Those new A2 lite captures are now similar soundwise to V2 captures from NDSP.
According to Steve Atkinson now a 3$ chip can archive the qualitiy of a V2 capture soundwise :-). Insane stuff and good stuff!
I think now it is time to enable NDSP customers to use FULL NAM A2 or/and A1 captures to stay above those cheap pedals!?
I think adding a NAM A2 loader will become MANDATORY as IR’s are!
I am eager to see what happens next.
What do YOU think?
Well I personally think I don’t care - the marginal improvements (or not) mean little when I have literally 100s to 1000s of options already.
There’s always gonna be the next best thing and at this point - between Fractal and QC there is nothing more a guitar player can ever need in a “modeling” platform honestly. (Okay maybe some QoL improvements or some additional models) But in terms of technology/sound - it’s all there.
Evolve or be left behind. If nam isn’t incorporated into the qc, I’ll be ditching it for something that does.
Thats where i am at. I understand that different people have different goals with their gear. For me, i replicated my mostly analog and tube rig, and i love it. Before the QC, i had not reallt changed my rig for a few years - most of my changes have been to implelent midi to get more from my existing gear.
My current goal is to be able to use my QC (with Amalgam Tone King Imperial captures) more efficiently. I am not interested in trying hundred of amps. I just want to play, not fuss with gear.
If people get rid of their QCs, then its an opportuntiy for others to try it for less expense. Or for me to buy a backup. 
I don’t see the need for Nam captures or player in the QC atal… I make my own captures and the v2 captures sound identical to the amps and pedals I’m capturing…so for me to believe the marketing thing that Nam captures is better is all BS. How can it be better than v2 if I’m getting identical results, I’ve tried a couple of captures on the nam plugin and thought these are terrible what’s all the hype about lol…
Buy a nam player if you really need it…
I don’t think so. The QC already has models, neural captures and PCOM. What would NAM really add? And wouldn’t it also then follow that it also needs Helix proxy and Tonex captures and Kemper profiles, etc.?
All of that needs resources, which ultimately means you get less other stuff like more effects, MIDI, QoL and other improvements. I would much rather have those.
100% agree - and I gotta say, to me the models on QC sound better than the captures. V2 are pretty close - maybe even same but having a model and learning to dial it is always fun. I would rather NDSP add more models and they already have some unique stuff like Fortin. To me that’s the best part of using the QC - unique amp models that sound great because NDSP knows what the are doing.
There’s a JCM900 in there - never thought I’d play it but it is so good with a bit of eq for metal and stuff. I don’t know another brand that has it - Fractal removed it long ago. The Kraken model sounds so good. The soldano is one of the best. The EVH 6L6 sounds closest to the real one I have. They are killing it in modeling game.
For amp models there is only 2 things NDSP needs to do in my uninformed opinion:
Add more cool unique models
Make the bass end better - only place it lags from Fractal - and reduce those lower mid forwards. The bass seems to have no build up to it- some frequencies are there - some not. It’s just odd - more realistic probably but having more bass means you can reduce in eq but other way doesn’t work that well. It becomes boomy.
They are and will stay top of the mountain. No A2 needed.
I’m getting back into models again, too and the difference between A2 and qcv2 is very small.
I just like the open source approach the have with Nam, but for me personally, I just hope they get more new amps on the qc. The newer ones like the dumble and the fender 64 are great and with the new update there is the new John Mayer set and after that finally tone king imperial and Morgan amp suite.
With nam pushing the competition, I think the difference will be moddeling again. V2 sounds phenomenal, too, but give me some amps to dail in for my guitars specifically with the quality and feel of v2 or a2, that is the best of both worlds
I have a rather bold, alternative theory. Since all capture concepts are now of such high quality that you can only hear the differences at home at your desk, when you do a direct A/B comparison in a perfect environment (if you even hear a difference at all), and since it’s not a given that A sounds better than B—because it’s entirely a matter of taste—we shouldn’t waste energy on formats just for the sake of technology, but rather focus on Quality of Live features.
The list has grown over the years, after all.
All of this is more important than amp number 97, delay number 64, or capture format version 13.
Cortex has its own profile technology and that’s why we are using and enjoy it. imho. I think adding NAM A2 to Cortex is like to add BMW to Mercedes…
yeah I dont think the QC necessarily needs NAM A2 compatibility, capture V2 has been indistinguishable for me, the only thing Im interested in is how light on resources the new A2 captures are meant to be? you can run out of processing power pretty quickly throwing down the V2 captures, maybe NDSP can optimise how power hungry the V2 blocks are, but honestly I wouldn’t care either way
Hi there!
Same applies to IR’s! Why not remove support for them?
There are way to much IR’s to choose!
Giving the people a choise is the point, not what one need or not.
It would be no big effort for NDSP to add a loader to the device!
There are severeal “crap” devices out there wich do that without the “vulgar display of power” even!
This kind of extra friction is totally unnesscessary!
For me personal: If no loader is provided I will buy a “cheap NAM A2 capable” device and plug it into effects loop.
BUT for future puchases I will only support companies with their clients in mind not a caged and closed system!
No sticking with NDSP then…
Because IR-loaders are way less complicated / CPU hungry and already are a standard across many devices, unlike NAM.
That’s not true. Those “crap devices” can’t actually run NAM, let alone NAM A2 without converting them first into a worse format.
The Darkglass Anagram for example does run NAM, but it’s not cheap at all. And it currently doesn’t run NAM A2 but they are working on it. Meaning, it takes them resources once again to keep up.
No friction at all. It’s just logical, that everything that needs coding and stuff also needs time and resources. And I would rather have them put that amount of work into other things.
I would also argue, that it would be bad for everyone if NAM took over and every other capture technology would be left behind, as it is competition that pushes tech development usually.
I’m pretty happy with how the QC is and performs. Overall, I think it’s cool that tech and software moves forward, but that doesn’t make me not enjoy playing with the Quad Cortex. This thing is a joy to just plug in and go 
I personally hope they don’t waste resources on that. There’s plenty of NAM hardware in the market already for those who want to use it (or just buy a PC and connect a MIDI pedalboard, and enjoy).
I’d rather see the QC keep evolving as its own thing, on its own path: great sound, great feel, useful features and stability!
I personally will never understand people who think they want to be locked into a closed system when they have a chance to open up. Open source software is hackable by design. Including NAM could be cheap in terms of development, so the point about wasting resources might not hold, and everyone could benefit from it.
As a customer, I support the idea of encouraging openness and innovation. QC is good, but QC + NAM would be better.
Hey - I really liked the way you framed the initial post - as in what do “YOU” think about it?
It is a great read to see people’s opinion on it. And from what I am reading - based on multiple responses, it seems that folks just want QC to be it’s own thing and want improvements in existing ecosystems. I think I am part of that group.
I think with a bit of EQ and compression it can all sound the same, I can be proved wrong. But there is some evidence to the the fact that “no amount of gear can make you sound good”. I see people online make amazing music with much less and makes me wonder if instead of tone chasing I should technique chase lol. Which changed a lot in how I approached these and being content with your sounds and trying to improve the playing has legitimately made me a better player.
And I absolutely agree - somebody’s yuck can be another’s yum. You are entitled to your opinion that A2 is absolutely a game changer. And thanks for asking other’s opinions!
Keep that open mind and know it’s not friction. I wish more of the forum was around how do I make xyz sound than comparisons/tech across the board.
I hope Neural DSP does add support for NAM A2. I agree what a few others have said about the QC V2 captures sounding so good already, but I don’t think it’s about the sound quality.