NAM Rig just dropped: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23lCeZnR-UU
What a convenient way to browse and find captures that you can then load onto your QC, you know, if the QC added support for NAM ;p
I don’t think anyone is opposed to adding the ability for QC to run NAM. That would be cool.
From earlier in the thread, that seems unlikely to happen based on the current hardware.
Maybe a positive from the latest rush of NAM players is that this will push the dev of a QCII.
Unless and until that happens, buy whatever box currently meets your needs.
A shed a little tear seeing the new 1959BJA Dookie amp up on Tone 3000 but not on cortex cloud
Someone goes through 3 paragraphs calling amp capturing tech a cult - come back and repeat the same thing - followed by “respond to what is actually being said” 
You crack me up.
Certainly becoming a heated discussion! 
Frankly I echo others that say the cloud Neural DSP captures library does pale in number vs NAM (tone3k etc) , however the important difference is context.
The draw of the Quad IMO is the fact that out of the box its captures can be used live, in real world situations. You guys do remember you do not NEED a separate device per see to run NAM v2 right?Like in fact to tell you the truth, I got into the world of captures messing around with tone3k + the free NAM plugin and was BLOWN away. But the reason I purchased a Quad cortex is because I wanted similar technology that could be used live out of the box in real world situations with other musicians; not requiring my fancy (and hard to travel with) apollo interface , laptop, etc . However I understand that now the Headrush stuff can run NAM in a similar fashion so perhaps I would have considered that product too.
In my opinion most people I know use their own captures for every day live anyway etc. Like the tone libraries are cool and all (like tone 3k or cloud cortex) but I found capturing my own gear, with my known settings is where the QC becomes the most powerful for me.
More like:
Someone points out that some QC users react to criticism of QC, or even praise for something QC doesn’t support, with a level of defensiveness that’s rather cult-like.
You respond by claiming someone called the technology a cult, even though nobody said that. That’s a strawman: you’re arguing against a claim that wasn’t made instead of the one that was.
You were already told this, yet your response is simply to repeat the same misrepresentation while adding some ridicule instead of addressing the actual point.
Brandolini’s Law is relevant here: it takes far more effort to correct a false claim than it does to make one. That’s why it takes me several paragraphs to explain why your characterization is wrong, while it only takes you one sentence to repeat it.
So if you’re going to insist, for a third time, that someone called amp capture technology a cult, this should be easy: quote the comment where that actually happened.
Again, nobody called the technology a cult. The criticism was about a pattern of behaviour. Ironically, repeatedly misrepresenting that criticism instead of engaging with it is exactly the sort of defensive behaviour I was referring to in the first place.
Yeah, there are just different use cases. I wanted to capture my own gear and the thought of sifting through thousands of captures from randos sounds like living hell to me. The QC has been great (actually now I just use a Nano).
NAM has an issue where I’d need to buy an interface and reamp box and figure out how to use a DAW to send the test signal and record something exactly right etc. I’m sure I could figure it out, but eh.
But I do understand that some people already own the interface and know how to use a DAW or who just love to dive in and download and test drive captures etc. Nothing wrong with that.
But end of the day it would be nice if the QC could also run NAM captures (or take them itself). I like the QC capture tech. Sounds great. But more options is better.
Lil bro - get your QC mini delivered first and check it out before raging over NAM 
Find out which amp you need - play it. Then request what you’re missing. Doing this backwards is literally crazy. What amp do you play?? What tone are you after?? Is it only available on NAM? What’s this elusive amp?? So curious..
Cool it, you two.
Just a peaceful contribution to the discussion: I am a bit of a gadget collector, so I have a QC, a Kemper and a Tonex pedal sitting in my rehearsal room, plus, I use NAM in my DAW. So if I want to use a new amp sound, I need four different captures for it. For commercial captures, means buying them four times (if they are available on four platforms at all).
I’d love it if I had the freedom to just use the same amp captures on all my devices; if there is movement towards NAM in the ecosystem, it will certainly influence my future buying decisions.
I appreciate that it*s not only about the actual capture technology - I think Tonex V2, QC v2 and NAM A2 are all good enough for live and studio use, with very little perceptible quality difference - but I’d love the simplicity aspect of just moving NAM captures across multiple devices and software platforms. Just like everyone pretty much agrees on IR for cabs.
I know that the QC is far superior in terms of flexibility and sonic palette to, say, a Mooer or a Headrush modeler, but I’m not sure that I’d invest in closed technology if I’d spend the money today.
Just my 0.02 EUR…
this is probably the only reason why QC should support NAM technology. Not only you, but all of us collect equipment and software. For example, i have Two notes Genome and their IRs are really good, i wish i could use them somewhere else. On the other hands, i also have the Two Notes Revolt and is top 5 worst hardware i ever bought.
i have a hotone and i find it awful. it is definitely looking good, but in terms of sound, it is just awful. and the brazilians have definitely done a cult of that piece of hardware playing the same shitty clean chords with chorus and shimmer.
I think the first major company to include NAM A2 and include the ability to capture and make the NAM profiles on the unit itself will take a big chunk of the market share.
for me, If the QC can’t make the NAM profiles just as easily as the QC captures then I won’t use NAM.
I just like playing profiles/captures that I’ve personally made. Anyone else feel that way?
Yeah, that’s I how use the QC and exactly my thoughts on NAM.
Part of the disconnect in this thread are folks that want to use it like you and me (easily profile amps we have) and people that want to tinker with as many profiles as possible (the guy obsessed with what’s available on Tone3000).
Both are valid preferences, but make a big difference for what features actually matter.
I agree that I think that disconnect is why some people value this feature has a higher priority than others.
I am curious though. For those that capture their own gear as the main use case for capture tech, well the QC can capture cabs too. So what if we were in a world where the QC didn’t support IRs, all the IRs that came with the QC were proprietary NDSP v2 captures instead. So you don’t lose cabs that came with the QC, they’re just Cortex captures instead of IRs. The only downside is you can’t use other peoples IRs or IR packs.
I’m honestly curious, would that be acceptable or would you request IR support? You can still capture your own cabs. Some like getting IRs form York or Amalgam or whoever, that might be the minority though.
I’ve heard the argument that NAM is like IRs, just for some pedals, amps, cabs, compressors, etc. A few might say “but IRs are ubiquitous, there’s so many IRs out there, of course the QC should support IRs.” I feel like NAM is headed towards the type of ecosystem that exists today for IRs.
I find hunting for the right IR is awful; that’s why I’m not particularly interested in Tone3000.
but as I’ve said, I think we all agree it’s better for QC and others to implement NAM than not.
And it would not surprise me to see NAM eventually drown out proprietary capture tech. I assume within the next year or so, someone will introduce a reliable, full-featured NAM player along the lines of a Helix or QC or FM9. That will be hard to compete against, so the others may have to just join them instead
I just hope that by that point, it will be easy to take a NAM capture on such a device itself
I have about 5 go-to NAM captures on my Ampero II Stage. If the QC supported NAM, I could simply bring those 5 captures with me. Instead, if I want equivalent captures on the QC, I’d have to hunt for them, possibly spending hours in the process. And as I’ve mentioned before, if I build up a personal library of Neural captures and later move away from the QC, I’d have to start from scratch all over again. Meaning more hours spent hunting.
To me, supporting an open standard actually means less hunting, not more. No need to have any interest in Tone3000, really. In fact, the 5 go-to NAM captures I use were all found through recommendations and word of mouth, not through hunting on Tone3000.
Also, I’m not sure who was being referred to as obsessed with Tone3000. If that was meant to be me, it doesn’t reflect how I actually use NAM. Whether “the guy” was referring to me or someone else, I’d appreciate keeping the discussion focused on the arguments rather than demeaning characterizations.
whenever a CorOS update drops, an NDSP official will usually hang around the Discord Server to survey how it’s received and occasionally answer a question or two. That might be a good time to pop in and ask about NAM. At least there’s a remote chance of a response there, as compared to no chance here.
I recently put a Pi Stomp v3 kit together largely to see what NAM A2 was about, and I have to say my interest in captures is renewed. I mostly use the QC models ( they are great IMO ) so haven’t really tried V2 yet. I would think theres not a lot of difference between V2 and A2 (A2 slightly better) as far as how it sounds in a mix or on stage. My umderstanding is NAM A2 uses less power too.
This tech is growing fast. NDSP could likely have something else in the works to match or exceed A2.
It would be awesome if they did add A2 support though.
Another major pedal manufacturer added.
Headrush adds full NAM support, A1 and A2, 1 capture per preset, to the
Prime, Core, and Flex Prime pedals