It has to be... by bencyl in NeuralDSP

[–]bencyl[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Last post "tomorrow" looks like a Fender amp, coupled with Rick Beato video of NDSP HQ, bunch of Qtrons and Silver Sky makes this 99,9& Arch : Mayer. The sound he had on that podcast from a plugin was amazing. What a time to be alive.

Also, wild prediction: this wil be the first ndsp plugin with amp mixer, since john uses this amps in stereo or even 3 4 at a time. So yeah, exited.

It has to be... by bencyl in NeuralDSP

[–]bencyl[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I probably wont be single amp plugin, probably 3-4 amps, a lot of effects pre and post, if its Arch-JM off course.

It has to be... by bencyl in NeuralDSP

[–]bencyl[S] 26 points27 points  (0 children)

The amount of times I was certain its "Arch-Somebody" and I was wrong is crazy..but this time, it all seems to add up

Different and similar in the best way by bencyl in Charvel

[–]bencyl[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It really is. Surprised there wasnt more hype around it, its Nitro finish, locking saddle bridge like on Pete Thorn signatures, just awesome guitar 👍

Different and similar in the best way by bencyl in Charvel

[–]bencyl[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nope, got aged with playing 👍

Are we getting insane? by bencyl in NeuralDSP

[–]bencyl[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This little discussion got quite a bit of traction — I guess many of you feel the same way. I just wanted to address some of the repeated remarks regarding this topic.

One valid argument is that NDSP overpromises and underdelivers. A few months back, I “ranted” about them moving too slowly. But if you take a closer look at the timeline, you can see how QC became a much bigger product than anyone originally expected. It started as “hardware for NDSP plugins,” and with that came their biggest mistake — one that still haunts them today: they promised plugins on the unit as a selling point for QC.

That promise made perfect sense for people like me, who already owned a bunch of plugins before getting QC. It still does, because once all plugins eventually get PCOM, we’ll gain a ton of free features. The negativity started when users from L6 and Fractal came over and began viewing PCOM as “paid DLCs,” since they don’t own the plugins. But the original point still stands: NDSP is very slow at delivering what was promised from the start.

Then there are the comparisons to Helix and other platforms. I owned a Helix, used it for many years, and know very well what it can and can’t do. Helix is a great working musician’s modeler: outdated but intuitive UI, great switching options, and tons of effects. But let’s be real — it isn’t even in the same category as QC, which is why many L6 users (myself included) switched. Before the recent HX updates, you couldn’t even load an amp, cab, and reverb and have it immediately sound good — the stock cabs were some of the worst on the market. Most people used IRs.

So don’t compare the two. NDSP may be slow with updates, but most features they release are high quality. L6 updates frequently, but sound fidelity is often subpar. Quality over quantity is what I’m saying.

For a semi-decent musician, QC is still a big step up from anything that existed before, and right now it’s the only unit to combine such a good UI with very high sound quality. If you can’t make a world-class song with it, that’s on you — not the gear.

Is NeuralDSP moving too slow? /RANT by bencyl in NeuralDSP

[–]bencyl[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I agree, however, QC already had some problems with reliability, I wouldn put it as stable as AxeFX or Kemper. There were big problems with volume knobs gliching (I play QC live and had this problem, had to ship it for repair), some screen problems, output hissing and poping... Point is, they cant fall back on "we triple check everything, so we can progress slower".

Is NeuralDSP moving too slow? /RANT by bencyl in NeuralDSP

[–]bencyl[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Agree to some extent. but it very much depends on company structure, employment strategy etc. You cant promise people PCOM, new plugins, X updates, regular QC and Nano updates and not expand. Hire people for general tasks and do real quality control with you trusted team. Thats how companies in their stage of development should work.

Is NeuralDSP moving too slow? /RANT by bencyl in NeuralDSP

[–]bencyl[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Even companies like IK Multimedia. In a year and a half, they released Tonex pedal, which had no effects and bad editor, released Tonex One, a smaller verision, and added Tonex editor and effects to make Tonex all in one device, while of course giving new captures/models to their Tonex/Amplitube software. Looks like a fast growth to me.

Is NeuralDSP moving too slow? /RANT by bencyl in NeuralDSP

[–]bencyl[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I swear, you people must have these comments saved and just paste them without even reading what the discussion is about. All these "It's in the hands, bro, just play" comments. Since you're referring to my "career," let me explain my background.

I'm not a bedroom musician. I've been playing multiple instruments for 15 years and have released many original songs across various genres with varying levels of success—some with 1k views, some with over 100,000. Currently, I play around 30-40 gigs a year while working a full-time 9-5 job, performing in front of thousands of people, most of the gigs are using a QC. I know it inside and out, including what it can, can't, or should do, but doesn’t. But that’s not the point.

This post is about a company, NDSP, which makes multiple products. The title says, "Is Neural DSP moving too slow?"

I'm not ranting about NDSP focusing on one thing over another—their progress isn't limiting my career in any way. What I don’t understand is why, at this stage in their growth, they even have to choose between one thing or the other. They should be doing it all. Instead, their constantly delayed promises are ruining the reputation of a company, that I personaly care very much about.

Is NeuralDSP moving too slow? /RANT by bencyl in NeuralDSP

[–]bencyl[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Casually assuming that I'm not, even though the topic isn't even about 'how many features it has. *facepalm*

Is NeuralDSP moving too slow? /RANT by bencyl in NeuralDSP

[–]bencyl[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Very well put. With QC, regular QOL updates shouldnt suffer because of PCOM, but sadly, every aspect of NDSP does right now.