Jump to content

Neural Amp Modeler - FREE Amp Modeler Plugin (ver 0.7.0)


locrian

Recommended Posts

This is similar to TONEX, except the captures are amp only—you’ll need to load an IR (but it’s integrated in the plugin).  It compares very favorably in terms of accuracy in YouTube comparisons.

Currently, only 48 kHz sampling rate is supported.

Such a great free option.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dumbquestions said:

Dumb question, but I know nothing about github so the coding/text everywhere throws me off. To download do i just click either the single .exe or .dmg file . . . .

Not really dumb. Other github projects will have a section labelled "Installers" or something like that. I took a look at the one that says NeuralAmpModeler-v0.7.0-win.zip. It has an executable installer inside the zip file.

I will probably not install it (no need for this plugin), so I am not sure if it comes with IRs.

Note: the manual inside that zip file says "Dummy Manual." 

Edited by User 905133
To add a note about the documentation
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/14/2023 at 10:36 AM, ALC said:

This is similar to TONEX, except the captures are amp only—you’ll need to load an IR (but it’s integrated in the plugin).  It compares very favorably in terms of accuracy in YouTube comparisons.

Currently, only 48 kHz sampling rate is supported.

Such a great free option.

Too bad, I only work with 96Khz and above... (not really, just 96Khz)

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/15/2023 at 3:09 AM, Esteban Villanova said:

It uses more than 10 times the CPU than TONEX :(

At least it's less than 10+ times smaller in disk space ? A few of the amp models I tried sounded really good. Amazing for free.

O.7 release apparently improved CPU usage, so hopefully they keep optimising there.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
2 hours ago, Bruno de Souza Lino said:

Well, in that case, the plugin will have no added benefit to the audio quality and use 20 times more CPU!

Probably,  but since watching Paul Third youtube videos I can't use less than 96khz. You'd have to watch his videos to understand why (when recording at least with analog gear).

Maybe a light version could be created for recording at 96 khz (I know, prob asking too much) and by light I mean somehow a version maybe even undersampling, lol, instead of oversampling, just to monitor ourselves while recording.

Idk, I even myself would have to watch that Paul 3rd video again, lol (I think it's the one where he talks about audio interfaces and even the Prism Lyra or something like that colors your sound where cheaper audio interfaces do not)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Last Call said:

Probably,  but since watching Paul Third youtube videos I can't use less than 96khz. You'd have to watch his videos to understand why (when recording at least with analog gear).

Maybe a light version could be created for recording at 96 khz (I know, prob asking too much) and by light I mean somehow a version maybe even undersampling, lol, instead of oversampling, just to monitor ourselves while recording.

Idk, I even myself would have to watch that Paul 3rd video again, lol (I think it's the one where he talks about audio interfaces and even the Prism Lyra or something like that colors your sound where cheaper audio interfaces do not)

Personally, all the differences Paul claims to hear in his video can only be measured 99% of the time. In the perfect linear world of digital audio, aliasing is a solved problem. When you introduce analog gear into the equation, you're opening a can of worms that could potentially cause you headaches, especially with old gear that was not developed with the thought of not introducing aliasing and IM products beyond the audible range.

Edited by Bruno de Souza Lino
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...