Sonicake NAM Captures?

But it's not NAM functionality. There is format conversion going on, and the sample rate is changed, and null test reflects that. Dimehead Player perfomed much better in comparison, precisely because it actually runs NAM captures, unlike Pocketmaster.
Tell it to Leo, not me. He was the one who said it in his video.
 
I'm out of my depth here ..... but if the unit is hardware designed and built at, say, 44k / 16 bit ..... how can a firmware update "fix" this 44-to-48 NAM issue ?
This particular issues isn't caused by the hardware being 44.1k - it is caused by software taking a NAM model trained on 48k data and interpreting it at 44.1k. This should be solvable by doing resampling during the capture process.
 

Sample rate conversion should be very little of an issue these days. I think it's possibly rather *not* converting it but playing it as if it was a 44.1k file when it's actually a 48k file. Possibly sort of comparable (if not even remotely as noticeable) to playing back a 48k file in a DAW set to 44.1k.

This particular issues isn't caused by the hardware being 44.1k - it is caused by software taking a NAM model trained on 48k data and interpreting it at 44.1k. This should be solvable by doing resampling during the capture process.

Yeah, likely this.
 
This particular issues isn't caused by the hardware being 44.1k - it is caused by software taking a NAM model trained on 48k data and interpreting it at 44.1k. This should be solvable by doing resampling during the capture process.
I don't think that's the best way to solve the issue though, cuz you're forced to only use 44.1 kHz models that way. The best would be what the nam plugin does: read the original sample rate of the capture (which is stored in the metadata) and apply SRC pre and post to match the sample rate of the interface (or the pedal in this case)


Sample rate conversion should be very little of an issue these days. I think it's possibly rather *not* converting it but playing it as if it was a 44.1k file when it's actually a 48k file. Possibly sort of comparable (if not even remotely as noticeable) to playing back a 48k file in a DAW set to 44.1k.
Afaik you can't convert the sample rate of an AI generated model, what you can do is apply SRC pre and post (what nam and even tonex do).
 
I don't think that's the best way to solve the issue though, cuz you're forced to only use 44.1 kHz models that way. The best would be what the nam plugin does: read the original sample rate of the capture (which is stored in the metadata) and apply SRC pre and post to match the sample rate of the interface (or the pedal in this case)
By "resampling during the capture process" I meant the process of the device capturing the NAM model into its own internal format, not the original NAM capture process.
 
On Leo's video it only got to -40db in the null

Why would that be "only"? -40dB is pretty good already. Lower anything you listen to by 40dB and what's left is the level range of difference, so to say. I know, it doesn't 100% work that way, but still, -40 is heading into the "indiscernable for the human listener" direction already.

Fwiw, as far as Leo Gibson's Kemper comparison goes, I think it's not as valid as the Kemper is using quite a different approach and the outcome can be pretty different depending on the amp you've profiled. As the Kemper is using baseline amps as a foundation (plus some wicked match EQ trickery), when you try to profile an amp not close to any of those baseline amps, the result will be less authentic. Which is also why the Kemper doesn't do well in profiling amps with "complexed" drive pedals in front, whereas NAM has way less issues doing so.
 
Why would that be "only"? -40dB is pretty good already. Lower anything you listen to by 40dB and what's left is the level range of difference, so to say. I know, it doesn't 100% work that way, but still, -40 is heading into the "indiscernable for the human listener" direction already.
-40 is GREAT for most types of audibility tests, but in this case, he had stuff before getting it below audibility in general, like -90 to -120
 
Fwiw, as far as Leo Gibson's Kemper comparison goes, I think it's not as valid as the Kemper is using quite a different approach and the outcome can be pretty different depending on the amp you've profiled. As the Kemper is using baseline amps as a foundation (plus some wicked match EQ trickery), when you try to profile an amp not close to any of those baseline amps, the result will be less authentic. Which is also why the Kemper doesn't do well in profiling amps with "complexed" drive pedals in front, whereas NAM has way less issues doing so.
Ahh ok, that makes sense...I gotta watch that video closer
 
Why did the dimehead NAM player do so bad?
I think they were backordered for a good while so sales seemed to have been fine.

It is a bit on the pricier side for me. Thar and not being able to double as an Audio interface, the input calibration and file management were what kept me from personally pulling the trigger on it. Most of the other stuff is alright for what the unit wants to be.
 
Back
Top