Lava Studio Amp just Changed the Rules of the Amp Game

[garybaldy]

NAM

"Neural Amp Modeler is an open-source project that uses deep learning to create models of guitar amplifiers and pedals with state-of-the-art accuracy. NAM powers the next generation of digital audio effects."

Neural Amp Modeler | Highly-accurate free and open-source amp modeling plugin

Thank you. I'm afraid though, I'm not getting excited. That's my problem.

[gitman]

Will this still make me sound like me? All my guitars and amps always sound like ME - I don't see a problem with that. Why would I want to sound like someone else? In 56 years, I've never lost a gig because I didn't sound like somebody else and I've gotten a lot of gigs because people call me to sound like me. I seem to be missing something but not sure what it is or how this gizmo would be of benefit.

I sound like "ME" regardless of what gear I use. It's MY note choice, MY time, MY understanding of music.

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

But for some reason, the jokes are always about the chick singers.

Ya gotta give credit where credit is due….

But seriously folks, there just seem to be a lot more female than male singers in the jazz clubs, bars, and wedding bands of the US. They’re more visible, so their clams are more often encountered by more musicians. Men at the mic are more common in rock and blues, but their mistakes are more easily buried there.

[coyote-1]

There are those that will never replace the 8 track in the Chevy. The one with the 'You can have my 68 Fender when you pry it.. etc' bumper sticker. But that's far from all of us. I think most here believe that you choose a new tech not because it's new, but because it's a better tool for making music.

It appears that NAM is going to win this race. Looking forward to the products we're seeing now and what we'll see in the coming months. Though I need a different sort of FRFR setup, would like to play the Lava Studio. Thanks for your post.

NAM will win, but not without a fight!

Seriously, the new tech is amazing. I have it in its pre-NAM iteration in my Boss Katana (Mk2 50w), and it works very well. Once you access the ‘hidden’ amps, you have great Fender and Marshall tones available. Using one of the Fender models, I’ve sculpted a jazz tone that I would not hesitate to use in any jazz-ish context. And fed into a good 2x12 the Marshall tone has much of the character of an old plexi.

It doesn’t exactly get the ‘magic’ with that Marshall tone, but it is more than suitable for most any of my playing circumstances. And it’s far lighter in weight, which for us aging players has obvious benefits.

And I’m getting a great jazz guitar sound from my Boss GT-1B, which is an older multieffect pedal. Again, running thru the Ibanez Wholetone aux in I would not be ashamed to use it in a jazz context.

But… having now gotten a pair of great preamp tubes for my Princeton Reverb II, there’s a certain thing that happens in the touch that does not happen with the aforementioned configurations. It is simply more sensitive, as are my Marshall tube amps.

The newest tech is supposed to nail that sensitivity. I am eager to try it once it hits local stores.

[jim777]

These are mostly rock tones, but I thought this was helpful in understanding what NAM is, and whether or not (it isn't) something related to the Neural DSP Quad Cortex company, etc.

[Jabberwocky]

I Get PTSD Just Looking At That Thing Called NAM!

[GuyBoden]

I use the Valeton GP-5 everyday, it's a NAM pedal. I mostly use the Polytone NAM file on the pedal.

Polytone Mini Brute III 15" (Jazz Only) NAM Profiles



I've used NAM files on my DAW for many years, but these inexpensive Pedals that can rum NAM files are great.

[CliffR]

My understanding of digital amp modelling, from a few years ago, was this:

Products such as the Kemper Profiler would have a process where a subset of every possible input into an amp was mapped to an output. This is a gargantuan amount of data, so there's some sort of compression scheme involved. After that, you play something into the digital amp, and it produces the sound you expect from the mapping it's pre-generated. If what you play is outside the training set, it will interpolate or, worse and more error-prone, extrapolate the input to match as best it can the map it already has. The capture is made with the amp having particular settings for gain, tone controls etc. So any variation that you apply to these after the fact doesn't make the model respond in the way you might expect the real amp to do. This may or may not be important.

Neural networks are just a different form of compression technology. I may be wrong, and will be happy to be corrected, but I assume they suffer from the same limitations I've just described.

Fractal, with the Axe FX series, have take a different approach, where they seek to digitally simulate the circuits of amps and the responses of the components. Provided the simulation is accurate, you can expect that, for example, modifying the gain on the amp is going to have the same effect as if you were to do so on the real thing.

[Steve Z]

To be fair, the Lava amp isn't just a geegaw or gizmo. It is a fully integrated effects-infused amp, now NAM-accommodating + a mini DAW (although you don't have to use that), a jamming facility and a deep-resources guitar learning center all rolled into one, screen-access signal processor. It's perhaps as recyclable as an obsolete PC, but I think it's designed to have a lot of life in it, and at ~$900 it's priced less than my Mac Air that will eventually head to the recycler.
...

If this helps create more new, young guitar players and keeps older players interested for longer, I can't see how there's anything negative.
...

This device costs no more than two or three pedals, and look at what it brings to the table. ... If we want more influx of teenage and 20-somethings guitar players incoming, then devices like this should be celebrated for the enthusiasm they can create for our shared interest as a whole.

Phil

It seems that the Lava Studio Amp is essentially an all in one computer with touch screen, speakers and runs a rather robust amp sim software. The ability to have so many features/capabilities in one tool may be the marketing and manufacturing of the future... or not. Either way, at a core it is a computer with a touch screen and speakers. While, it is not for me I can definitely seeing other players thinking this is great.

Phil's post hit several great points of pretty much any new tech / computer based guitar amp sim tools. I quoted a few that I think highlight my thoughts (which really just add on to Phil's)...

-- All this tech, even newer low cost amps, will have a shelf life. Many people cycle through computers, ipads, smartphones with no real concern and to many, these computer based amp sims are the same. Great to enjoy and do the job at the time.

-- Let those who enjoy the technology enjoy it. Overdriven tones aren't for me (though I do like some light edge of break up tone), but these tools do much more than just metal. There are so many flavors of "clean jazz tone" that some could consider tools like these as very useful, especially for the vast majority of guitar players who never see a stage and only play at home or with friends.

-- The cost is quite a bit for most folks, but there are a lot of bedroom players that drop hundreds on boutique pedals to get "that" reverb, delay, etc. Over the years, I've gone through many trends of pedals myself that later became yesterday's fad when the new boutique pedal came out (yes, there are exceptions that last).

Anyway, play what you enjoy playing. As a home player these days, I rarely plug into an amp... almost always use a computer based Neural DSP amp sim. Works for me.

Cheers,
Steve

[GuyBoden]

My understanding of digital amp modelling, from a few years ago, was this:

Products such as the Kemper Profiler would have a process where a subset of every possible input into an amp was mapped to an output. This is a gargantuan amount of data, so there's some sort of compression scheme involved. After that, you play something into the digital amp, and it produces the sound you expect from the mapping it's pre-generated. If what you play is outside the training set, it will interpolate or, worse and more error-prone, extrapolate the input to match as best it can the map it already has. The capture is made with the amp having particular settings for gain, tone controls etc. So any variation that you apply to these after the fact doesn't make the model respond in the way you might expect the real amp to do. This may or may not be important.

Neural networks are just a different form of compression technology. I may be wrong, and will be happy to be corrected, but I assume they suffer from the same limitations I've just described.

Fractal, with the Axe FX series, have take a different approach, where they seek to digitally simulate the circuits of amps and the responses of the components. Provided the simulation is accurate, you can expect that, for example, modifying the gain on the amp is going to have the same effect as if you were to do so on the real thing.

Or, referred to as White box and Black box modelling.

[Spook410]

Neural networks are just a different form of compression technology. I may be wrong, and will be happy to be corrected, but I assume they suffer from the same limitations I've just described.

Fractal, with the Axe FX series, have take a different approach, where they seek to digitally simulate the circuits of amps and the responses of the components. Provided the simulation is accurate, you can expect that, for example, modifying the gain on the amp is going to have the same effect as if you were to do so on the real thing.

Neural network models are not a different form of compression and they do not have the limitations you mentioned. They are accurate and predictable. If playing in your living room most will have to get used to a different speaker setup (FRFR's vs open back combo's is a different discussion) but that's about it.

The description of Fractal was about right though..

---------------------------------------------------------

This isn't another fad, or gizmo, or gadget because now, for the first time, we have a standard.

There are black box and white box modelers. Like Fractal and Fender Tonemasters. There are neural net captures in different formats. ToneX and Quad Cortex are proprietary formats made to run on their hardware. The captures from NAM are open source. The original NAM (A1) requires a lot of processing power so it is often used on computers with a DAW. There are a few fairly expensive pedals supporting native format NAM and others supported a process where you convert to a simpler, but slightly less accurate, format. However, that is changing. With NAM version 2 (A2) that conversion won't be necessary and you can get full accuracy with a lot less processing opening up NAM open source to even inexpensive devices.

So what happens now? Because the open source NAM approach has already taken off, there will be tens of thousands of free captures to download for NAM A2 like there currently is for NAM A1. This is an approach all manufacturers will have to live with. Quite soon we will have devices costing $100 that fully replicate any amp you want. Kemper, Quad Cortex, Tonex, even modelers like Fractal, will have to support NAM or not sell modelers. The distinction won't be model or capture or format, but the other features offered like I/O flexibility, transformer quality, et al.

Having a standard is a big deal in any tech, any industry. It will take a few years to shake out but, IMHO, this is less gizmo, more watershed.