Should NAMM amp simulation be considered a standard going forward by all manufacturers?

[Enchilada Jones]

I understand that, for example, Line 6 didn't want to 'poach' amp profiling out of respect for Kemper...and I remember Fractal was accused of getting too close to that with some kind of 'EQ Matching'...
However NAMM I believe, is developed and distributed as a free technology and it looks like it is going to be around from now on.

If my understanding as I laid it out above is correct my thought is companies like Fractal and Line 6 should incorporate 'NAMM Blocks' as a an option just like they would incorporate 'tape delay' blocks.
Am I just being greedy to have what I want in those systems I love or is NAMM tech the low hanging fruit they seem to be refusing to add to the menu?

 

[Will Chen]

Honestly...profiling/capture is fine but unless that object can be modified like the underlying real amp (like a liquid profile) I just don't have any interest in it all.

 

[Boudoir Guitar]

I would not want to put a NAMM block in any of my modelers for fear it would lead to the spread of the dreaded NAMM-thrax. A NAM block? Meh. Maybe. I'm not gonna gatekeep against it @James Freeman , but I definitely don't see the benefit for Fractal or L6.

 

[Boudoir Guitar]

I understand that, for example, Line 6 didn't want to 'poach' amp profiling out of respect for Kemper...and I remember Fractal was accused of getting too close to that with some kind of 'EQ Matching'...
However NAMM I believe, is developed and distributed as a free technology and it looks like it is going to be around from now on.

If my understanding as I laid it out above is correct my thought is companies like Fractal and Line 6 should incorporate 'NAMM Blocks' as a an option just like they would incorporate 'tape delay' blocks.
Am I just being greedy to have what I want in those systems I love or is NAMM tech the low hanging fruit they seem to be refusing to add to the menu?

Also -- is your unbridled faith in Atomic producing a supporting a (good) hardware product diminished or something?!? NAM COULD BE THE QUICK WIN THAT PUTS THEM ON TOP, AMIRIGHT, JT?!?!? (somebody other than me go over to the Atomic forum and see if some poor bastard has already started the "can we get a NAM block in the next AA6 firmware update, and will it be backwards compatible to my AA3?).

 

[JiveTurkey]

Also -- is your unbridled faith in Atomic producing a supporting a (good) hardware product diminished or something?!? NAM COULD BE THE QUICK WIN THAT PUTS THEM ON TOP, AMIRIGHT, JT?!?!? (somebody other than me go over to the Atomic forum and see if some poor bastard has already started the "can we get a NAM block in the next AA6 firmware update, and will it be backwards compatible to my AA3?).

I'M TRYING TO BUY AMP SHELVING!!!

 

[Boudoir Guitar]

I'M TRYING TO BUY AMP SHELVING!!!

WE CAN'T LET THE ANSWERS TO IMPORTANT QUESTIONS GET BURIED DEEP IN A NAM(M) MEGA THREAD!!!!!!!!

 

[nicolasrivera]

Honestly...profiling/capture is fine but unless that object can be modified like the underlying real amp (like a liquid profile) I just don't have any interest in it all.

Overloud (TH-U) is doing an amazing job right now with its new way of mixing capturing and component base modeling. the 2 amps that have been released earlier this week sound and feel amazing.

 

[TubeStack]

I'M TRYING TO BUY AMP SHELVING!!!

Oh… I thought in your other post that shelf-shopping meant “running the racks” in person for a face-ripping Marshall…

But you meant actual shelving.

 

[TubeStack]

If I could have capturing/profiling in a (reasonably sized) Fractal or L6 unit, via NAM or their own version, along with all their effects, I’d buy it in a second, no hesitation.

 

[TubeStack]

Can NAM capture drive pedals, like the QC?

 

[Jarick]

No it’s a third party thing. Bonus if it works but can’t own and support it IMO.

 

[Sedaxel]

Ok, there's some confusion with NAMM and NAM. Not a big deal, but they are not the same... LOL

Regarding possible standardising of NAM, my opinion is that NO, it shouldn't be a standard for all modellers.

My reasons to have that opinion is that NAM is not the definitive capturing procedure. It has some cons. I see three big ones: 1) unknown training input gain of online profiles, 2) CPU intensive and 3) no "liquid" capturing.

Yet, it could evolve and improve, of course. But, if brands were taking NAM as an standard, and all of them had to work to evolve a common feature... Then there'd be weak motivation for companies to invest in something that, anyways, they could use in their units for free. And We'd also lose the competition of professional effects makers racing to have the best modelling / capturing tool.

 

[ragingplatypi]

 

[Enchilada Jones]

Sorry about the extra M. As far as NAM not being the definitive capturing process. I didn't mean to imply that it was but I see that I sort of said that.
It was just me using the name as a generic label for any kind of open source capture technology that people might use to create and share captures.
What I'm suggesting is a 'capture' block is no different than an impulse response block as far as being a feature that all multi effects manufacturers should include.

I get that Fractal and Line 6 might understand that and still not want to do it because it is the opposite of what they do in a way. They create a complete model of an amp so they would be including a very limited way to do what they have already done by doing the full model.
On the other hand it looks like they will have to add a lot of personnel to their workspace to keep up with the growth of the public inventory of 'captures' if they want to compete.

 

[TubeStack]

---

I'm suggesting a 'capture' block is no different than an impulse response block as far as being a feature that all multi effects manufacturers should include.

That’s an effective way to put it.

 

[Boudoir Guitar]

Sorry about the extra M. As far as NAM not being the definitive capturing process. I didn't mean to imply that it was but I see that way I sort of said that.
It was just me using the name as a generic label for any kind of open source capture technology that people might use to create and share captures.
What I'm suggesting is a 'capture' block is no different than an impulse response block as far as being a feature that all multi effects manufacturers should include.

I think the challenge you'll have is...

...Let's get real, there are a LOT of really terrible sounding captures out there in any capture world. The (well, a lot of) the models in Fractal and Line6 (and many other platforms) sound really good. I would go so far as to say that ALL of the algorithmic models in Fractal and Line 6 and possibly several other makers are far better than MOST of the available NAM captures.

So if I'm Fractal or Line6, both of whom have a very deep pool of very good sounding amp models -- I probably don't want to open up my product to the inclusion of what amounts to a huge cesspool of captures that might have a few pieces of value floating around in there.

 

[Boudoir Guitar]

---

That’s an effective way to put it.

Except that to the degree that there are different approaches to levels, lengths, etc., in IR captures, all of which can more or less be accounted for...the same can't really be said for the wide variations of how people are going about making captures. As but one example, boat loads of available captures are actually of modelers, not amps.

 

[Sedaxel]

Sorry about the extra M. As far as NAM not being the definitive capturing process. I didn't mean to imply that it was but I see that way I sort of said that.
It was just me using the name as a generic label for any kind of open source capture technology that people might use to create and share captures.
What I'm suggesting is a 'capture' block is no different than an impulse response block as far as being a feature that all multi effects manufacturers should include.

I actually think that every modeller will have a capture block.

Don't think it'd be NAM, though. Most units in the market aren't capable of running a full NAM capture without almost getting out of CPU power.

For me, it's not that simple as a convolution algorithm, which made possible to make IRs a standard thing. I think that there are many ways of capturing and playing captures, and brands will follow their own path to compete, I guess.

But one way or another, profiling will be a common feature, for sure. It's already a not-so-rare feature (kemper, QC, Mooer, Headrush, Amperium, MOD, Poly... Tonex, even not being a multieffects).

 

[Enchilada Jones]

..
So if I'm Fractal or Line6, both of whom have a very deep pool of very good sounding amp models -- I probably don't want to open up my product to the inclusion of what amounts to a huge cesspool of captures that might have a few pieces of value floating around in there.

Yea I definitely see that. I think that challenge is what made me ask the question. Is there going to be a tipping point when their competitors, say Atomic, puts together a great piece of hardware that does both really well and has good effects menu as well.
Im wondering if it is inevitable that they will have to adopt it or is there enough wrong with captures that the tipping point will not arrive?

 

[TubeStack]

Except that to the degree that there are different approaches to levels, lengths, etc., in IR captures, all of which can more or less be accounted for...the same can't really be said for the wide variations of how people are going about making captures. As but one example, boat loads of available captures are actually of modelers, not amps.

Except that I just want to use my own captures, so none of that matters.