Valeton GP-5

[Sedaxel]

We now need a REAL FULL affordable NAM loader.

I use my iPhone with NAM XT for that.
All full nam loaders are way too expensive for that feature alone.
As a simple 20 dollars pi4 pipedal can do it.

I'd say it's not exactly 20 dollar. Actually, if you add a fast audio interface for the Pi4, a good power supply, a case (preferably with active cooling)... You end up closer to usd200 than usd100.

Pi based rigs are cool. But they are not simple nor as friendly as a dedicated multieffects (you have to configure headless use, deal with midi devices, assignations, possible hangs, a smartphone to tweak everything, etc). And ultimately, they're not that cheap and convenient as having just a device that you just turn on and gets you playing immediately.

That said, I'm not a fan of hardware NAM players either. My feeling is that they're dated even on their launch. They have their use, obviously, and I can perfectly see why some users could value them to get NAM integrated in their pedalboards. But paying 400 for that seems like a bad investment to me. In a couple years noone would pay even 100 for them. Of course, I could be wrong.

 

[Sascha Franck]

As a simple 20 dollars pi4 pipedal can do it.

Not within any reasonable latency range.

 

[Chocol8]

In a couple years noone would pay even 100 for them.

The $100 NAM pedal has been forum theirized vapor ware for almost 5 years now. If that ever happens with V2 it is going to be running so scaled down the sound quality will suffer anyway.

I don't see anyone coming out with full quality NAM hardware sub $200 anytime soon,

 

[Pipotron2000]

My old iPhone is less than 50 euros.
And it can run TWO full NAM at the same time in NAM XT.
Add to that a second hand irig hd 2.
I can even add any effects before and after.

For now, we are stuck between cheap and half backed recapture or full NAM over
priced AND STILL under powered (400-500 euros for mod dwarf with A35 cpu).

For that price : Kemper player, nano corteX, helix …
Funny ppl speak about « free open source NAM» … and sell overpriced underpowered devices on this point.

 

[Sedaxel]

I don't see anyone coming out with full quality NAM hardware sub $200 anytime soon,

Maybe.

I think that, at least what I wrote about for a few years, capturing was what was becoming a standard feature even in cheap devices. That's almost done today. Even when being NAM conversions or proprietary ones (Mooer, Hotone, Nux... L6 soon, and Fractal too).

The thing for full NAM is just a matter of power. And I think that'll be available in few years. But well, we'll see!

 

[Sascha Franck]

I don't see anyone coming out with full quality NAM hardware sub $200 anytime soon,

Dunno. Given that the Tonex One is well below that, why wouldn't it work for NAM, especially given that there's competition, whereas the Tonex format is a monopol?

 

[Chocol8]

Dunno. Given that the Tonex One is well below that, why wouldn't it work for NAM, especially given that there's competition, whereas the Tonex format is a monopol?

Because full NAM still takes far more processing power than Tonex V1 or V2. We hear NAM A2 will allow scaling but we haven't heard that its been optimized so that the full capture will use Tonex levels of DSP yet.

 

[Sascha Franck]

Because full NAM still takes far more processing power than Tonex V1 or V2. We hear NAM A2 will allow scaling but we haven't heard that its been optimized so that the full capture will use Tonex levels of DSP yet.

I think for most applications, you don't need max. quality NAM captures. I compared some I made myself using different epochs and anything over 400 seemed to be pretty well in the land of diminishing returns.

 

[Pipotron2000]

I don’t think it is a power matter only.
As I said, mod dwarf run on A35.
less than 50 euros on a mini computer pcb board.
Big companies don’t want open source.
As you can see, helix stadium got enough power … still no NAM but their own proprietary profiler.

 

[Sedaxel]

I don’t think it is a power matter only.
As I said, mod dwarf run on A35.
less than 50 euros on a mini computer pcb board.
Big companies don’t want open source.
As you can see, helix stadium got enough power … still no NAM but their own proprietary profiler.

Yeah, that´s something I always thought too. However, Fractal has announced NAM implementation. The cheap brands are implementing NAM (converted, but they´re open source NAM captures after all).

From a business point of view, I think big brands will try to avoid NAM, since that would balance tones among all brands... and that´s very interesting for cheap brands, but also undesirable for big brands that will find harder to justify price difference if tones become similarly good at any budget.

I guess L6 started their differentiation way by adding a lot of new innovative features with the Stadium. And when their capturing tech is running, they´ll try to be better than the competition, of course.

Fractal still has the best sims and they seem to rely on that as they differentiation factor, giving not too much relevance to capturing (or maybe pretending it, I don´t know)… adding NAM support just as a secondary feature. It seems they are not developing any capturing tech.

NDSP has very good sims (maybe on par to Fractal, depending on who you ask), and a very powerful capturing tech that has entered time based effects (compression), being the first brand in crossing that barrier. There you have their differentiation factor.

Tonex, offers very accurate captures at a very low price, and with very convenient form factor for pedalboard users. But that´s already matched by the Valeton GP-5 (with differences in latency and quality).

Everyone will try to highlight their selling points, and that´s why I think “open source” is not good news for companies that invest a lot of money researching and developing to compete. I also think that this “race” or “competition” is what can make capturing to evolve faster. If there´s no money in the equation to pay software engineers, and it´s just a matter of talented guys developing “for fun”, maybe it all would go much slower.

I think that, if cheap brands could add full NAM at low cost, they´d do without even a slight sign of doubt, and I think that if they are not doing it yet is because hardware would cost a lot more.

Or maybe all of that is just wrong! Who knows!

 

[Sascha Franck]

Everyone will try to highlight their selling points, and that´s why I think “open source” is not good news for companies that invest a lot of money researching and developing to compete.

You might have a point there.
But then, the bigger fishes may have to keep up, though, because right now it's not too tough anymore to set up an incredibly capable hybrid sytem. My GT-1000 plus Tonex One rigs are *very* affordable and offer an incredible amount of flexibility (once your past the programming...).
I'm already considering to exchange one TXO in favour of a Sonulab box - hence having full native NAM access.

 

[Chocol8]

I think big brands will try to avoid NAM, since that would balance tones among all brands.

That ship sailed a while ago. Capturing is already balancing tones across brands. No one in the audience could tell the tonal difference between Tonex V2, QC V2, and NAM, and no modeler out there is going to sound better either. There is no competitive advantage left to be had for pure amp tones. It's all going to be about user experience, effects, and other features, and capturing is going to apply to more and more effects as well.

The major players are all going to support either NAM or another capture tech once the next gen Fractal comes out with NAM support. And I get it, QC is not the same open format and Line6 has been quiet about NAM integration in Proxy although DI hinted a while back that it was a possibility they were considering. So who is the big holdout? I don't see one really.

 

[Sedaxel]

But then, the bigger fishes may have to keep up, though, because right now it's not too tough anymore to set up an incredibly capable hybrid sytem.

Absolutely.

I mean... great tone doesn´t mean a lot of money anymore. That´s great for us, but companies have a delicate situation ahead because the competition will have VERY GOOD tones for very cheap. A good marketing strategy will be crucial for them, I guess.

As some mates have stated here and there in the forum, I think that nowadays the biggest differences will be based on features, not tone.

 

[Sedaxel]

The major players are all going to support either NAM or another capture tech once the next gen Fractal comes out with NAM support.

I agree with this. Moreover... I don´t think they´ll do because Fractal adds NAM. I think they´ll do because they must. And I suspect they all have it before Fractal.

Regarding L6... I don´t think they would be marketing his coming capturing tech the way they do if it was just to be NAM. My opinion is that they have decided to build their own.

 

[Sascha Franck]

Regarding L6... I don´t think they would be marketing his coming capturing tech the way they do if it was just to be NAM. My opinion is that they have decided to build their own.

They might even go for NAM support *and* their own capture tech. Eric more or less directly said that NAM would at least be something they're thinking about.

 

[Chocol8]

Reading between the lines on different things posted by different people in different places, I think there may be some significant NAM DNA in Proxy, and Steve may have been (or may still be) involved. I could be completely wrong about this, but adding native NAM support to Proxy may not be that big of a deal if it is true.

 

[Chocol8]

I don´t think they´ll do because Fractal adds NAM. I think they´ll do because they must. And I suspect they all have it before Fractal.

I mentioned Fractal because Proxy is coming next month at which point the major players will all have capture support except Fractal, and Fractal has announced it is coming. They will be the last one.

The question is how long before they all just go to NAM support and drop proprietary formats. That I think will take longer since Tonex and QC have advantages over NAM and Proxy likely will or Line 6 wouldn't have bothered doing something different. I also think it will be easy enough to train these things off of each other, converting to or from NAM may become painless enough with a low enough quality loss, that people won't care too much about what format the device runs.

 

[Sascha Franck]

That I think will take longer since Tonex and QC have advantages over NAM

I can understand the advantages of the QC, but what are the advantages of the Tonex format? IMO they're even falling behind as NAM by now allows for embedding meta data regarding input calibration whereas Tonex doesn't. Also, NAM creation a lot easier, plus it's cloudbased, hence taking the processing burden off your computer.

 

[Sedaxel]

I don´t think NAM will kill QC format. It maybe will... it´s just that I don´t see it that clearly. Currently, I like QC captures more. Not to mention that they have the edge with time based effects, and the advatnage of on-device capturing. Honestly, I stoped using NAM when I realized I was annoyed by calibration and whatnot. Even with the metadata hack, it´s not that easy as not having to think about it at all, and knowing that all captures have been made with the same device. For me, that´s very valuable peace of mind.

And, as far as NDSP keeps on getting benefits from that tech, I think their captures will evolve faster than NAM.

But, all in all, in few years current captures will also be obsolete. I can only think in all than hybrid capturing+sims (or whatever tech comes next) being better and better, and also running in more powerful hardwares.

 

[Chocol8]

but what are the advantages of the Tonex format?

It can sound as good as NAM using a fraction of the DSP. Thats way more important.