Makes sense Headrush would add it since their modeling sounds terrible
i just don’t get it why people buy “”““A””“”“” and then they request “”““Q””“” to look like “”““A””“” otherwise they won’t buy.
Windows users want Windows to look like Linux and Linux users want Linux to behave like Windows and nowadays we have 2+ awful desktop OS.
The mythical XRecer XR1 that is imminent (Leo Gibson has a unit now,) their website states it will run 5 full NAM A2 captures at once, or 20 x lite A2s.
It’s very quad cortex looking but a fair bit bigger. Maybe too big for me.
But damn, those NAM captures…
100% agree!
To answer your question why people who buy A want it to be B because that guy uses 5 captures - wants them on QC - hasn’t tried looking for it on cloud. Probably doesn’t even have a QC yet.
Doesnt discuss what kind of music he plays or what amps he wants but wants NAM 
Some people just want to make noise and probably don’t even know what a QC sounds like. The models in the Quad Cortex are so good that I don’t use captures at all. I’d rather Neural spend their time making more models than implementing third-party technology.
Exactly - for Pete’s sake we don’t even have tri-chorus, the vibrato is downright embarrassing, don’t even get me started on delays and reverbs. The amp models and captures in the cortex are already so good another 4% improvement is not going to make your song a hit, please just give me better and more accurate effects instead.
I’m all for open discourse and the earnest sharing of opinions, yet perhaps this thread has run its course for now. I feel like it has deviated pretty significantly from the initial feature request 
I have to agree, I am not interested in NAM. I like the tones I get from my QC and if I really want to use NAM Ill download the software or buy one of the cheap options. Since I have not even bothered to download free software I dont see myself invest much more time in it past this reply.
This. I reckon NDSP launched V2 as a rival to NAM. V2 is closed off to the NDSP ecosystem, realistically I’d say they’re likely to just develop on V2 over time to make improvements.
In my eyes, is NAM critical with the captures we have available? For me, no. I use amp models so much more, but that doesn’t work for everyone. Would it hurt to add NAM? Probably not, but likely to be lower down the list compared to other changes people request (e.g., secondary footswitch function, changing up hybrid mode, cab IR by output etc.)
This is purely my opinion, but I’d rather NDSP focus their time on improving matters like the above, MIDI, and ways of getting the most of the system we have, over expanding captures - at least in the short term perspective. If NAM is critical for players, it’s likely best to go with the hardware that supports them from the get go
Depends on if Neural wants to sell more hardware or double down on plugins. Reality is that there is demand for floor modelers/players that support NAM. Case in point Headrush just announced NAM A2 6 days ago. Checking Sweetwater, Headrush Prime and Core are both sold out. Would that have happened before they announced NAM?
Devils advocate: Assuming the hardware can actually do it, it seems software implementing NAM wouldn’t be so terribly complicated (other companies seem able to do it and quickly) and wouldn’t distract from what other things they need to work on, and it might give them a revenue boost to hirer on more people to do the stuff you do want. Kinda like Porsche selling SUVs to Americans to fund what the company really cares about.
Whilst not a direct NAM message, I just downloaded the helix stadium native and was really underwhelmed. I’ve also tried the some NAM captures and I’m struggling to understand what all the hype is about. Through my set up, a set of decent Genelec speakers, NAM sounded no better than the QC. So can anyone explain what tangible difference we would realistically notice with NAM over QC??
I get where you’re coming from—if a rig sounds great to your ears, the tech behind it doesn’t matter much. The hype mainly comes from objective testing data, where NAM A2 consistently scores higher for realism and accuracy than traditional modelers. Plus, from a market standpoint, being able to load those highly accurate NAM A2 captures into a floor unit that costs half the price of a Quad Cortex is a pretty huge game-changer for a lot of players
I gather they are roughly equivalent. The benefit is that there seem to be many more freely available NAM profiles and if you have some you like, you can take them to any comparable device you want (like an IR).
I imagine using a NAM profile among different modelers isn’t going to sound the same due to differences in I/O and related HW which is different than using IRs IMO
Anderston launched a NAM comparison video, today.
They tested all the hardware can run NAM. It might give you an idea.
Personally, i have an Ampero Mini and Stomp, a Valeton Gp200 and Gp5, a QC and a Nano, i made the comparison my self with EVH5150 captures and QC/Nano were always superior.
It is not just about the capture itself, the quality of the delay/reverb/chorus effects from Neural DSP is by miles superior than anything Ampero/Valeton (they are actually the same company) can offer.
Only one person in this thread gave a valid reason why Neural DSP should include NAM support and another guy said: “It wouldn’t hurt to have it”.
You can’t trust on YouTubers nowadays and when is about music; cheap versus expensive is still quite relevant.
Thanks for the Anderton’s heads up, that video told me what I assumed that every modeler had unique tones using the same NAM capture and IR. I liked Anagram the best and HR the least. I hope to see more comparison videos soon.
Thanks for sharing. Just to clarify, judging the built-in delays and reverbs isn’t really a fair head-to-head comparison of NAM vs. QC captures.
NAM is strictly amp profiling, not an effects suite. Comparing a full preset on a budget Valeton or Ampero to a QC introduces too many variables—like effect quality—to judge the raw amp models objectively.
Plus, a NAM profile will naturally sound different across budget modelers anyway because of differences in their I/O, converters, and hardware. It’s totally different than just loading the same cabinet IR into separate units. A much fairer test would be to do an A/B comparison running a dedicated unit like the Dimehead NAM Player directly in the QC’s FX loop.
For me, adding native NAM support to the QC is is best of both worlds: access giant library of accurate amp profiles, but run them through the QC superior hardware and effects.
What objective testing data? People keep saying this but cant prove it. Show me where an independent 3rd party performed this test and published their methodology.
I think we can thank the detractors for bringing more attention to this feature request though. It now has twice as many votes as when I first found it. 
I wonder, hypothetically: since several people have suggested that if you want NAM, you should just get a pedal that does NAM, would it be fair for me to flip the script and suggest that if you want better tremolo, reverb, delay, etc., you should just get a pedal, or pedals that do those things well?
I assume that wouldn’t go down too well, which is why this is a purely hypothetical, somewhat cheeky and facetious suggestion, not an actual suggestion 