5 ms·

Can any skeptics weigh in? To me, this kind of tech is centuries away from fooling tone hounds.

by hashkb 5y ago

Applejinx 5y ago
Not much need to (or benefit in doing so). If you're somebody like AnalogMan, building pedals with careful selection of NOS transistors wired point-to-point, this is so utterly not a threat to you. I've seen entirely analog circuits designed and built with the PCB parts and techniques used in these devices, that are miles away from the quality of good pedals, without even being digital or modeling at all. I'm sure the problem circuits measure completely fine, and then you A/B them with a truly great pedal and it's chalk and cheese. If you try to argue the point, people committed to the digital modeling model get quite fierce, so tone hounds learn to just roll their eyes and not engage. You can also think of it as learning to rely on secret weapons.
- 52-6F-62 5y ago
  > You can also think of it as learning to rely on secret weapons Case in point: the old Neve desks
PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
"tone hounds"? There are many hundreds to many thousands of pedals. Everyone has their own favorites. There is no "right" in this world. There's just as much chance that whatever "error" a modelled pedal may embody is preferred by its users as there is that it will be deemed worse.
jtriangle 5y ago
Andersons has a few YouTube videos where the Kemper profiler fools tone hounds enough that you can infer that it's already good enough. The NeuralDSP hardware is of at least similar quality, maybe better in some instances. Sure if you run a null test these will fail, but in real life it's really up to how honest the tone hound in question is, and if you can trap them into being honest. If you're talking product viability, something like the Pepsi challenge, double blind testing, would probably be effective marketing.
sosborn 5y ago
Tone hounds do a good enough job of fooling themselves.
- hashkb 5y ago
  I'd put money (a few thousand USD) up against anyone who can fool me that I'm playing on my rig when I'm not. It's a very simple rig. Because that'd be valuable if I ever lost and I'd collect up until I did.
  - hashkb 5y ago
    Hmmm... No takers. Telling.
ushakov 5y ago
See "4.4. Listening Tests" of the research the technology is based on https://acris.aalto.fi/ws/portalfiles/portal/41964332/Real_time_guitar_amplifier_emulation.pdf https://acris.aalto.fi/ws/portalfiles/portal/41964332/Real_t... those are MUSHRA tests, meaning only skilled listeners are allowed to participate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUSHRA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUSHRA

Can any skeptics weigh in? To me, this kind of tech is centuries away from fooling tone hounds.

by hashkb 5y ago

Can any skeptics weigh in? To me, this kind of tech is centuries away from fooling tone hounds.

Not much need to (or benefit in doing so). If you're somebody like AnalogMan, building pedals with careful selection of NOS transistors wired point-to-point, this is so utterly not a threat to you. I've seen entirely analog circuits designed and built with the PCB parts and techniques used in these devices, that are miles away from the quality of good pedals, without even being digital or modeling at all. I'm sure the problem circuits measure completely fine, and then you A/B them with a truly great pedal and it's chalk and cheese. If you try to argue the point, people committed to the digital modeling model get quite fierce, so tone hounds learn to just roll their eyes and not engage. You can also think of it as learning to rely on secret weapons.

52-6F-62 5y ago
> You can also think of it as learning to rely on secret weapons Case in point: the old Neve desks

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

"tone hounds"? There are many hundreds to many thousands of pedals. Everyone has their own favorites. There is no "right" in this world. There's just as much chance that whatever "error" a modelled pedal may embody is preferred by its users as there is that it will be deemed worse.

jtriangle 5y ago

Andersons has a few YouTube videos where the Kemper profiler fools tone hounds enough that you can infer that it's already good enough. The NeuralDSP hardware is of at least similar quality, maybe better in some instances. Sure if you run a null test these will fail, but in real life it's really up to how honest the tone hound in question is, and if you can trap them into being honest. If you're talking product viability, something like the Pepsi challenge, double blind testing, would probably be effective marketing.

sosborn 5y ago

Tone hounds do a good enough job of fooling themselves.

hashkb 5y ago
I'd put money (a few thousand USD) up against anyone who can fool me that I'm playing on my rig when I'm not. It's a very simple rig. Because that'd be valuable if I ever lost and I'd collect up until I did.
- hashkb 5y ago
  Hmmm... No takers. Telling.

ushakov 5y ago

See "4.4. Listening Tests" of the research the technology is based on https://acris.aalto.fi/ws/portalfiles/portal/41964332/Real_time_guitar_amplifier_emulation.pdf https://acris.aalto.fi/ws/portalfiles/portal/41964332/Real_t... those are MUSHRA tests, meaning only skilled listeners are allowed to participate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUSHRA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUSHRA