NO ONE comes close to such brilliant comparisons. Such a simple trick of phase inversion being able to pull the pants down on the big players hardware was great. Never change, Leo!
You are providing quantitative information to go along with qualitative assessments/judgements AND real life “in the mix” experiences for context. You deserve way more subscribers based on your earnest contributions to tone fans and great guitar playing, imo. Thank you.
I love NAM so much, it's already my main guitar amp (using a Splawn Pro Mod profile mostly, one of my dream amps and now I got it for free) and not looking back. Great testing, thanks!
Best gear channel in RUclips, no bullshit, objective comparisons and great playing! Regarding the comparison to me 4 and 5 sounded the best, I felt like the attack of the pick was a bit sweeter in those, anyway the all sound pretty damn close 😂
Thank you so much, I'm really happy that you appreciate the video and the channel! Thank you also for sharing your findings! If you are interested in my music, maybe you can check out my last EP: ruclips.net/video/rORYU3-v4t4/видео.html Thank you!
Your tests are the best!, I think you're the only youtuber doing a real Null test which is the most scientific way of doing these kind of comparisons, for a trained ear the other difference is that the more realistic the capture the more "3D" it appears to be and NAM really has that 3D quality, another interesting point you mention is that these captures are accurate for a SINGLE setting and as soon as someone tries to EQ or adjust the capture it'll divert from the original in an unpredictable way that no longer resembles the original unless, as you also stated correctly, you can blend captures with each knob movement and that brings the problem of processing power and memory as you'll need almost infinite combinations of captures to truly recreate an amp in software, fortunately we have Modeling which tries to solve this problem by programming it's algorithms to emulate and recreate what these knob movements would create on the real amp, That's why I think a combination of both technologies is what manufacturers should focus on, BTW, did you uploaded your Friedman capture into the NAM hive cloud?, Thanks!
Hi, interesting point...mixing modelling and profiling would be interesting...I think we can also proceed in discrete steps...like proteus is starting doing. I mean for instance we can profile the gain knob at 20% 30% 40% etc...and then make the other combination...I think it's feasible...of course you have to spend a lot of time profiling all the combination...or the most relevant ones..... Thank you so much for your comment and I'm happy that you like the videos!!
@@LeoGibsonGtr Profiling and neural network modeling are very different approaches. The neural network for us is a Black Box. It has nothing to do with emulation of a tube amp at all. We train it as a whole, we can not change certain characteristics after the model is trained. That makes it hard to combine it with other techniques. The tone stack of Tonex shows this, many criticize it, because you can hear it is not naturally baked into the amp. With Proteus and NAM it is principally possible to train a model with more parameters, from the real thing. One complete amp has already been made with NAM. It took 1 week to train and sounds fantastic. It took 70 captures to get the best out of it. Still, the resulting model does not need THAT much processing power, the most is invested in the training. I think, for future, there is not much potential in combining profiling with neural network amps, but a lot of potential in making it a bit more lightweight, in optimization, usage of graphics cards and meaningful user interfaces and a good choice of parameters to model. The other great thing are fantastic hardware emulators like Otto Audio II II II. This thing let me build hi gain amps, that I never heard before, in a plugin. Very intuitive, very sophisticated, great sounding. I use it to design some fantasy amp sounds for metal to use in a project. I then make Proteus models of them and use them inside of BYOD in the project. It's a fantastic new world for sounds right now. You can also model your studio hardware with NAM. There are already nam models for the nonlinear soundeffects of the Neve 1073 micpre, the Teletronix LA2A and the 1176 blue stripe compressors and a Studer tape (left and right). Fantastic times for musicians.
Hi, thank you so much for this informative post! May I ask you where can I dine the complete amp made with NAM? I would like to do the same thing with my Twin Sister and my Pink Taco...very interesting also the Otto Audio plugin...I want to try it out! Thanks!
@@hirpisorani9600 There are a lot of amps captured with a load box These need an IR. But there are also models of the whole stack captured with a microphone, amp and cab.
Glad to be an influence on your awesome channel Leo! Great testing as always. I am pushing hard for NAM to become stereo, so you can insert it onto stereo tracks and also run stereo wet effects in front of it. I would also love to see a pedal maker build a pedal that hosts NAM, so you can have this sound on your pedalboard. Stereo would be amazing, so that it can integrate seamlessly with all of your other stereo pedals!
Thank you for the comparison analysis! On the Quad Cortex forums, there are some who are saying that CORS 2.1 has improved the capture quality. It would be interesting to see the same null test after the update (Aug 23). Thanks for all of your work, you have great content!
You are welcome and I'm really happy that you like the video!!! Thank you also for sharing this info...I'm was not aware...I will think about it. Thank you once more!
Would love to see a comparison between the NAM with a high end interface like yours and something like a Focusrite Scarlett that we could expect most people would be using. Especially people looking for a free solution.
Hi Leo. Congrats that was a great test. If you want to refine the test I recommend to use a frequency generator to scan a narrow band frequency and invert it. I am going to explain. Amps are extremely non-linear. Most parts of tone are composed by harmonics superposition which are extremely reach. Therefore some resulting frequency intensity is a complex superposition of many combinations, If you scan a single frequency and its harmonics you will be sure they are been reproduced precisely. But for first trial your test is amazing. Congrats for the unique video test.
Thank you so much, I'm happy that you like the videos and the tests! Thank you also for the tips...pretty interesting...I have to think about this suggestions...Thank you!
The phase inversion idea was brilliant Leo. Now I wonder if the same were applied to different takes. So capture an amp and then capture it again, same unit and compare :O
Thank you! Yes, good point about the amp sound captured in different moments. Here there are some more info about this topic: ruclips.net/video/Rd00a2vh6F8/видео.html
This is becoming close to a PH. D. in Accoustics, Modelling and Profiling of Analog Devices to their Digital Representations, Leo you are the best in this domain so far in the world.
Very interesting and very useful. I'll try the NAM and, if it's as good as I suspect it will be, sell my Quad Cortex (which I don't use for pedal emulation etc). Please do post a video on how you train the NAM.
On first listen I thought 3 and 5 sounded the best, but especially 5. It just seemed to have more harmonic content. I would definitely like to see how to capture an amp with NAM. I did try once so far but my files would not even upload. Thanks so much for doing this video!
You are welcome! Yes, I trained the profiles locally on my pc...I even did't try the google collab tour...I prefer to have everything under control, learning what I have to learn.
Excelent video... I was very curious to see you doing this a comparation. You are the best in the internet, teaching and showing us the amp and gear sounds
I preferred 5 & 1 while 4 came in third with my least favorite being 3. Was almost going to buy a quad cortex but since they were hard to get, never ended up getting one. Now glad I didn’t get one. There’s a FREE plugin that sounds almost exactly like the real amps. Unbelievable. And thanks again for your thorough technical review Leo. I love seeing stuff like that for your reviews 👍🙏🙏
Thank you Leo, it is such a joy to watch your consistent quality content! I've paid for Tonex Max just a few days before discovering NAM, but I still prefer Tonex for a few reaons. First, CPU usage. NAM is noticeably more taxing on the processing power, and in a mix at 48khz 64 bit float which include a complex console emulation rig on the mix bus (which is already pretty taxing because it needs to apply it on every track in the session), it becomes way too heavy and i'm having crackling/popping noises even on my custom pc built for 6K RAW video editing. To reduce it, you have to drop down the training fidelity when creating the profile, which makes no sense to me at this point. Also, since I don't own any amps anymore and I'm exclusively using other people captures, Tonex has a lot more to offer at the moment. The null tests do confirm that NAM is even more accurate, but otherwise you couldn't tell (at least not enough for me to care). Still, NAM is awesome and will definitely change the game even further!
You are welcome and I'm really happy that you like the videos!!! Interesting points...good point about the CPU usage...I didn't notice it...I have to try....Of course ToneX is a much more complete platform...and the Tone X pedal was a great addition to the IK line up of products... Thank you once more!!!
You might check out the GuitarML Proteus for lighter CPU usage. The models can also be load into Chow DSP BYOD. They are lighter on CPU and can be modeled FAST (I can train a model in 10 minutes easily in 1660 to 3080 wit CUDA. I wrote a Proteus Model Builder to easily train a model offline. They are still on par with the Tonex easily, if not better. The guy who wrote Proteus also contributes to NAM now.
@@LeoGibsonGtr It may be interesting to hear, that there are active developments underway to make the open source neural modelers more complete and user friendly. I wrote a wrapper app for Proteus and am currently actively developing a GUI for the training process for 'NAM, too, and Proteus can be run in a DIY pedal already. There are also active developments underway to compile also NAM for the ARM platforms, e.g. as an lv2 plugin that could be loaded into MODDwarf, a commercially available pedal.
Thank you for the objective data from phase cancellation and the blind test where you can enjoy subjective evaluation. I have already purchased Kemper, but I have decided to purchase Tonex as well.
No of course I can't tell the difference! And even if I could it doesn't mean I prefer one rig over another one. What a brilliant demonstration. Thank you.
Rig 3 fwiw. Much more important is your great contribution to guitar players' understanding of this new technology - fantastic, thanks Leo, your videos much appreciated! 👍
Awesome video Leo! I've been preaching this gospel for years now. The null test is truly the ONLY way to determine how close a real amp is to a modeled counterpart. Ain't science grand? :D
I'm waiting for one of the famous "RUclipsrs" to do an A/B/C comparison and NUL test between three 1965 Deluxe Reverbs or JCM800s all mic'd up the same...they'll sound different, so what's the point?
@@guitartoneSA True. But you missed the point. Every modeled amp is based on a specific amp. They can't model EVERY Rectifier. The null just allows them to create a copy of that one single amp. But it would be a perfect copy. Completely indistinguishable from the amp being modeled.
I have the whole IK setup (Tonex Max, Amplitube-5 Max, Tonex Capture, Tonex Pedal and use a Two notes Captor for profiling). I also messed about with NAM but have yet to figure out how to do my own profiles with it. From the profiles I have tried with NAM it is excellent. That said, I am absolutely in love with Tonex. To me Tonex is the Line6 of profiling in that it brought excellent tone to the masses in an easy to use package and at a reasonable cost. I find that if I capture one of my own amps with it (I capture with no cab and no other signal processing but straight into the interface) the included ir's (I love the Memory Lane cab in the 4x12 section and the 4x12 Green in the VIR section) Reverb (plate for me) and compressor. I then import my preset into my Tonex pedal and do a few further tweaks it is my best tone of my playing life (hacking away since the early 1970's)
warm greetings from Oz; thanks for all your efforts to convey these DI amp tones, in simple terms..... can be a deep digital rabbit hole .... avoided by an analogue Princeton reverb amp & EQ pedal
Thanks for these great tests Leo! My favourites, ranked, were #1, 5, 2, 4 and 3. Surprised to see that I ranked the Kemper one spot ahead of the more accurate ToneX. Will have to give NAM a try on my opensource operating system.
I was surprised as well. Though ive heard that tone x for some reason has a little less gain than the amp its profiling and experienced profilers will add a clean boost to make it more close to the amp. I wonder if thats what we were hearing.
I want to really thank you for your very good videos. Actually, I bought an Ampero after seeing one of them a while ago. It is great, that you use actual science to show the viewers, that good sound is NOT magic. It is science. Tubes are tubes and not magic fairy dust. And if someone is not actually able to perceive the difference between the analog device and the digital model, there we have a point, where the discussion of "what sounds better" became meaningless. Then everything is about handling, processor power, mobility, real estate and physical weight! Of course people will still buy amps, because of nostalgic or historic value, status symbols etc. or for namedropping to get clients!
Thank you so much, I'm really happy that you appreciate the videos!!! Yes, I think that tube amps are here to stay even if we will be able to copy them digitally...I still buy tube amps, even if I think that digital solutions are very very good. It's like my black Suhr guitar....why I finally end up wanting to play that guitar? Because I have a connection with that guitar...when I see her, I want to play...the same think happens with real amps...they are attracting me, they are nice to see, they have an history...This is not logical, considering the price, but as we said in Italy "al cuore non si comanda" ...
Thank you so much, I'm really happy that you like the video and your sub really mean a lot to me! As regards polarity, as far as I know, “Reverse Phase” in Cubase means “reverse polarity,” so that positives become negatives and vice versa. I'm not 100% sure...but that's what I found in the forums....Any feedback from you on this topic would be appreciated. Thank you!
@@LeoGibsonGtr Thanks for the response! Well, as far as I'm concerned, polarity refers to either positive or negative values of the sine wave, where phase actually refers to sine wave in time. So when you align 2 waveforms that they start precisely on the same sample - you're aligning phase. But when you make positive values negative and vice versa, you reverse polarity of the signal. My Console1 also states that it's phase inversion, which is not what it really is :)
You nailed it. That was exactly what I liked to know and your Video gave me confidence about: _How is the quality, and how to measure or compare it?_ You answered that question.
Excellent tests, Leo! I wonder how the Tonex would perform on the null tests after their updates? It seems to me from watching others channels that they always had to raise the gain control after the capturing was complete, and also they would add a bit of presence too.
Something worth considering is how “deep into a mix” we can hear. Ethan Winer did tests where he mixed tones and noise into various program material. Depending on the kind of program, like a rock mix, and noise, like a sine or noise burst, and how loud they are relative to one another, even obnoxious and inharmonic sounds can be completely masked. That applies here. Let’s say there’s a 30dB difference in accuracy among these modelers vs the real amp. Then let’s also suppose we can only hear the top 20dB of a loud and dense rock mix. That means as soon as the guitar is pushed back 10dB from the top of the mix in terms of volume, the differences among the amps and profilers will disappear. You can hear that in your demo where you swap sounds on the rhythm guitar. The differences are less noticeable or altogether imperceptible. In contrast, when you play the the solo and switch, because the whole crest of the guitar is higher, the differences become more obvious. I’ll add that the solo also places the frequency content emphasis toward our centers of hearing from 1-4kHz (high E 20th fret is around 1kHz plus the harmonics) which is subjectively the same as turning up the volume (equal loudness contours). Put simply, it matters more for lead guitar than rhythm in many cases. This is just a little more detail on the common notion that people say with “but in a mix you can’t tell.” Well, maybe or maybe not. It depends on the program material, how featured the sound is and how close the model/imitation is to the “real thing”. If you’re interested in reading Ethan’s article on it, you can search his name and “artifact audibility” or just test yourself with various backing tracks and noise generators in your daw.
Io ho votato per il 5, nel mix lo preferisco, ed è quello gratuito! Questo canale è il top, bel brano, video intelligenti e di taglio pratico. Bravissimo, un abbraccio
Before I see he results, I thought 2 and 5 were pretty close and sounded the best to me. Rig 1 was 3rd for me. 3 and 4 didn't sound bad, but come in last for me.
Great video thanks dude and nice playing, if you would be up for doing a capture process tutorial for the nam plug-in that would be a resource lots of us would find really helpful I think would probably help support the developer/s as well.
Thank you Leo. Null test is the only way I would ever accept any comparison .So far ,in 2023, NAM is THE BEST at profiling unless someone can prove otherwise.
Wow great aporoach to objectively evaluate profilers, and great explanation. I'm curious how the profiling in the Mooer ge300 and other devices stacks up.
Thank you so much, I'm really happy that you appreciate the video!!! Yes, it is interesting...but unfortunately the GE Labs App works only for phones or tablet...and with phones and tablet I cannot use my "standard" recording chain, as I have to use a different audio interface...therefore I cannot compare....
Most of the technical stuff you talked about was way over my head, but interesting nonetheless. Will be interesting to hear about Proteus that you mentioned. My favorite way to use IR's is exactly what you mentioned, by having 10-20 IR's of the same speaker and mic combo, but with the mic position moved subtly around the speaker and at different distances and angles. It's totally nerdy stuff, but fun to experiment with. God bless and rock on 🎸😎👍
Great job Leo! I can tell you always put a lot of work into your videos and I think they’re the best on RUclips for this kind of stuff. Big kudos to you. I have two questions about the null test: (1) Did you make sure the waveforms were time-aligned down to the individual sample? (2) Did you also make sure the two waveforms were level-matched until they gave the quietest null? To have truly accurate null tests, both of those things are crucial. Thanks!
Thank you, I'm really happy that you appreciate the video! Yes to both the questions...I've spent a lot of time to level match the wave forms and to align them...I'm working on this video actually almost since a month... Thank you!
@@LeoGibsonGtr Thanks for the reply! You’re always so thorough that I expected you did do those things, but I just wanted to double check. Again, great job, and thank you for all the top-quality videos you create.
I would like to suggest, if you could post videos showing how NAM sounds live through studio monitors (captured by a room microphone) and also in the stage. There are almost no videos on RUclips showing these "live" demonstrations with NAM.
Thanks for the video! Three suggestions: 1. 2:24 Record the Friedman a second time, and attempt to null the two recordings. This gives a baseline of how good is possible until noise prevents further cancelling. 2. It sounds like you used NAM to model an amp + cab? For now, you'll probably find that NAM does better when modeling an amp alone. 3. It's informative to try things out both loud and quiet. One thing I'm proud of is that NAM's reamping signal includes quiet parts, which allows the model to learn how to respond correctly not only when strumming plainly, but also when playing dynamically. Cheers!
Hi, you are welcome! Are you Steven in person? well, actually I should "Thank you" for your plugin...which is awesome! Thank you for your suggestions too! 1) good point... 2) I read that NAM is supposed do to better when modelling amps alone. Nevertheless, in my opinion, the best captures are the ones with also the cab included, capturing the interaction between amp and cab, the impedance curve etc...furthermore I have captured both the amp alone and the amp+cab and finally, I was able to obtain better results with the amp+cab in the null test....don't know why... 3) I totally agree...the input file has low volumes signals...that are highly appreciated! Thank you once more!!!
Hi thanks for the scientific approach, truly unique! One question: I guess that all methods introduce their very own latency to the signal. Did you account for this in the test by matching the phases (shifting the signals) prior to inverting?
Absolutely yes...all the tracks have been aligned at sample level and I have also match all of them in terms of LUFS...this video required a lot of time Thanks
Thank you! Unfortunately the Mooer runs only on tablet / iOs, therefore I have to use a different interface to make the profiles and therefore it is not comparable....but it is very good sounding (in my opinion)
Thanks for making this excellent video, learning about NAM, and doing the comparison fascinating. I'm glad it's something you enjoyed doing, and I'm sure it required good computer skills and technical know how. The Null Test clearly demonstrated that NAM had the highest fidelity available. Do you have any insights on how the NAM Captures/Profiles could be imported into a Modeler, like the HX Stomp? Could they be imported as an IR, would they require some type of VST Host running on the Modeler, or some other solution that would make them portable and loadable inside the Modeler?
Thank you, yes...it was very funny to learn all this stuff....even if pretty time consuming... I don't think it is possible to import it in an amp modeller...but you can port it in any windows device which is able to host a vst plugin....also a table... Thank you!
What a surprise for me. I thought 1/3 (Kemper or QC), 2/4 (NAM or Tonex) and 5 Friedman. Because I like sound of 5, I thought it must be an original amp :) Thank you Leo!
Thank you so much, I’m really happy that you like my playing! as you can immagine, I can’t afford to buy everything, and this is pretty expensive. obviously if Headrush send me a unit to test, I will be happy to make some videos. thank you!
Wow great video! This is really tough to discern but here goes (if I get one right it's a win lol) - 1. Quad Cortex 2. Neural 3. Real Amp 4. Tonex 5. Kemper
Thank you for the detailed experiment. One thing I'm concerned about is.. Did you match the overall volume among profilers? If not, slight mismatch will result in significant wrong conclusion in comparison. Imagine perfect capture device will capture with perfect waveform except slight different amplitude (90% volume for example). A-0.9*A=0.1A right? And similar discussion on latency difference can hold.
Hi, yes, I aligned the wave forms and I levelled match the volumes...it was a very painful and annoying tasks...even because I test various riff, etc...actually this video took me almost a month...
One question: what happens if you repeat the same test on the amp twice? It would be good to understand how repeatable the amp signature is, since it's an analog system. Also, please look at liquid profiling :)
If you want more info about what happens if you test the same amp twice, you can check out this video: ruclips.net/video/Rd00a2vh6F8/видео.html In that video I did exactly that test. Yes, as soon as I will have time I will test the liquid profiling, even if I don't think it will improve the single "snapshot", but it will help to replicate the changes in the gain...at least as far as I understood. Thanks!
That ultra distorted result is actually a sign of very close match. The less like a guitar it sounds, the better. This is not immediately obvious, but it is true.
Have you checked that output volumes of all VSTs are the same? The comparison is excellent but I'm afraid that these plugins may have different volume normalizations or extra boosts in their circuits.
There are people working behind the scenes to have a more streamlined capture app so it's not so technical to setup. I think once that takes foot NAM's potential will truly shine.
NO ONE comes close to such brilliant comparisons. Such a simple trick of phase inversion being able to pull the pants down on the big players hardware was great. Never change, Leo!
Thank you so much for such great compliments!!! I'm really happy that you like the video!!!
Thank you for this video
The best explanation in the RUclips history.
Thank you so much for such a great compliment! really appreciated!
The best indeed. Thank you for the video
I love his accent
You are providing quantitative information to go along with qualitative assessments/judgements AND real life “in the mix” experiences for context. You deserve way more subscribers based on your earnest contributions to tone fans and great guitar playing, imo. Thank you.
Thank you so much, your feedback and support are super important for me and really mean a lot to me!!!
Thank you!!!
I love NAM so much, it's already my main guitar amp (using a Splawn Pro Mod profile mostly, one of my dream amps and now I got it for free) and not looking back. Great testing, thanks!
You are welcome! Yes, it's a great tool!
this is by far the best comparison I've ever seen, this was worth every second, thank you very much for the hard work, it really shows.
Wow, thank you so much....I'm really happy that you have appreciated the video!!!
Best gear channel in RUclips, no bullshit, objective comparisons and great playing!
Regarding the comparison to me 4 and 5 sounded the best, I felt like the attack of the pick was a bit sweeter in those, anyway the all sound pretty damn close 😂
Thank you so much, I'm really happy that you appreciate the video and the channel! Thank you also for sharing your findings!
If you are interested in my music, maybe you can check out my last EP: ruclips.net/video/rORYU3-v4t4/видео.html
Thank you!
Your tests are the best!, I think you're the only youtuber doing a real Null test which is the most scientific way of doing these kind of comparisons, for a trained ear the other difference is that the more realistic the capture the more "3D" it appears to be and NAM really has that 3D quality, another interesting point you mention is that these captures are accurate for a SINGLE setting and as soon as someone tries to EQ or adjust the capture it'll divert from the original in an unpredictable way that no longer resembles the original unless, as you also stated correctly, you can blend captures with each knob movement and that brings the problem of processing power and memory as you'll need almost infinite combinations of captures to truly recreate an amp in software, fortunately we have Modeling which tries to solve this problem by programming it's algorithms to emulate and recreate what these knob movements would create on the real amp, That's why I think a combination of both technologies is what manufacturers should focus on, BTW, did you uploaded your Friedman capture into the NAM hive cloud?, Thanks!
Hi, interesting point...mixing modelling and profiling would be interesting...I think we can also proceed in discrete steps...like proteus is starting doing. I mean for instance we can profile the gain knob at 20% 30% 40% etc...and then make the other combination...I think it's feasible...of course you have to spend a lot of time profiling all the combination...or the most relevant ones.....
Thank you so much for your comment and I'm happy that you like the videos!!
@@LeoGibsonGtr Profiling and neural network modeling are very different approaches. The neural network for us is a Black Box. It has nothing to do with emulation of a tube amp at all. We train it as a whole, we can not change certain characteristics after the model is trained. That makes it hard to combine it with other techniques. The tone stack of Tonex shows this, many criticize it, because you can hear it is not naturally baked into the amp.
With Proteus and NAM it is principally possible to train a model with more parameters, from the real thing. One complete amp has already been made with NAM. It took 1 week to train and sounds fantastic. It took 70 captures to get the best out of it. Still, the resulting model does not need THAT much processing power, the most is invested in the training. I think, for future, there is not much potential in combining profiling with neural network amps, but a lot of potential in making it a bit more lightweight, in optimization, usage of graphics cards and meaningful user interfaces and a good choice of parameters to model.
The other great thing are fantastic hardware emulators like Otto Audio II II II. This thing let me build hi gain amps, that I never heard before, in a plugin. Very intuitive, very sophisticated, great sounding. I use it to design some fantasy amp sounds for metal to use in a project. I then make Proteus models of them and use them inside of BYOD in the project. It's a fantastic new world for sounds right now. You can also model your studio hardware with NAM. There are already nam models for the nonlinear soundeffects of the Neve 1073 micpre, the Teletronix LA2A and the 1176 blue stripe compressors and a Studer tape (left and right). Fantastic times for musicians.
Hi, thank you so much for this informative post! May I ask you where can I dine the complete amp made with NAM? I would like to do the same thing with my Twin Sister and my Pink Taco...very interesting also the Otto Audio plugin...I want to try it out!
Thanks!
@@imcrazedandconfusedwhat's the complete amp in nam?
@@hirpisorani9600 There are a lot of amps captured with a load box These need an IR. But there are also models of the whole stack captured with a microphone, amp and cab.
Glad to be an influence on your awesome channel Leo! Great testing as always. I am pushing hard for NAM to become stereo, so you can insert it onto stereo tracks and also run stereo wet effects in front of it. I would also love to see a pedal maker build a pedal that hosts NAM, so you can have this sound on your pedalboard. Stereo would be amazing, so that it can integrate seamlessly with all of your other stereo pedals!
Thank you!
Yes, actually I load to NAM instances in order to have stereo tracks...therefore a stereo native NAM would be appreciated!
According to anecdotes it is possible to run a Standard quality NAM model on a Raspberry Pi. Even lower CPU usage is being worked on also.
As someone who owns a 335 stereo guitar, ' I second that emotion.'
The Poly Effects Beebo from Australia now runs NAM -it’s currently in beta.
Leo, sei sempre un passo avanti a tutti gli altri. Sempre video con contenuti di altissimo livello.
Grazie mille per il bellissimo compimento! sono contento che i video ti piacciano!
Thank you for the comparison analysis! On the Quad Cortex forums, there are some who are saying that CORS 2.1 has improved the capture quality. It would be interesting to see the same null test after the update (Aug 23). Thanks for all of your work, you have great content!
You are welcome and I'm really happy that you like the video!!!
Thank you also for sharing this info...I'm was not aware...I will think about it.
Thank you once more!
Would love to see a comparison between the NAM with a high end interface like yours and something like a Focusrite Scarlett that we could expect most people would be using. Especially people looking for a free solution.
Hi, thank you for sharing and for your suggestion!
Great video, Leo. Its very telling that the AD converters/preamps play a very important role in Profiling.
Thank you, I'm happy that you like the video!
Yes, they have for sure a role...I'm not sure how big it is...but there is...
Hi Leo. Congrats that was a great test. If you want to refine the test I recommend to use a frequency generator to scan a narrow band frequency and invert it. I am going to explain. Amps are extremely non-linear. Most parts of tone are composed by harmonics superposition which are extremely reach. Therefore some resulting frequency intensity is a complex superposition of many combinations, If you scan a single frequency and its harmonics you will be sure they are been reproduced precisely. But for first trial your test is amazing. Congrats for the unique video test.
Thank you so much, I'm happy that you like the videos and the tests!
Thank you also for the tips...pretty interesting...I have to think about this suggestions...Thank you!
The phase inversion idea was brilliant Leo.
Now I wonder if the same were applied to different takes. So capture an amp and then capture it again, same unit and compare :O
Thank you!
Yes, good point about the amp sound captured in different moments. Here there are some more info about this topic: ruclips.net/video/Rd00a2vh6F8/видео.html
This is becoming close to a PH. D. in Accoustics, Modelling and Profiling of Analog Devices to their Digital Representations, Leo you are the best in this domain so far in the world.
Hi, thank you sooo much for such an amazing compliment that really makes me happy!!!
Very interesting and very useful. I'll try the NAM and, if it's as good as I suspect it will be, sell my Quad Cortex (which I don't use for pedal emulation etc).
Please do post a video on how you train the NAM.
Thank you so much!
Yes, I will try to do a video about NAM training...
On first listen I thought 3 and 5 sounded the best, but especially 5. It just seemed to have more harmonic content.
I would definitely like to see how to capture an amp with NAM. I did try once so far but my files would not even upload.
Thanks so much for doing this video!
You are welcome! Yes, I trained the profiles locally on my pc...I even did't try the google collab tour...I prefer to have everything under control, learning what I have to learn.
Excelent video... I was very curious to see you doing this a comparation. You are the best in the internet, teaching and showing us the amp and gear sounds
Thank you so much Marcelo, for such a great compliment!!!
It would be great to also include GE Labs and AIDA-X in future comparison videos. Thanks for your amazing work!
Thank you! Yes, good suggestion, even if GE Labs runs on iPad and require a totally different connection and routing...that's why is not included.
I preferred 5 & 1 while 4 came in third with my least favorite being 3. Was almost going to buy a quad cortex but since they were hard to get, never ended up getting one. Now glad I didn’t get one. There’s a FREE plugin that sounds almost exactly like the real amps. Unbelievable. And thanks again for your thorough technical review Leo. I love seeing stuff like that for your reviews 👍🙏🙏
Thank you, both for the compliment and for sharing your findings!!!
Thank you Leo, it is such a joy to watch your consistent quality content! I've paid for Tonex Max just a few days before discovering NAM, but I still prefer Tonex for a few reaons. First, CPU usage. NAM is noticeably more taxing on the processing power, and in a mix at 48khz 64 bit float which include a complex console emulation rig on the mix bus (which is already pretty taxing because it needs to apply it on every track in the session), it becomes way too heavy and i'm having crackling/popping noises even on my custom pc built for 6K RAW video editing. To reduce it, you have to drop down the training fidelity when creating the profile, which makes no sense to me at this point. Also, since I don't own any amps anymore and I'm exclusively using other people captures, Tonex has a lot more to offer at the moment. The null tests do confirm that NAM is even more accurate, but otherwise you couldn't tell (at least not enough for me to care). Still, NAM is awesome and will definitely change the game even further!
You are welcome and I'm really happy that you like the videos!!!
Interesting points...good point about the CPU usage...I didn't notice it...I have to try....Of course ToneX is a much more complete platform...and the Tone X pedal was a great addition to the IK line up of products...
Thank you once more!!!
You might check out the GuitarML Proteus for lighter CPU usage. The models can also be load into Chow DSP BYOD. They are lighter on CPU and can be modeled FAST (I can train a model in 10 minutes easily in 1660 to 3080 wit CUDA. I wrote a Proteus Model Builder to easily train a model offline. They are still on par with the Tonex easily, if not better.
The guy who wrote Proteus also contributes to NAM now.
@@LeoGibsonGtr It may be interesting to hear, that there are active developments underway to make the open source neural modelers more complete and user friendly. I wrote a wrapper app for Proteus and am currently actively developing a GUI for the training process for 'NAM, too, and Proteus can be run in a DIY pedal already. There are also active developments underway to compile also NAM for the ARM platforms, e.g. as an lv2 plugin that could be loaded into MODDwarf, a commercially available pedal.
@@imcrazedandconfused interesting, thanks for the insight
Thank you so much, very cool info!!!!
Leo you are by far the coolest tone nerd in existence. Keep up the awesome work.
Thank you so much, really appreciated!!!
I've been mucking around with NAM and it's been pretty bloody fun
Thank you for sharing!
Fantastic video. This is the exact kind of comparison we need to help us get informed opinions and buying decisions.
Thank you sooo much, I'm really happy that you appreciate the video!
I was waiting this comparison. Thank you
You are welcome!!! I'm happy to have been of some help!!!
Thank you for the objective data from phase cancellation and the blind test where you can enjoy subjective evaluation. I have already purchased Kemper, but I have decided to purchase Tonex as well.
Thank you so much for your donation and your support: it means a lot to me!!!!
I'm happy to have been of some help!!!
No of course I can't tell the difference! And even if I could it doesn't mean I prefer one rig over another one. What a brilliant demonstration. Thank you.
Thank you Andy, I'm happy that you like the video!!!
Man, this video is a masterpiece. Great educational content, great comparison, great entertainment rythm and fun, amazing demo... Congratulations!
Thank you so much for such amazing compliment!!!
Thank you for taking the time to live a feedback: it means a lot to me!!!
Rig 3 fwiw. Much more important is your great contribution to guitar players' understanding of this new technology - fantastic, thanks Leo, your videos much appreciated! 👍
Thank you so much, I'm really happy that you appreciate the video!
Thank you also for sharing your favourite rig!
Awesome video Leo! I've been preaching this gospel for years now. The null test is truly the ONLY way to determine how close a real amp is to a modeled counterpart. Ain't science grand? :D
Thank you, I'm super happy that you like the video!!! Yes, science is grand!!!!
I'm waiting for one of the famous "RUclipsrs" to do an A/B/C comparison and NUL test between three 1965 Deluxe Reverbs or JCM800s all mic'd up the same...they'll sound different, so what's the point?
@@guitartoneSA True. But you missed the point. Every modeled amp is based on a specific amp. They can't model EVERY Rectifier. The null just allows them to create a copy of that one single amp. But it would be a perfect copy. Completely indistinguishable from the amp being modeled.
Great video! Thanks for that. Consider make profiles for the NAM to share or sell in the future.
You are welcome and I'm happy that you like the video!!!
Thank you also for your suggestion!
What a genius way to compare audio similarities!
Thank you sooooo much, really super appreciated!!!
I have the whole IK setup (Tonex Max, Amplitube-5 Max, Tonex Capture, Tonex Pedal and use a Two notes Captor for profiling). I also messed about with NAM but have yet to figure out how to do my own profiles with it. From the profiles I have tried with NAM it is excellent. That said, I am absolutely in love with Tonex. To me Tonex is the Line6 of profiling in that it brought excellent tone to the masses in an easy to use package and at a reasonable cost. I find that if I capture one of my own amps with it (I capture with no cab and no other signal processing but straight into the interface) the included ir's (I love the Memory Lane cab in the 4x12 section and the 4x12 Green in the VIR section) Reverb (plate for me) and compressor. I then import my preset into my Tonex pedal and do a few further tweaks it is my best tone of my playing life (hacking away since the early 1970's)
Thank you so much for sharing your experience!
Interesting points...
warm greetings from Oz; thanks for all your efforts to convey these DI amp tones, in simple terms.....
can be a deep digital rabbit hole .... avoided by an analogue Princeton reverb amp & EQ pedal
You are welcome and thank you for sharing
Thanks for these great tests Leo! My favourites, ranked, were #1, 5, 2, 4 and 3. Surprised to see that I ranked the Kemper one spot ahead of the more accurate ToneX. Will have to give NAM a try on my opensource operating system.
You are welcome and thank you for sharing your findings!
I was surprised as well. Though ive heard that tone x for some reason has a little less gain than the amp its profiling and experienced profilers will add a clean boost to make it more close to the amp. I wonder if thats what we were hearing.
Im here just to congratulate you for this amazing video. Nice job. Nice explanation. Nice technique. Nice everything.
Thank you so much, I'm really happy that you appreciate the video...and well....Nice comment ... 😀
Thank you so much!!!
Scientifico, pratico e concreto! Complimenti, ho apprezzato il video sia da fan del suono che da ingegnere :)
Grazie mille, sono veramente contento che il video ti sia piaciuto!
I want to really thank you for your very good videos. Actually, I bought an Ampero after seeing one of them a while ago.
It is great, that you use actual science to show the viewers, that good sound is NOT magic. It is science. Tubes are tubes and not magic fairy dust. And if someone is not actually able to perceive the difference between the analog device and the digital model, there we have a point, where the discussion of "what sounds better" became meaningless. Then everything is about handling, processor power, mobility, real estate and physical weight!
Of course people will still buy amps, because of nostalgic or historic value, status symbols etc. or for namedropping to get clients!
Thank you so much, I'm really happy that you appreciate the videos!!!
Yes, I think that tube amps are here to stay even if we will be able to copy them digitally...I still buy tube amps, even if I think that digital solutions are very very good. It's like my black Suhr guitar....why I finally end up wanting to play that guitar? Because I have a connection with that guitar...when I see her, I want to play...the same think happens with real amps...they are attracting me, they are nice to see, they have an history...This is not logical, considering the price, but as we said in Italy "al cuore non si comanda" ...
Subbed and liked, super cool video. The only tiny thing that I'd like to add is that it's not a "phase inverted", but "polarity inverted" signal :)
Thank you so much, I'm really happy that you like the video and your sub really mean a lot to me!
As regards polarity, as far as I know, “Reverse Phase” in Cubase means “reverse polarity,” so that positives become negatives and vice versa. I'm not 100% sure...but that's what I found in the forums....Any feedback from you on this topic would be appreciated.
Thank you!
@@LeoGibsonGtr Thanks for the response! Well, as far as I'm concerned, polarity refers to either positive or negative values of the sine wave, where phase actually refers to sine wave in time. So when you align 2 waveforms that they start precisely on the same sample - you're aligning phase. But when you make positive values negative and vice versa, you reverse polarity of the signal. My Console1 also states that it's phase inversion, which is not what it really is :)
@@LeoGibsonGtr ruclips.net/video/IrXHVWPGdeQ/видео.html found this and it seems like a really good explanation :)
Ok, thanks!
You nailed it. That was exactly what I liked to know and your Video gave me confidence about: _How is the quality, and how to measure or compare it?_ You answered that question.
Thank you so much, I'm really happy to have been of some help!!!!
You have the best videos, best content, best editing ever. Love your chanel. Cheers from Brazil!
Hi Pablo, thank you soooo much for such an amazing comment and compliment!!! Really appreciated!
Great time to be a studio guitarist, please more on NAM Leo & dont forget the clean tone subscribers 🙏🏻
Ok, thank you! Yes...sorry, I have in mind a video with clean tones since a long time...I need to find out the time...You are right.
Thank you!
Excellent tests, Leo! I wonder how the Tonex would perform on the null tests after their updates? It seems to me from watching others channels that they always had to raise the gain control after the capturing was complete, and also they would add a bit of presence too.
Thank you!
I don't think that the update has changed / improved the capturing process....I have to check it out.
Thanks!
Something worth considering is how “deep into a mix” we can hear. Ethan Winer did tests where he mixed tones and noise into various program material. Depending on the kind of program, like a rock mix, and noise, like a sine or noise burst, and how loud they are relative to one another, even obnoxious and inharmonic sounds can be completely masked.
That applies here. Let’s say there’s a 30dB difference in accuracy among these modelers vs the real amp. Then let’s also suppose we can only hear the top 20dB of a loud and dense rock mix. That means as soon as the guitar is pushed back 10dB from the top of the mix in terms of volume, the differences among the amps and profilers will disappear. You can hear that in your demo where you swap sounds on the rhythm guitar. The differences are less noticeable or altogether imperceptible.
In contrast, when you play the the solo and switch, because the whole crest of the guitar is higher, the differences become more obvious. I’ll add that the solo also places the frequency content emphasis toward our centers of hearing from 1-4kHz (high E 20th fret is around 1kHz plus the harmonics) which is subjectively the same as turning up the volume (equal loudness contours). Put simply, it matters more for lead guitar than rhythm in many cases.
This is just a little more detail on the common notion that people say with “but in a mix you can’t tell.” Well, maybe or maybe not. It depends on the program material, how featured the sound is and how close the model/imitation is to the “real thing”.
If you’re interested in reading Ethan’s article on it, you can search his name and “artifact audibility” or just test yourself with various backing tracks and noise generators in your daw.
This is how you do a test. Love your channel!
Thank you so much, I'm really happy that you like the channel!!!
This channel has crazy good content! You are truly great, Leo!
Thank you so much for such a great compliment !!!! Really appreciated!!!
My friend you did an excellent job in this video, very professional. Please keep making videos with this technology. Cheers
Thank you sooo much, I'm really happy that you appreciate the video!!! Yes...a new (and hope interesting) one is coming...😀👍
What an incredible comparison. Thanks!
You are welcome and I'm really happy that you like the video!!!
Io ho votato per il 5, nel mix lo preferisco, ed è quello gratuito! Questo canale è il top, bel brano, video intelligenti e di taglio pratico. Bravissimo, un abbraccio
Grazie mille Roberto, sono contento che i contenuti ti piacciano!!!!
Before I see he results, I thought 2 and 5 were pretty close and sounded the best to me. Rig 1 was 3rd for me. 3 and 4 didn't sound bad, but come in last for me.
Hi, thank you so much for sharing!
Great video thanks dude and nice playing, if you would be up for doing a capture process tutorial for the nam plug-in that would be a resource lots of us would find really helpful I think would probably help support the developer/s as well.
Thank you, I'm really happy that you like the video!!! Yes, I should do it...I need time...Thank you!
This is the best guitar channel for these kinds of comparisons. So technical and also entertaining
Thank you so much for such an amazing compliments!!! I really means a lot to me!!!!
Thank you Leo. Null test is the only way I would ever accept any comparison .So far ,in 2023, NAM is THE BEST at profiling unless someone can prove otherwise.
You are welcome and thank you for sharing!
Thank you Leo ! Very interesting video and the song is very beautiful !
Thank you sooo much....when you like my music...I'm super happy!!!
I like rig n.1 (blind test) . . . but difference are very small . . . thanks for the demo.
You are welcome and thank you for sharing!
Wow great aporoach to objectively evaluate profilers, and great explanation.
I'm curious how the profiling in the Mooer ge300 and other devices stacks up.
Thank you so much, I'm really happy that you appreciate the video!!!
Yes, it is interesting...but unfortunately the GE Labs App works only for phones or tablet...and with phones and tablet I cannot use my "standard" recording chain, as I have to use a different audio interface...therefore I cannot compare....
Most of the technical stuff you talked about was way over my head, but interesting nonetheless. Will be interesting to hear about Proteus that you mentioned. My favorite way to use IR's is exactly what you mentioned, by having 10-20 IR's of the same speaker and mic combo, but with the mic position moved subtly around the speaker and at different distances and angles. It's totally nerdy stuff, but fun to experiment with. God bless and rock on 🎸😎👍
Thank you! Yes, I do agree...pretty nerdy...but totally worth trying...
Thank you!
Great information...Great video and great playing as usual!
Thank you soooooo much!!!
Thanks for going to all this trouble - brilliantly done!
You are welcome and I'm happy that you appreciate the video!!!
Excellent video Leo, perfect comparison. Great músic as always!
Thank you so much, I'm really happy that you like the video and the music!!!
Great job Leo! I can tell you always put a lot of work into your videos and I think they’re the best on RUclips for this kind of stuff. Big kudos to you.
I have two questions about the null test: (1) Did you make sure the waveforms were time-aligned down to the individual sample? (2) Did you also make sure the two waveforms were level-matched until they gave the quietest null?
To have truly accurate null tests, both of those things are crucial. Thanks!
Thank you, I'm really happy that you appreciate the video!
Yes to both the questions...I've spent a lot of time to level match the wave forms and to align them...I'm working on this video actually almost since a month...
Thank you!
@@LeoGibsonGtr Thanks for the reply! You’re always so thorough that I expected you did do those things, but I just wanted to double check. Again, great job, and thank you for all the top-quality videos you create.
Thank you!
Leo excellent video!! great comparsion, you deserve more subscribers than you actually have
Thank you sooo much Sergio, I'm really happy that you like the videos!!!
Wow. I picked NAM. Interesting. I have it, btw, and I used a Fender Twin profile on a session that worked out great for me.
Thank you for sharing!
With the Kemper you could have used the S/PDIF to bypass one A/D conversion - anyway awesome test.
Thank you for this!! Awesome tones and scientific testing!
Thank you so much!!!! I'm really happy that you appreciate the video, the test and the tones!!!
@@LeoGibsonGtr my inner self is nerding out happily! Thank you!
😀👍
I would like to suggest, if you could post videos showing how NAM sounds live through studio monitors (captured by a room microphone) and also in the stage. There are almost no videos on RUclips showing these "live" demonstrations with NAM.
Hi, thank you for your suggestion!
Thanks for the video!
Three suggestions:
1. 2:24 Record the Friedman a second time, and attempt to null the two recordings. This gives a baseline of how good is possible until noise prevents further cancelling.
2. It sounds like you used NAM to model an amp + cab? For now, you'll probably find that NAM does better when modeling an amp alone.
3. It's informative to try things out both loud and quiet. One thing I'm proud of is that NAM's reamping signal includes quiet parts, which allows the model to learn how to respond correctly not only when strumming plainly, but also when playing dynamically.
Cheers!
Hi, you are welcome! Are you Steven in person? well, actually I should "Thank you" for your plugin...which is awesome!
Thank you for your suggestions too!
1) good point...
2) I read that NAM is supposed do to better when modelling amps alone. Nevertheless, in my opinion, the best captures are the ones with also the cab included, capturing the interaction between amp and cab, the impedance curve etc...furthermore I have captured both the amp alone and the amp+cab and finally, I was able to obtain better results with the amp+cab in the null test....don't know why...
3) I totally agree...the input file has low volumes signals...that are highly appreciated!
Thank you once more!!!
Hi thanks for the scientific approach, truly unique! One question: I guess that all methods introduce their very own latency to the signal. Did you account for this in the test by matching the phases (shifting the signals) prior to inverting?
Absolutely yes...all the tracks have been aligned at sample level and I have also match all of them in terms of LUFS...this video required a lot of time
Thanks
@@LeoGibsonGtr Great, I expected nothing less from you :-) very nice work!
I chose 1&5, in that order. 🤔
I've got time to learn. 😊
Thanks.
You are welcome and thank you for sharing!
1 and 5 edit: oh crap NAM is really awesome!!! my ears instantly loved that tone more than the others, sounds very rich, detailed and organic.
Hi, thank you for sharing!
Leo, you are a proper scientist! Love your videos.
Thank you soooooo much!!!! This is such a great compliment...really appreciated!
Excellent test! Congratulations! And the Mooer GE 300 Tone Capture, where does it rank in this test?
Thank you! Unfortunately the Mooer runs only on tablet / iOs, therefore I have to use a different interface to make the profiles and therefore it is not comparable....but it is very good sounding (in my opinion)
Great comparison. Strange I selected Rigs 3 and 5 ... but not 1, which was the real Amp-- How is that possible?
Thank you, I'm happy that you like the comparison!
No idea, but in a mix they are very close...
Great video mate! Thanks for sharing. 🤘
You are welcome, I'm happy that you like the video!
Thanks for making this excellent video, learning about NAM, and doing the comparison fascinating. I'm glad it's something you enjoyed doing, and I'm sure it required good computer skills and technical know how.
The Null Test clearly demonstrated that NAM had the highest fidelity available. Do you have any insights on how the NAM Captures/Profiles could be imported into a Modeler, like the HX Stomp? Could they be imported as an IR, would they require some type of VST Host running on the Modeler, or some other solution that would make them portable and loadable inside the Modeler?
Thank you, yes...it was very funny to learn all this stuff....even if pretty time consuming...
I don't think it is possible to import it in an amp modeller...but you can port it in any windows device which is able to host a vst plugin....also a table...
Thank you!
Very interesting and great video as always !
Thank you Stefan, really appreciated!
Merci ! As other said better than I could, this is a very instructive video. Thank you!
Wow, thank you soooo much, I'm really happy that you like the video and your feedback and support is super important for me!!!
Thank you Leo, for doing this review :)
You are welcome!!!
Now we need special budget pedalbox for loading NAM under foot) My favorite 5, 3, 4, 2
Hi, thank you for sharing!
Yes, an hardware unit loading the NAM would be interesting!
What a surprise for me. I thought 1/3 (Kemper or QC), 2/4 (NAM or Tonex) and 5 Friedman. Because I like sound of 5, I thought it must be an original amp :) Thank you Leo!
You are welcome and thank you so much for sharing your findings!!!
Same. I was thinking exactly that.
e anche oggi Leo si riafferma il punto di riferimento per le comparazioni 🤘
Grazie Michele...troppo buono!!!
Without checking the other comments, I'd say that I prefered 1, 5, 4, 3, 2. Thanks for the comparison!
You are welcome and thank you for sharing your findings!
Absolut amazin comparison! Great! Scientific and few subjective opinions!!! 1A!
Thank you so much, I'm really happy that you appreciate the videos!!
It means a lot to me!!!
Grande Leo! Sembri Alberto Angela!
😀😀😀 Grazie!!!
Thanks for this really objective comparison. 👍👍
You are welcome Jessy, and I'm happy that you have appreciated the video!!
I appreciate your videos and guitar playing! Please try the new Headrush Prime!
Thank you so much, I’m really happy that you like my playing! as you can immagine, I can’t afford to buy everything, and this is pretty expensive. obviously if Headrush send me a unit to test, I will be happy to make some videos.
thank you!
Wow great video! This is really tough to discern but here goes (if I get one right it's a win lol) -
1. Quad Cortex
2. Neural
3. Real Amp
4. Tonex
5. Kemper
Thank you for sharing!!!
Crazy!
Thank you Leo, I enjoy It.
Thank you so much, I'm happy that you appreciate the video!!!
Imbattibile. Grazie tante per il tuo lavoro!!! 👍👍👍
Grazie a te, sono veramente contento che ti piaccia il video!!!
Awesome Leo, thanks! Can you share the nam file with the community? It sounds really really good!
Thank you, I'm happy that you like the sound! I have to do it...
The Kemper sounded fizzy and muschy/not good the other one were spot on. Great video!
Thank you for sharing , and I'm happy that you like the video!
Thank you for the detailed experiment. One thing I'm concerned about is..
Did you match the overall volume among profilers? If not, slight mismatch will result in significant wrong conclusion in comparison. Imagine perfect capture device will capture with perfect waveform except slight different amplitude (90% volume for example). A-0.9*A=0.1A right?
And similar discussion on latency difference can hold.
Hi, yes, I aligned the wave forms and I levelled match the volumes...it was a very painful and annoying tasks...even because I test various riff, etc...actually this video took me almost a month...
안녕 하세요.
저에게 정말 큰 도움이 되는 영상입니다.
정말 훌륭한 영상입니다.
수고 많으셨습니다.
감사합니다.
You are welcome and I'm really happy that you appreciate the video!!!
Thank you so much!!!
One question: what happens if you repeat the same test on the amp twice? It would be good to understand how repeatable the amp signature is, since it's an analog system. Also, please look at liquid profiling :)
If you want more info about what happens if you test the same amp twice, you can check out this video: ruclips.net/video/Rd00a2vh6F8/видео.html
In that video I did exactly that test.
Yes, as soon as I will have time I will test the liquid profiling, even if I don't think it will improve the single "snapshot", but it will help to replicate the changes in the gain...at least as far as I understood.
Thanks!
That ultra distorted result is actually a sign of very close match. The less like a guitar it sounds, the better. This is not immediately obvious, but it is true.
Thank you for sharing!
Unbeatable. Thank you so much for your work.
You are welcome and I'm really happy that you like the video!!!
Have you checked that output volumes of all VSTs are the same? The comparison is excellent but I'm afraid that these plugins may have different volume normalizations or extra boosts in their circuits.
Hi, all the volumes are matched in terms of LUFS.
Thanks!
Awesome video! Thank you.
You are welcome, and I'm happy that you like the video!!!
There are people working behind the scenes to have a more streamlined capture app so it's not so technical to setup. I think once that takes foot NAM's potential will truly shine.
Hi, thank you for sharing!!
I couldn’t hear a difference between the rigs full stop. I definitely couldn’t tell you which is which.
Hi, thank you for sharing....yes, in the mix, it's pretty hard to tell the difference...if not impossible...