Real DC 30 -vs- Helix DC 30 .... same IR's and same OD

[MirrorProfiles]

I was mulling this over last night in a cannabis-induced thought exercise, and the conclusion I arrived at is this: damned if you do, damned if you don't.


Let's say I start designing a top-of-the-line modeler right now. When is it "ready"?

Do I have to have as many amp/effects models and features as my competition?

If yes, then I'm never going to get this thing to market. What are my other options? I don't want to sacrifice HW or SW quality.

Can I release something with fewer capabilities at a lower price?

Sure, but I do want to continue development of this thing. Do I bake the cost of updates into the product? Do I increase the price over time? Do I take the "paid DLC" approach?
(Honest question: Are there any examples of a manufacturer increasing the price of something as more work goes into it?)

Also worth noting: I need to price the product to support the high-quality parts and materials I intend to use.

Hm. Guess I'll bake the cost of updates into the product--that'll support development and physical build costs. But now I'm back at FAS/L6 prices for fewer capabilities (at the moment)...

Then I have to determine if people are going to trust me enough to buy something at premium with the promise of development.
(This seemed to be part of Fender's problem.)


I tend to agree with the notion that Fender asks for too much $$$ for too few features, especially compared to FAS and L6. But the act of balancing quality, features, and price and actually getting something to market, is all way beyond me.
The is probably an interesting discussion for another thread. I don't have an entrepreneurial bone in my body, but I would be interested in what others think or have experienced.

seems like the UA FX, Strymon Iridium, TC Ampworx, and even pedals like Friedman IR-X are the more common way to break into the market. They can slowly build up a repertoire, iron out kinks, find their audience, and eventually they’ll have things in place for a bigger flagship model. NDSP sort of did this by developing plugins first and then using that to leverage a HW unit.

I think it minimises some risks, it’s less complicated to develop and support, brings in revenue while they develop other products.

I imagine if Fender did TMP mini pedals that were just a handful of pedals, one or 2 amps, and a spring reverb, but with really good modelling, they’d have probably been quite successful, and without many of the downsides they’ve encountered with a more ambitious product.

 

[metropolis_4]

Fender obviously knows they overpriced based on the recent $200 price drop which is a fairly large rebate

To be fair they dropped prices on tons of their products, not just the TMP. I don’t think it reflects anything about knowing it was overpriced

 

[metropolis_4]

seems like the UA FX, Strymon Iridium, TC Ampworx, and even pedals like Friedman IR-X are the more common way to break into the market. They can slowly build up a repertoire, iron out kinks, find their audience, and eventually they’ll have things in place for a bigger flagship model. NDSP sort of did this by developing plugins first and then using that to leverage a HW unit.

I think it minimises some risks, it’s less complicated to develop and support, brings in revenue while they develop other products.

I imagine if Fender did TMP mini pedals that were just a handful of pedals, one or 2 amps, and a spring reverb, but with really good modelling, they’d have probably been quite successful, and without many of the downsides they’ve encountered with a more ambitious product.

I don’t think companies like TC are building those single purpose pedals as a way to try to break into the market of big modelers.

A single pedal and a big all-in-one modeler are two entirely different products for entirely different purposes.

Is Earthquaker making Plumes to try to break into the multi-effects market?

Also TC has been around forever. You think they just released those pedals because they’re still trying to iron out kinks, find their audience, and build their repertoire? If so they have to be the most incompetent business in the world

 

[GTR37]

seems like the UA FX, Strymon Iridium, TC Ampworx, and even pedals like Friedman IR-X are the more common way to break into the market. They can slowly build up a repertoire, iron out kinks, find their audience, and eventually they’ll have things in place for a bigger flagship model. NDSP sort of did this by developing plugins first and then using that to leverage a HW unit.

I think it minimises some risks, it’s less complicated to develop and support, brings in revenue while they develop other products.

I imagine if Fender did TMP mini pedals that were just a handful of pedals, one or 2 amps, and a spring reverb, but with really good modelling, they’d have probably been quite successful, and without many of the downsides they’ve encountered with a more ambitious product.

I think it’s a bit of a challenging market right now
No one really seems to want to step fwd , I think in the last few years NDSP had the biggest chance to really shake it up , had they released everything that was on paper it would have been quite the product, we know how that turned out now but they were looking pretty strong prior to launch

It will be really interesting to see where Fractal and Line6 go next Gen , I think it’s probably coming sooner rather than later

 

[MirrorProfiles]

I don’t think companies like TC are building those single purpose pedals as a way to try to break into the market of big modelers.

A single pedal and a big all-in-one modeler are two entirely different products for entirely different purposes.

Is Earthquaker making Plumes to try to break into the multi-effects market?

Also TC has been around forever. You think they just released those pedals because they’re still trying to iron out kinks, find their audience, and build their repertoire? If so they have to be the most incompetent business in the world

I'd be amazed if TC don't have a modeller on the way, they did a recent customer survey that was basically ONLY asking questions about modeller features. All the questions were with a full on modeller in mind - it was asking things about audio interface features, FX, etc. TC also have a ton of algo's on the shelf that are ideal - various pedal emulations, delays, reverbs etc that are among the most industry leading FX. And on top of that, they have a ton of experience coding for external DSP, with analog and digital I/O, interface features etc. Not only do I think its almost certain to happen, I think they'd be crazy not to do it given what they are capable of.

They arguably have more in common with Line 6 than they do Earthquaker devices - and they have the means to do basically everything in house too using Behringers infrastructure.

TC have been around forever, although since the Behringer takeover they've definitely shifted what their role and reputation is in the industry. There has been a slow porting of the System 6000 stuff, various plugins, some HW controllers and RTA solutions and lots of guitar orientated stuff. Presumably their guitar pedals and related gear is where they are seeing the most success. I do think they are biding their time to get the product right - Behringer have massively underused the TC name IMO, and several products have shifted from what they originally were to something more useful (like the plugins with HW controllers shifting more to being normal plugins). TC's background is largely DSP like reverbs, delays, compressors, EQ's. I could absolutely understand if amp modelling in 2024 takes a bit of refining to get it to the point of offering something useful to the market.

A lot of the above is true for UA - they already make interfaces and guitar adjacent products. I'm less certain they'd make an all in one modeller, I think for UA it depends on the success of what they're doing at the moment.

I think it’s a bit of a challenging market right now
No one really seems to want to step fwd , I think in the last few years NDSP had the biggest chance to really shake it up , had they released everything that was on paper it would have been quite the product, we know how that turned out now but they were looking pretty strong prior to launch

It will be really interesting to see where Fractal and Line6 go next Gen , I think it’s probably coming sooner rather than later

It definitely is, I think 5 years ago things were completely mental and unsustainably ambitious. QC does seem to have been pretty succesful though, the forum quibbles and youtube clickbait is only really scratching the surface. They seem to be shifting a lot of units, lots of bands are adopting it, I think its regarded as a viable and enticing option for a lot of people. Their plugins absolutely shook things up.

 

[metropolis_4]

I'd be amazed if TC don't have a modeller on the way, they did a recent customer survey that was basically ONLY asking questions about modeller features. All the questions were with a full on modeller in mind - it was asking things about audio interface features, FX, etc. TC also have a ton of algo's on the shelf that are ideal - various pedal emulations, delays, reverbs etc that are among the most industry leading FX. And on top of that, they have a ton of experience coding for external DSP, with analog and digital I/O, interface features etc. Not only do I think its almost certain to happen, I think they'd be crazy not to do it given what they are capable of.

They arguably have more in common with Line 6 than they do Earthquaker devices - and they have the means to do basically everything in house too using Behringers infrastructure.

TC have been around forever, although since the Behringer takeover they've definitely shifted what their role and reputation is in the industry. There has been a slow porting of the System 6000 stuff, various plugins, some HW controllers and RTA solutions and lots of guitar orientated stuff. Presumably their guitar pedals and related gear is where they are seeing the most success. I do think they are biding their time to get the product right - Behringer have massively underused the TC name IMO, and several products have shifted from what they originally were to something more useful (like the plugins with HW controllers shifting more to being normal plugins). TC's background is largely DSP like reverbs, delays, compressors, EQ's. I could absolutely understand if amp modelling in 2024 takes a bit of refining to get it to the point of offering something useful to the market.

A lot of the above is true for UA - they already make interfaces and guitar adjacent products. I'm less certain they'd make an all in one modeller, I think for UA it depends on the success of what they're doing at the moment.



It definitely is, I think 5 years ago things were completely mental and unsustainably ambitious. QC does seem to have been pretty succesful though, the forum quibbles and youtube clickbait is only really scratching the surface. They seem to be shifting a lot of units, lots of bands are adopting it, I think its regarded as a viable and enticing option for a lot of people. Their plugins absolutely shook things up.

My point is individual pedals that do a single thing aren’t stepping stones to big pedals that do lots of things, they’re entirely different tools

 

[MirrorProfiles]

My point is individual pedals that do a single thing aren’t stepping stones to big pedals that do lots of things, they’re entirely different tools

so you think when they release a flagship modeller, none of the tech that goes into the I/O, DSP, amp modelling, noise gates, IR’s, boost pedals etc is going to go straight from the small pedals into it? There’s a ton of overlap, even if the appearance of the product seems more limited.

They’ll literally reuse the exact some code in a big product, just as Line 6 package up bits of the same code for various products.

The whole point I’m making is they can trickle out pedals and bring some wedge in while doing all the development for a bigger pedal that would require more work. Simple pedals are less of a gamble, there’d be less back and forth on design and optimising a complicated interface and features.

 

[metropolis_4]

so you think when they release a flagship modeller, none of the tech that goes into the I/O, DSP, amp modelling, noise gates, IR’s, boost pedals etc is going to go straight from the small pedals into it? There’s a ton of overlap, even if the appearance of the product seems more limited.

They’ll literally reuse the exact some code in a big product, just as Line 6 package up bits of the same code for various products.

The whole point I’m making is they can trickle out pedals and bring some wedge in while doing all the development for a bigger pedal that would require more work. Simple pedals are less of a gamble, there’d be less back and forth on design and optimising a complicated interface and features.

No, I didn’t say that. I’m saying not every company’s end goal is a big all-in-one device and small single purpose devices don’t just exist as stepping stones to them.

Your last paragraph is one possible thing they could do, but as neither of us are on the inside of the business operations at the company I don’t know that we can speak to what their business goals are or what went into the decision they made

 

[the swede]

I'd be amazed if TC don't have a modeller on the way, they did a recent customer survey that was basically ONLY asking questions about modeller features. All the questions were with a full on modeller in mind - it was asking things about audio interface features, FX, etc. TC also have a ton of algo's on the shelf that are ideal - various pedal emulations, delays, reverbs etc that are among the most industry leading FX. And on top of that, they have a ton of experience coding for external DSP, with analog and digital I/O, interface features etc. Not only do I think its almost certain to happen, I think they'd be crazy not to do it given what they are capable of.

ampworx surely is
“Because we can, people seems to like and want the end of pedalboard amp box, it will sell, Behringer helps us with the factory part… sure let’s do it”
But yeah.. they’re practicing amp modeling now, and it seems they’re quite good at it.

Also the Plethora boxes comes to mind as a “let’s do multi effects units, everything is already done, put it in a box, we’ve done it before, can do it better now”

I to wouldn’t be surprised at all if something larger/bigger comes around next year from them.

But I highly doubt they can pull off all of the bits and pieces that sums it all into a really complete package in the way Line 6 can.

If i fantasize it would pretty much be a barebones modeler reminding of how the Plethora stuff works but with amp models thrown in.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

No, I didn’t say that. I’m saying not every company’s end goal is a big all-in-one device and small single purpose devices don’t just exist as stepping stones to them.

Your last paragraph is one possible thing they could do, but as neither of us are on the inside of the business operations at the company I don’t know that we can speak to what their business goals are or what went into the decision they made

No idea what they’ll come up with, but the fact they’re doing public surveys specifically on modellers probably suggests they’re thinking further ahead. @Digital Igloo certainly seems to think it’s a certainty too.

But I highly doubt they can pull off all of the bits and pieces that sums it all into a really complete package in the way Line 6 can.

Mainly because Line 6 have decades of experience of predominantly making guitar modellers and TC don’t. I’m not expecting a Behringer led TC to do something groundbreaking or amazing, but they can probably make something very solid for less money and in less time than basically anyone else. Behringers design goals are rarely to make something industry leading, there’s usually compromises involved to make them as affordable and easy to build as possible. But they have all the money and R&D they could possibly need to make any kind of DSP box. The limitations that exist for almost everyone else aren’t going to be a factor for them.

I can’t believe people think TC aren’t capable when we have tiny startups with absolutely no experience or R&D behind them making modellers. Are TC less qualified than St Rock or Hotone or Headrush or Mooer? Have Line 6 ever made a reverb that’s even 10% as good as VSS4 (or even VSS3)? Even Yamaha’s tech doesn’t compare to TC’s reverbs.

If I’m not mistaken, TC released the System 6000 in 1999 which has a colour touchscreen, extensive DSP, touch sensitive motorised faders etc. Think they can handle it.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

Behringer helps us with the factory part

I’m sure it’s more like Behringer telling them that they’re doing it and what the product needs to be, and it’s up to them to figure out how to come up with it. I’m sure TC would be running things very differently if it wasn’t for Behringer - before they were sold they were on the cusp of releasing their plugins for UAD’s DSP. Behringer pulled the plug almost immediately after buying them, they have their own ideas on how they want to use the brand.

 

[BenIfin]

Just a thought ..... adding the Ampworx algos ... and some other modeler basics into an expanded Plethora format would be [relatively speaking] very easy / low hanging fruit for TC (?)

Ben

 

[the swede]

Just a thought ..... adding the Ampworx algos ... and some other modeler basics into an expanded Plethora format would be [relatively speaking] very easy / low hanging fruit for TC (?)

Ben

That’s what think. Low hanging but quite the package.

 

[GTR37]

Just a thought ..... adding the Ampworx algos ... and some other modeler basics into an expanded Plethora format would be [relatively speaking] very easy / low hanging fruit for TC (?)

Ben

They also have one of the best sounding delays on the planet with the 2290 reissue

 

[pipelineaudio]

To me, if you wanted to release a flagship monitor today, it would have to be able to load VSTs and support a scripting language and/or expose parts of the API to the users

 

[MirrorProfiles]

To me, if you wanted to release a flagship monitor today, it would have to be able to load VSTs and support a scripting language and/or expose parts of the API to the users

That sounds like a nightmare for stability and opens things to all kinds of problems and compatibility/support issues. I think the only way can work is if it’s a somewhat closed ecosystem. I’d imagine a laptop or ipad rig could be more stable and cheaper if that level of flexibility is required.

 

[pipelineaudio]

It would be a challenge, but its 20 years past time.

REAPER is still probably the most stable DAW by any testable metric and you can third party cusomize the hell out of its internals.

Gig Performer allows some pretty serious scripting and runs whatever VST.

Not sure about any modellers, but I do know that many live performance devices are just PCs, sometimes acting as an embedded system, sometimes running a custom linux, sometimes just running plain windows

 

[MirrorProfiles]

It would be a challenge, but its 20 years past time.

REAPER is still probably the most stable DAW by any testable metric and you can third party cusomize the hell out of its internals.

Gig Performer allows some pretty serious scripting and runs whatever VST.

Not sure about any modellers, but I do know that many live performance devices are just PCs, sometimes acting as an embedded system, sometimes running a custom linux, sometimes just running plain windows

it’ll only be as stable as your weakest link. You’d be dealing with a ton of moving parts outside of the DAW. User experience would suck too, you’d lose everything all the advantages of a modeller.

I can’t see a way that someone can make something better than just using a computer of some sort, or a dedicated unit.

I remember some standalone plugin host from years ago, which had a load of excitement and then NOTHING happened with it.

Im curious, what would the advantage be over building a portable computer rig? That’s basically what you’re talking about right?

 

[pipelineaudio]

I spent a lot of time around 2017 with a few different music hardware companies trying to answer these questions. I had mocked up first a laptop and then later a mini computer replacing the laptop. I have a lot of videos showing this with the LbX Stripper script running in REAPER with a Behringer FCB1010. I was able to create truly instant, dropout free, adjustable crossfade and tail options, glitch free and artefact free switching as well this way

The big advantages the dedicated system would bring to me are

• Single unit - no plugging the computer to the Interface to the Pedalboard to the patching system to the outside world
• Ease of use - No finding a place to put the monitor or laptop to change parameters, the modeling companies have really got this part figured out on their pedalboards...Maybe not Boss, but certainly Line 6 and Valeton and to some extent, Neural DSP
• Reliability/terror factor - theres a lot lot lot of moving parts to go wrong, even before you get to potential OS troubles
• Latency. In a desktop factor, you could get an RME PCIe card in there, but for the laptops or minis, you are looking at an RME baby face, which just adds to the more moving parts and cables thing

When Justin made his CrusFX 5000 what like 20 years or more ago, he certainly showed it could be done. Yes there's buggy plugins and its easy to mess up your OS, but its not impossible

 

[MirrorProfiles]

I spent a lot of time around 2017 with a few different music hardware companies trying to answer these questions. I had mocked up first a laptop and then later a mini computer replacing the laptop. I have a lot of videos showing this with the LbX Stripper script running in REAPER with a Behringer FCB1010. I was able to create truly instant, dropout free, adjustable crossfade and tail options, glitch free and artefact free switching as well this way

The big advantages the dedicated system would bring to me are

• Single unit - no plugging the computer to the Interface to the Pedalboard to the patching system to the outside world
• Ease of use - No finding a place to put the monitor or laptop to change parameters, the modeling companies have really got this part figured out on their pedalboards...Maybe not Boss, but certainly Line 6 and Valeton and to some extent, Neural DSP
• Reliability/terror factor - theres a lot lot lot of moving parts to go wrong, even before you get to potential OS troubles
• Latency. In a desktop factor, you could get an RME PCIe card in there, but for the laptops or minis, you are looking at an RME baby face, which just adds to the more moving parts and cables thing

When Justin made his CrusFX 5000 what like 20 years or more ago, he certainly showed it could be done. Yes there's buggy plugins and its easy to mess up your OS, but its not impossible

View attachment 27253

Absolutely dead simple to build a rig that’s rackmounted with a screen and floorboard controller on the floor. In fact, that’s one of the main benefits of not using a dedicated modeller - you can spec out whatever peripherals you like and combine them, rather than it needing to all be on the floor. In fact, I would NOT want to be using any version of reaper or software that requires a keyboard and mouse with a small screen and something that’s built to be on the floor.

A rack mounted rig could be as simple as plugging a cable in, assuming all the internal routing is taken care of in advance.