I vaguely remember this came up in a discussion, after someone captured drive pedals with the QC. I think, Doug from NDSP answered the QC will be able to capture also the above mentioned pedals, but it seems to be quite a challenge to develop. Can someone elaborate on this and when this feature will be incorporated? On the other hand: Would a capture ever be as flexible to use or do you need to have many captures from the same pedal algorythm - like a shimmering reverb (but forget about the shimmer algos, I hate 99 % of them anyway )
There are lots of discussions on the net regarding pros and cons of convolution (captured) reverbs and algorithmic (calculated) reverbs. Ordinary captures can sound great but are static in nature. No problem for a cabinet or room, but time modulations is another issue - you could capture one sweep and loop it (like a sample loop), but multiple/random modulations can not be captured the same way as static or regular time based FX. This applies to any FX as soon as time is involved.
great info, hasse_fx, exactly what I needed. And maybe it’s better that way when you think of the pedal business.
all the more reason to see Neural upgrade their time based effects post launch
If they are able to capture Delays, Verbs, and Modulation effects like they have amps with such quality, THAT would be a Game-Changer! I wish them luck in doing so.
Amen to that, bro…
I’m no expert… but Capturing a time based pedal with all the complex parameters etc seems virtually impossible… the trick is for Neural to come up with the high quality reverbs delays modulations etc we all want via algorithms…
it’s been discussed here in the forum before that it usually takes a little time for a new hardware device to get their effects to the highest standards i.e Kemper started out with mediocre FX and now they’re outstanding
Neural has some great minds working for them. The new audio engine they are using is a testament to the innovation of the company. At this point, I don’t know what is impossible for them.
Doug’s talked a lot about capturing time-based FX. I don’t think he’d be talking about it if they didn’t have an idea of how to get there from here.
Even if I raised the question as OP: If I had to choose between the QC as a glorious capturing beast and the QC with a top notch efx section with a lot more top algorithms than today (reverse reverb etc.) I would prefer the latter. Even if capturing pedals would yield acceptable results. I hope they put more energy into the efx section - should be easier to handle in the long run than captures. And I smell rabbit holes…
I bet someone will say: We need both!
I’m sure Doug & Co. will be able to capture time based FX pedals eventually… but I’m going to play devil’s advocate for the sake of the discussion…
let’s think about capturing an amp for a moment… you set up the EQ and the Gain structure and put the mic at that perfect spot… and you do your capture… then you say to yourself I’ve got another sound I love that this amp can make so you fiddle with the Gain and EQ and you get that next capture… at the most you might have 3 or 4 capture versions of that amp you love and you’re good to go… so really the biggest things you’re dealing with are dialing in are the Gain structure and the EQ… that’s pretty much it…
so I’m wondering how many captures would it take to get the full gamut of sounds that the Strymon Big Sky can produce? 20? 30? 100? 1000? there are so many settings and variables built into these HI-Q FX pedals these days… we’re not talking the MRX Phase 90 which you could arguably capture 2 settings and be good… I mean what about a fully loaded Eventide H9… you’d be capturing for weeks maybe months if you wanted every single setting and nuance… all I’m saying is wouldn’t it be better for Neural DSP to write the code for great Hi-Q FX blocks that gave you all the variable settings and parameters you want and need? IMO having epic FX like Fractal or like Kemper that are built with code and algorithms installed right into the unit is a much more feasible and realistic goal.
Should I say Amen again? Exactly my second thoughts. One of the reasons why I preferred modellers to, well, capturers, when it came to amp simulations — you know the brands I have in mind.
Back to timebased pedals: I possess a SA Collider and a Specular Tempus reverb/delay pedal. Thought about capturing them one day, hence my question here, but now I’d rather see instead a state of the art effects selection with the usual suspects (reverse reverb etc.) in th QC to keep things simple. All the more considering the price of the QC compared to the FM3 which has excellent Fractal reverbs and delays. Not at QCs release but during the next firmware updates.
The Strymon is really just multiple types of delays in one box. Most are emulations of other type effects. They could just add a number different delays and reverbs and negate the need to capture a Strymon. I personally get sick of hearing the Strymon name. But they are the “thing” right now