Why not also compete against HX stomp or Am4?
I agree with you haha. It just was really clear when they released the Nano that they missed the mark and only did a capture player
1 Like
Modeling should be possible. If it is CPU hungry, those things could be optimized.
I would also very much like for the NC to have modeling but it’s my understanding the hardware is simply not sufficient to support it.
1 Like
I wouldn’t expect this. Even if they did add a Marshall, a fender deluxe and a Vox people would be screaming for more. Plus they’d have to really expand the app to allow for control of individual amp parameters. It’s not really what this was designed for. The o ly thing is live them to add is a NAM player. But I don’t see that coming either.
So let’s just vote and wait for the results!..)
P.S. I think that NAM player addition is almost impossible. Other way, what the reason to invest in NDSP own solution and what the difference with Chinese devices.
The difference is I already own the Nano. I like it better than the QC I had.
1 Like
Modeling should be available to Nano Cortex.
If there is a limit because of processing power, Neural should come out and say it.
It is not good for Neural’s users to have to speculate here.
Yes, Marshall, Vox Fender should be available if it is possible.
2 Likes
Generally speaking, I agree that NDSP should address feature requests that are simply not possible or won’t happen for one or another reason.
But, I think this feature requests goes nowhere because it is just asking the NC to be something it is not.
1 Like
Ndsp clearly said since the beginning that the Nano was a ‘capture player’ only device, with no Amp modeling capability, so I highly doubt that it will ever be a form of amp model in the Nano. The main limiting factor is probably the processing power, greatly reduced compared to the QC…
3 Likes
OK, good to know. However, did they say it was due to limited DSP of NC?
This is where we are speculating I think.
If it is programmatically possible, then plans can change depending on the business side.
I developed software myself. I have a jazz education app that is downloadable from Apple and Google Store.
I have years of experience about development.
Sometimes users show/define the direction.
And, sometimes they do some things you never intended.
It shows new possibilities.
So, what I’m saying is we need to know if it is a hard no due to the capabilities of NC.
Knowing this makes everything easier and removes the need to speculate.
E.g DSP is not strong enough.
You are right, NDSP never explicitely said that the processing power of the Nano was too low to provide Modeling, we only assumed it based on the fact that the Nano is much cheaper than the QC (and QC Mini).
They could actively choose to NOT implement any kind of modeling in the Nano in order to preserve the ‘premium’ status if the QC (and mini).
Imagine that the Nano has some modeling capabilities, would you assume that it would be the same amp list and the same quality as the QC ? If not, what would be the limit ? (apart from the inherent limits of the Nano: a semi-fixed signal chain, not beeing able to use multiple blocks from the same category, etc…)
From a business perspective, it totaly make sense that the Nano doesn’t have any form of modeling. A ‘middle-ground’ device (let’s call it ‘Duo-Cortex’) would probably be a better fit for this business (a kind of QC Mini with only half the power, less inputs/outputs, but running the same algo with full modeling and capture tech). What would be the ‘desired price’ of this device ? ±1000 € ? Would it be worth the trouble for NDSP ? (it consumes a lot of time to design a new hardware, even when it is a variation of an existing one, and you have to test the software on an additional device type, adapt the software to react to a different hardware capabilities, and so on… that’s why NDSP probably goes to the ‘QC Mini’ route instead of the ‘Duo-Cortex’ route…)
But we do know?! The NC runs captures, not a single amp model, has a fixed signal chain, consisting of pre-selcted effects and is way more affordable than the QC.
From the very beginning it was advertised exactly like that and they have said it’s not running amp models. It’s pretty obvious that this is because of limited DSP.
Don’t get me wrong, I am all for improving it or any unit really. But there is a limit of what you can expect. I don’t expect the QC to ever run GTA6, even though it has a screen. Because it’s a modeller, not a gaming PC. Likewise, the NC was designed to use captures with a few effects around it, making it a capture player. Not a modeller, like the QC.
1 Like
Can’t agree. Nano have limited in/outs, only few slots for the effects and no parallel processing. So in case of limited amount of amp models will be added, Nano will be fit in Cortex lineup in much more natural way. My point it that the amp capture technology have some kind of dark side of the Moon. Good sound - yes, captures sounds and feels great. But you can spent hours to find appropriate capture, and it will be ok. But when you bring device to rehearsal or venue, your just don’t have any abilities to tweak your tone..(
1 Like
As much as I would love to see modelling added to the Nano, actually NDSP doesn’t need to say anything more about it because they already did.
They said it very clearly. The Nano is a capturer and capture player device and it will not feature modelling. They said it.
If one buys the Nano expecting it to add modelling in the future… it’s not NDSP problem. It’s the buyer problem.
A different thing is that NDSP changes its mind sometime. But what’s clear is that they owe nothing similar to an explanation. The unit is what they clearly said it was going to be.
2 Likes
Nobody said from Neural that the limitation was due to the limitations of processor power.
The rest is business decision and that can change.
This right here
While it would be awesome for the Nano to have amp modeling, they’ve said it’s a capture player. Many bands that I work with wanted to get the Nano when it was released because they thought it did amp modeling. When they realized it didn’t, unfortunately they refused to buy it. Just confused why there is a debate about whether it can or can’t have amp models still.
Would have been amazing if it was a competitor to the HX Stomp, but it kind of isn’t with the limited signal path and only captures for amps. It’s more similar to the Kemper Player
I have seen that. This is not what we’re talking about.
They are not saying Nano can not have amp modeling because it has DSP limitation.
This is not even what we’re talking about. It is about plugins.
They may have programmed amp modeling to put in Quad but it does not mean it is not changable.
That is what I understand.