 is much louder than the 900 (We were at 9 oclock in the 800, same loudness as at 1 oclock in the 900), and had much more gain on tap. Curious. The 900 asked for a tube screamer in front... otherwise, it was just meh. The 800 needed nothing. It´s just gorgeous with just a guitar (We used a very good sounding Les Paul Standard... my mate researched more than 2 years to buy it, tried dozens, and this one is outstanding).

Today, my ears ring a little... Ouch.

 

[mbenigni]

View attachment 56208

Captured my V:35 - settings depicted in the pic. Cloud Cortex Link

I'm finally getting around to playing this capture and it is excellent. Many thanks.

(On a related note: There's a "Friedman BE50 HBE H S V2" capture posted by someone named JunHagio... no idea when or how I stumbled on this one, but it's fantastic. Darker than your MkV capture but very sweet, plenty of gain and cleans up effortlessly with the volume knob. Highly recommend.)

 

[LCW]

Back in. QC incoming.

 

[Dez]

I'm finally getting around to playing this capture and it is excellent. Many thanks.

(On a related note: There's a "Friedman BE50 HBE H S V2" capture posted by someone named JunHagio... no idea when or how I stumbled on this one, but it's fantastic. Darker than your MkV capture but very sweet, plenty of gain and cleans up effortlessly with the volume knob. Highly recommend.)

Thank you! I know it's up there with gain lol - I need to capture the IIC+ mode this weekend.