The new Bogner would be a good amp to model with Tina. There are so many modes, switches and options that a “capture pack” would be ridiculous. Obviously Marshall based, but certainly has the Bogner “signature” and is even different that the classic Ecstasy amps. Would be a very popular amp!
Has anyone heard with “TINA”, will we be getting more frequent models added?? I remember at launch of the QC they were touting one new amp per month etc. That would be welcome. Especially preamp models with the advent of so many “pedal power amps” around now (eg Duncan Power Stage, Orange pedal baby and especially the new Wampler Pedalhead!). Would love to see a Mesa Triaxis, Bogner Fish etc.
Yes, Bogner amplifiers are amazing! I have not tried the Uberschall in the QC, but I think the Shiva’s first channel gives you some of the best clean tones available. Having the Bogner Ecstasy, as you propose, it being the company’s “flagship”, would make a great addition. I would be, however, more interested in the Bogner Helios. I am more partial to modded Marshall voicings than Soldano’s/5150’s (Ecstasy’s category?), and this British tone path is what made Reinhold Bogner famous in the first place…
And, yeah, I am also curious why the use of TINA did not result in a steady release of amplifier models for the QC. Aside from plugin amps, in two years we have only gotten the Dumble ODS, basically…
So, what you are implying is that, even though Neural DSP already has the (deep neural network) model weights / model configuration for all the virtual devices, when they are bringing a plugin suite to the QC, they are actually re-training the models in the QC format? That it is easier to transfer the behavior from hardware instead of transferring their software models from one platform to the other? And, therefore, the TINA robots are all busy turning the knobs of the same physical amps they already did for the plugin version years before? I guess it could be the case, but that would be a very inefficient approach that would only make sense if you really built your original architectures to be totally incompatible somehow…
@MP_Mod is only implying that the enormous scope of bringing PCOM to the QC–including not only the amp models but all of the cab models, effects blocks, presets, license activation, etc.–would have taken a huge portion of development time.
I don’t think it’s accurate to suggest “TINA models physical amp yesterday = QC amp model block ready today”. That said, I do hope the pace of amp modeling picks up so maybe we can get more non-PCOM blocks for Orange, Fryette, and others.
Agreed with @DiffractionCircuit here. Dev team resources likely only stretch so far, so it’s a case of what’s prioritised and queued when. With PCOM a selling point from day one, that’s likely been prioritised to work through to be delivered.
But with that completed for X plugins, we should as Dan mentioned on the discord, see more features for all QC users. So hopefully that’ll be more use of TINA, the dumbell and fender 64 models are brilliant so the more the merrier imo!
Having the Bogner Ecstasy, as you propose, it being the company’s “flagship”, would make a great addition. I would be, however, more interested in the Bogner Helios. I am more partial to modded Marshall voicings than Soldano’s/5150’s (Ecstasy’s category?), and this British tone path is what made Reinhold Bogner famous in the first place…
