I finally bought the Dimehead NAM Player

Quad Cortex
1

Hi everyone,

I’ve been using the Quad Cortex since the early days, and I still enjoy it a lot. I especially like how QC captures tend to sit well in a mix.

Recently, I tried using NAM inside the QC through the send/return loop with my Poly Effects Beebo, which can run NAM profiles. Naturally, this made me compare the QC sound and the NAM sound more directly.

What I felt was that NAM had a slightly more realistic nuance to my ears.
It sounded thick, but without that spongy feeling. Even when I adjusted other effects around it, the core guitar sound seemed to stay solid, and the effects reacted very naturally around it.

That was just my personal impression, but in the end… yesterday I ordered a Dimehead NAM Player.

My ears are very sneaky.
It feels like I’ve reached a place that may be hard to come back from. I almost felt like I was possessed when I bought it. Haha.

I listened to as many recent NAM Player demos as I could find on YouTube, and for some reason the Dimehead sounded like it had a faster, more immediate response compared to the others.

Along with it, I also ordered the Fryette Valvulator Mini Vacuum Tube Buffer. It may be a bit excessive, but the Fryette tube buffer was something I had been waiting for, and I always wanted to use something like that together with the QC. So as soon as it was released, I pulled the trigger. Haha. I’m really looking forward to it.

For me, the biggest strengths of the Quad Cortex are its flexible I/O, the variety of effects, and the overall user experience. However, when it comes to amp sound, I always felt there was just that last 2% missing.

I feel like this setup might finally solve that for me.

I’m happy.

I don’t really expect QC to support NAM profiles directly, because Neural DSP is also a business, of course. But I do hope the user experience and flexibility continue to improve even more.

It wasn’t a small purchase, so I do feel the burden a bit.
But at the same time, I feel like my rig is finally becoming complete.

Maybe… haha.

3 Likes
2

Good for you mate! I had to look up what this thing is because since i’m a QC owner i totally lost the urge for looking for new gear xD

But this thing sounds great from what i’ve looked up. Neural supporting NAM Profiles would be a great thing!

How’s your setup now? Are you using the QC just for I/O and FX and the Dime for Amp sounds?

3

I’ve also been waiting for this. Let us know how it goes and how you use it.

We shall see.

4

Thanks mate!

Yes, that’s basically the idea, although I haven’t received the Dimehead yet.

Right now I’ve only tested NAM inside the QC send/return loop using my Poly Effects Beebo. That experience made me want to try a dedicated NAM player.

My plan is to use the QC mainly for I/O, routing, scenes, and effects, and let the Dimehead handle the main amp sound.

I still really like the QC, especially for its workflow and flexibility. I just felt that NAM gave me something a little different in the core amp feel.

1 Like
5

Yes, I’ve also been waiting for the Valvulator Mini.

I haven’t received it yet, so I can’t comment on the actual sound, but I’m really curious how it will work in my rig.

My current chain is roughly:

Guitar → UAFX MAX → Chase Bliss Condor → Quad Cortex
with NAM running through the QC send/return loop using my Poly Effects Beebo.
From the QC, I run stereo out to two TONEX CAB speakers.

That experience is what pushed me to order the Dimehead NAM Player. My plan is to use the Dimehead for the main amp sound, and keep the QC for I/O, routing, scenes, and effects.

For the Valvulator Mini, I’m hoping it adds a nice tube-buffer feel and makes the front end feel more alive and connected under the fingers.

We shall see. Haha.

1 Like
6

Keep in mind, when you use the QC’s FX loops, you are running through a set of DAC and ADC processes–not to mention, you are also running through a set of ADC and DAC processes in the Beebo. In this way, you are adding latency into your setup, just to have access to a NAM player which is intended to give you a more “realistic” feel.

If you can live with that, no worries. I do find it quite an awkward workaround but I understand why. I’m currently using one of the QC’s FX loops for external pedals anyway.

7

Thank you for the good point.

You’re right, the Beebo setup is definitely not the cleanest signal path, and I understand the concern about the extra AD/DA stages and latency.

But interestingly, I actually liked the sound and feel I was getting from the Beebo NAM setup. Even with the added latency, the speakers had this kind of growling, alive feeling that I really enjoyed.

Also, from what I understand, the Dimehead NAM Player should have lower latency than the Beebo, so that makes me feel a bit more comfortable about moving in that direction.

Anyway, for me, it felt like something finally opened up in my ears. Haha.

I know it may be an awkward workaround from a technical point of view, but musically, it made me excited again.

8

I believe from Leo Gibson’s testing the fx loop was 1 or 2 ms max,
and the NAM Player is 1 ms

3ms for A2 tech, whose captures rated considerably higher than Neural DSP’s equivalents, isn’t too bad a tradeoff. Even A2 lite rated higher in their vast listening tests.

My preference of course is to use A2 captures directly in the Quad Cortex,

which I think Neural DSP will have to at some point because multiple manufacturers of pedals small and large are going to do the same, eg Fractal, now that the new A2 tech can run on cheap embedded systems as well.

NAM Blind Listening tests
NAM Blind Listening tests1363×1715 161 KB

9

There is more than 1-2ms of latency with the fx loop unfortunately. Also if the fx loop is with a splitter/mixer or on lane 3/4 it’s even more than that.

10

Evidence?

Leo Gibson measured the QC’s fx loop adding only 2 ms latency,

equivalent to standing 70cm further from the speaker. 3ms would be 1M further.

image_2026-06-21_192300160
image_2026-06-21_1923001601324×1918 474 KB

11

People on the forum have measured the latency, which changes when using row 3+4 or a splitter/mixer. It’s because the Quad Cortex has to engage another DSP for 1/2 and 3/4 I believe. Was told that part by someone who works for another large modeler company about all the added latency because of how Neural designed the chain of DSP chips with their rows + the mixers.

Also I’ve measure the latency and all of that stuff above seemed true.

Most people are using a couple rows or a splitter/mixer.

12

If you’re using the fx loop for your amp tones via a NAM pedal, you’d only need one row to run it and add fx etc.

I have no idea what “most people” are doing, that’s pretty subjective.

If you are using 2 rows, you’d be getting that extra latency anyway (maybe another 1ms), irrespective of the fx loop. It sounds like you are correlating the QC’s on board latency via the blocks and dsp/rows and splitters, with the extra latency in the fx loop.

From Leo Gibson’s measurements the fx loop is 2ms EXTRA latency, that’s what I’m going with, unless there is evidence against that.

13

Look up latency measurements on this forum. You’ll see

14

I did, I assume you mean this one where all the tests are from 3 years ago.

So from what I gathered, the fx loop on row 1 adds 1.75ms, close to what Leo Gibson reported (2ms). So if you’re just using the first row for your NAM fx loop, it’s fine, the loop + the Dimehead would add <3ms.

But there is a bug (or was, I can’t tell) where row 3/4 adds several ms latency, and is magnified further by adding an fx loop there.

Can’t tell if Neural ever fixed that. Maybe not, although they did do an update where latency was improved, but it’s not clear if they ever fixed the row3 - fx loop latency mess.

So cheers for the headsup, I won’t be using the fx loop on row 3/4 in the future. But row 1 seems safe.