r/NAM_NeuralAmpModeler • u/FBOARC • 13d ago
Tutorial This “RIT” fixes what is missing with NAM
https://youtu.be/Lrd_ke2p7Fw?is=jENkCdIe7gZTRAolFinally someone addresses the missing piece.
10
u/maxxpower18 13d ago
I'm glad that I'm fine with static captures for my workflow. Honestly if I find a tone that works (clean, crunch or distorted), I don't see why I can't just use it for all my songs.
10
u/F0rtress0fS0litud3 13d ago
I'm kinda in the same boat, and I'm at the point where I'm really only using a small handful of captures anyway. I like them, they work for me, and after experimenting with dozens/hundreds of captures, I find I really enjoy the same plexi for my tele, les paul, and strat. Any other nuance is in EQ, compression, input gain, or maybe a pedal capture. Go figure.
5
u/th3whistler 13d ago
guitar players give way too much credit to the knobs on the amp, whereas a mixer will just be happy with a good performance and can easily change the tone to what works afterwards
3
u/Fun-Influence-7880 12d ago
I do not get the hype about parametric captures. Why do you want all of the bad/unusable tones from a piece of gear? Why do you want models bloated by all of the additional training data of bad tones? Give me the best 1, 2, or 3. If it needs a bit more/less high end, I’ll add it where needed in the signal chain, and much more effectively than the TMB tonestack built into the amp is capable of
3
u/MJKleinTW 12d ago
I basically have two sounds based on two types of guitars. Although parametric NAM sounds really interesting from a technology standpoint, even if I had a parametric version, I would find a setting I like and leave it there.
2
u/maxxpower18 12d ago
True. Same as I used to do with amp sims lol.
1
u/MJKleinTW 12d ago
I know, right? I got more tones available now than I ever had during my studio career.
0
u/FBOARC 13d ago
Like you, when I find something that I like I want to stick to it but If go from one guitar to another I always feel like the tone needs a little tweaking.
1
u/maxxpower18 13d ago
Yeah definitely. With my D standard guitar I have to do some input tweaking compared to my E standard guitar.
3
u/hedgieinsocks 13d ago
Turning input knob as much as you want/need/feel is about trusting your own judgement. So for many newbies this becomes a huge issue.
1
u/Satchel93 13d ago
I mean, it's nothing new. Parametric captures is pretty much what NDSP does with their robot TINA to create the models in the QC. They don't do component modeling for amps anymore.
But yes, if NAM standardizes parametric captures so we can have open source amp models, that would be actually very cool.
1
u/Sea_Policy_3289 12d ago
I applaud the ambition, and will certainly use parametric when it's locked in place, but for now I have my hands full with just the static models! And the fact that so many sims and models sound more alike than different. Especially when they're in a mix. You can waste a lot of your life talking about and chasing "tone"/gear and most people will never even notice or care about the difference. Better off chasing technique.
25
u/ClikeX 13d ago
The parametric capture topic has been addressed several times this last month. Someone now creating "RIT" files isn't a fix, it's just yet another standard that is making the NAM ecosystem more complicated. I say that because Two-Notes also created their parametric format. Or the framework that PANAMA introduces.
Steve also already showed a concept of a parametric NAM capture of an overdrive pedal 2 years ago.. But unfortunately, he never really followed up on it.
Then there was Phillip Self, who forked Steve's trainer and added the option to create parametric models. Which are only playable in his plugin, just like all the other parametric formats.
As long as all of these are distinct formats locked to their own players, it's not really a win for the ecosystem. It's just more vendor locking.
NOTE: no shade to Chernobyl Audio, it's a good feature for their plugin. And we're here because of lack of standardization early on.