Oh man we went a whole 17 days without insinuating how The Competition is going to destroy NDSP, that’s like a new record for us.
NAM is so yesterday 
Kidding but I am impressed with how much this request is growing!
I have an issue with the wording “insinuating how The Competition is going to destroy NDSP”, because that smuggles in a prediction that simply isn’t present in any of the recent comments.
My last comment was already about how a relatively modest claim was being turned into a much stronger one, so I’m not going to do that again. But it does highlight something I’ve noticed repeatedly… some people seem remarkably sensitive to any suggestion that NDSP might be behind the competition in any respect.
That’s a strange and, frankly, somewhat self-defeating attitude. Pointing out where competitors might be doing something better is precisely the sort of feedback that can give a company a kick up the arse and encourage it to respond with something even better.
In fact, the original comment explicitly says it would be cool if this prompted a reaction from NDSP. I agree! Competition is good. Ultimately, it benefits all of us as customers.
Turning every criticism or observation about the competition into “you’re insinuating that NDSP will be destroyed” only discourages people from asking for more. And that, in turn, gives the company less incentive to improve. Why work extra hard to improve when the whole user base seems to be perfectly happy and content with what they already got, you know?
Ironically, that is the kind of thing that can actually make a company to fall behind. If you want NDSP to keep improving its products, huffing and puffing whenever someone points out anything, or asks for more is pretty counter intuitive as far as I’m concerned.
Let’s encourage it. Let’s keep NDSP’s feet to the fire. That’s doing them a favour, really. No time to rest on their laurels in this increasingly competitive market 
That doesn’t mean we don’t appreciate what NDSP has already achieved, or that we’re unhappy with what we already got. Those things aren’t mutually exclusive.
This is alive again.
I don’t know if the QC is behind the competition. One thing is for sure: I’m playing hundreds of times more than before, when I was constantly searching for good stuff. Now , I got things done faster and better with one platform.
Here we go again. So correct me if I’m wrong but the QC was released before NAM so it wouldn’t be on NDSPs radar to have a capacity to add it without serious money being used up, that would mean further delays in COROS updates and then there would be more complaints!!
Jeez just be happy with a top tier piece of equipment and stop worrying what other companies are doing.
Can the human ear even discern the differences between the different capture tech? It just appears to me that to many people want to gripe about something.
Just see the QC for what it is, a fantastic piece of kit that even years after its release is still ahead of newer kit!!
Well said. Part of the reason why it took so long for us to get PCOM is because of the need to convert NDSP’s plug-ins to support the QC’s architecture–not the other way around (converting CorOS to just run a VST).
I keep seeing the argument, “NAM A2 runs on this cheap embedded chip so the Quad Cortex likewise should easily be able to run it” but it’s not a 1:1 comparison
people asking nam-A2 support have the vibes of the u.s. tourist going to italy, or france, and complain about the hot dogs.
…mere hours after I explicitly pointed out that wanting additional features in a product you’re already happy with does not mean you’re not already happy with it.
You can be perfectly happy with what you have and still want it to get better. I repeat, those things aren’t mutually exclusive.
It does make me wonder, though. If you’re happy with the QC, why are you hanging out in a feature request forum? By your own logic, wanting any additional features in the QC means you’re not actually happy with it 
And you’re wrong btw. NAM was released before the QC, so consider yourself corrected. It was probably not on NDSPs radar though. Who can really say they knew about NAM back in 2019?
It’s quite striking to see how resistant some are to dialogue, and how quickly they overanalyze anything that doesn’t fit their narrative.
At this point, I don’t really care what other companies are doing. I’d just like to get a sense of whether NAM support is on NDSP’s roadmap or not. Knowing that NAM is open source, it’d be only for the benefit of all.
What kind of vibes do people who go into a feature request thread shouting to those people they should shut up, be happy with what they have, that they hope they don’t get what they want, and deride them for even asking have?
Read further up the thread, there was a conversation about feasibility, about the NAM library/sdk written against ARM architecture and not SHARC DSP. But, even if that is true, almost none of us know how difficult it is. I don’t know if it’s easy. I don’t know if any of the feature requests in this forum are easy, but that does’t mean it hurts to ask, to vote, and leave it up to NDSP.
The Darkglass Anagram has a 6-core SHARC DSP, but it has NAM A2 support. Maybe it also has an ARM cpu on which NAM runs, or maybe they spent a lot of time and effort to implement it, or it’s a reasonable amount of dev effort. 
The message you replied to was a copy-paste response from June 29. At best, that’s just trolling…
Well that’s me scolded!! I didn’t realise I wasn’t allowed to read the feature requests if I hadn’t requested one, some gatekeeping going on here.
You didn’t answer the question about being able to hear the difference between Nam captures and the Qc captures.
I couldn’t care less about NAM but I do agree people should be able to make their own feature requests without having to defend it. NDSP will do what it does regardless.
I was pointing out the irony in telling people to just be happy with what they got in a feature request forum, as though wanting improvements somehow means they aren’t happy. And you did this right after I had pointed out that requesting additional features does not mean you’re not happy with what you already have, which was rather odd, hence the meme.
It’s interesting that when I flip the script and apply your own logic back to you, you feel scolded and gatekept to the point that you have to invent a strawman argument about how you’ve supposedly been told that you’re not allowed to read feature requests. And I didn’t even huff and puff with words like ‘jeez’.
I’m glad I managed to give you a sense of how your comment comes across when the same logic is applied in the other direction though, because that was exactly the effect I hoped it would have.
As to your question, how many times do I have to answer the same question? Isn’t these times enough:
What a good quote to end on as this is exactly what you did. Unfortunately, you’re late to the party, so it has already been done many times already and at this point it’s getting a bit tiring.
Is NAM better/more accurate? Maybe.
Does some people on here want it because they think it is? Maybe.
I can’t speak for them, but that is not my reason. In fact, a paper could come out tomorrow with data proving that NAM is objectively worse and I would still think it would be cool to have support for it in the QC.
Does that answer your question?
NAM has become the new PCOM
Now 8 pages and counting…
Yeah, I mean the next Fractal AXE FX 4 rack unit will probably cost around 3+ grand, so I guess it should be able to do everything possible. Maybe they can fix their UI to not be something designed by aliens. Their models sound awesome, but what a confusing and convoluted UI/workflow