NDSP cooperation with other algorithm providers?

Quad Cortex
#1

As I’m waiting in line for a post pre-order delivery of a QC, I have some thoughts regarding the powerful DSP engine. I own a few NDSP plugs that are really great regarding modelling of amps and cabs. I also read the extensive FX list that will ship with the QC or later updated. NDSP are obviously really skilled and creative DSP developers, but I’m a bit concerned, being such a small company, regarding the broad possibilities. A DSP-box is no better than the algorithms it can run - many pro audio companies rely on their algorithms and NSDP is surely are one of the top actors already

So my thought/question is if NDSP would have any intention to cooperate with other niche DSP companies (Valhalla and the likes comes to mind) regarding other niches, to expand the features of the QC as an MFX solution? Or maybe NDSP feel confident to (continue) to provide as good and flexible differentiated set of FX ?

1 Like
#2

Fractal hasn’t had too much trouble with Cliff being the primary development “team” for most of its existence.

1 Like
#3

True …however
Designing/manufacturing the “hardware platform” is where all the “heaving lifting” is done. Algorithm development(I believe) is where you make your gravy using a lot fewer people resources. Although these people are very talented, the cost to keep the ship going so to speak(aka - making a profit) is a lot less.
In other words …if you have great programming talent, exploit it by building your own hardware platform and while your at it, make it an “open one” so others can cash in and ride on your work.
Developing the software on an already existing and well distributed platform(PC) can sure cut your cost down while your “coding” in your bedroom or basement.
Anyway …just my thoughts

#4

Good comments! My thoughts are influenced by my intention to use the QC in the studio as a tracking and reamping device rather than live. A device to benchmark against is the Eventide H9 - less powerful but relies on their very established and classical FX algorithms (which I’ve utilized in many forms from the early 80s and on). Other more-or-less configurable FX box examples are the Kyma Pacarana and the Nord Modular HW.

I don’t think NDSP are that interested in going the H9 way, as it is (rightly) a guitar centered unit, but I agree that the HW would be the main source of revenue and eventually making some kind of “plugin” SDK available to (at least) a few selected partners would add to the concept! “Openness” is a modern approach anyway! My 2¢ anyway,

1 Like
#5

I think we always need to look at Apple for these kind of analysis.
So you make the SW to make people buy your HW, where you make a good profit, then you open the door for others to place their software on your hardware and cash in both in the HW sold but also on the licensing for other developers.
This model works so well that even some industrial robots companies copied it and were able to match the established players in a couple of years…

That being said, there have been many audio HW units through the years and, to my knowledge, the big ones did not really open the door for third party development, the ones oriented to run third party software did not make it big. Maybe there is a reason for that, maybe no established and respected company, like NDSP is, ever tried it, maybe this is something that only works on our generation of buyers…