Show HN: SmartGuitarAmp – Guitar plugin made with deep learning
github.com
github.com
The most popular guitar amps now are all solid state, but the internal computer digitizes the guitar signal, then processes it in the digital domain, doing eq, applying the “sound model” of an old amp of your choice, also applying effects like chorus and reverb at the same time. Then the D to A convertor feeds the resulting signal to a neutral transistor power amp circuit to the speaker, at as low a volume level as you want.
The BOSS Katana range or the Fender Mustang GT range are both very popular. They are good value, sound great, and can sound like anything from a Fender Twin Reverb to a Marshall stack set to 11. All without shattering your neighbor’s windows.
I have never ever noticed any latency issues with any physical hardware, even for equipment from years ago.
If you're doing all of the emulation and signal processing on a general-purpose computer, then sure, you often run into latency problems, and part of the set up process for those software tools is latency calibration. The one that I use when at my desktop, Guitarix, is very conservative with its latency, defaulting to like 500 milliseconds, I turn it down to 20-30 or so and it still functions on my hardware and you can't tell the difference: it's the same time delay as playing through a speaker 20 feet away.
Maybe on the low end of the market, but tube amps still reign supreme for most serious players.
But as far as guitar instrumentation goes— I have a lot of respect for good solid state amplifiers—think Roland Jazz Chorus—that are not modelling another sound but a very intensively tuned original instrument.
As for physical, electrical amplifiers versus a software emulated version I just can’t see the point in using one outside of the [potential] convenience.
Now, if your goal is to take that signal and twist it into something new altogether that’s different. But if I want to sound like an AC30 I don’t know why I would use something like hats just trying to sound like an AC30 versus something that is and AC30.
Lacklustre has always been my experience. Like leaving a tube amp too quiet—not saturating the tubes. It just tends to sound dull.
So that's why I want it to be good... But it's not.
The Kemper is far more credible, with the AxeFX system and and some of the better amp sim plugins you can buy from (say) UAD following behind.
There are many advantages. Less maintenance, lower stage volumes, better for in-ear-monitoring use, sound consistency, less weight to carry, and the ability to explore hundred of amps sounds with a single device eg. check https://wiki.fractalaudio.com/wiki/index.php?title=Amplifier...
I would be pretty surprised if Metallica were using the technology you are describing. They have an extremely consistent setup that has worked for decades and an effectively infinite budget.
That’s just one concrete example.
I think a lot of the comments in this thread are missing the fact that if a player thinks a thing has irreproducable properties, they may be happier and more creative while using it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6k2ghtbhoU 3:09-7:32.
Megadeth is also using AxeFX. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7vzOjzn0Mw
And from there you can extrapolate how common they are.
The volume required to crank and get the best of it sounds it makes it too loud for almost any residential area.
One of the best features of modeling amps is that you can get the sound of a cranked amp set at a high volume, with low/moderate real volume or even with head-phones.
Even in a rehearsal room, real amps are too loud and make the band members start competing for volume. Low stage volume and in-ear-monitoring allows me to play better.
Of course, most people won’t be able to tell the difference, but many musicians tend to prefer analog.
That, and your experience affects your performance. It’s easier for an actor to act in a room full of props and other actors, versus a green screen. Easier for a musician to make music with the gear and tone that they prefer.
Can you explain this a bit more? I do not see this is commonly true, it is the exception and not the rule in many cases of 'someone and their audience'.
It might be true that that 'someone' believes it, however misguided.
But audiences tend not to care about specifics. They care if you can live up to expectations and provide the experience they expect. So if a performance is lacklustre, or a piece of software is stupidly designed from their POV, they'll know something has gone wrong - but they won't know (or care) exactly why.
Amateurs and wannabes tend to fethishise equipment instead of art. There's a lot of "If only I had that equipment I could do this properly."
The reality is that expensive pro-grade equipment only ever adds a final layer of polish. It's also good at not getting in the way with unnecessary frills and complications.
So a world-class professional with a budget guitar will always outplay and outperform an amateur with a pro-league instrument. No exceptions. And a professional photographer will always take better photos with your phone than you will. And so on.
The professional may notice some polish is missing and they may have to work harder than usual - but they will be able to do the job, while an amateur won't, no matter what they're using.
But a nicer instrument is a pleasure to have, and provides me with the assurance that anything wrong with my sound is strictly a matter of improving my own abilities. So it's a challenge to live up to the quality of my instrument.
One thing is that the audience only has to tolerate your sound for a couple of hours, and can always seek refuge at the bar or just go home. You have to hear it over and over, night after night. You also have to hear it at home. As an amateur, most of my playing time occurs in my own living room.
Another thing is that there's a layer of the performance above the basic sound of the instruments, that the audience might perceive even if they can't quite put their finger on what it is. It's what separates a great performance from a dull one. We're all trying to find what that thing is, and it involves exploration on many fronts, including how we choose and optimize our instruments.
As a teenager I played a Hot Rod Deluxe (40W!) in my parents' basement with no real complaints.
It’s not like a stereo where 15W is weak. A 15W guitar amp is pretty damn loud.
If you don’t crank it then I don’t see the point. Or don’t hear it, anyway. I can’t stand the sound of a clean Vox. It’s gotta have some grit.
I am under the impression I am well read on this topic, and I don’t recognize that claim.
It could be that you just like the volume. The speakers in the AC15 are fantastic. Or it could be you don’t think of it as gritty, but I do.
Guitar players always think you need a gigantic marshall stack to get good tone when for most people that is way too much and they'll never hear it the way it's supposed to sound.
Even Metallica is running all digital for their love shows. Although they do still mic up for studio work.
No one has mentioned Kemper yet, and Kemper - made by the same programmer who developed the Acccess Virus DSP synth - is the go-to modelling system for pros and serious wannabes.
This is really a solved problem. DSP won. You can freight multiple valve heads around if you really want to, but no one in the audience or the rest of the band is going to notice, never mind care.
When you start talking about professional gear, the cost of modeling amps is more than tubes.
I'd also contest that this is "figured out" - this area is actively researched.
For a stadium band. It makes the stage setup much easier. No cabinets, mics and low stage volume. Each member gets a rack with two units (backup) and you are done. Sound will be always the same. Less likely to fail.
For a small band, you don't need the bulky rack editions. You get the same sound quality in pedal form (Helix, FM-3, etc). It can be carried in a bag.
In both cases, the sound engineer has an easier job. You plug your devices directly to the mixer/Front of House.
Most musicians program few pre-defined rigs, but a device like this gives you not only one sound, but the sound of ~300 amplifier models including some rare collection items.
And for a small band even if you have a FoH mix, it's going to sound better out of a 40W combo than through whatever PA your vocalist dragged along. But that's just my opinion.
Digital models do a good job in a vacuum (no pun intended). They do a very poor job of modeling how a guitar and FX chain load and drive the preamp of an real tube amplifier (which is really difficult to capture in either white or black box models). That's also a key to getting lush and evocative ranges of tone from a single configuration.
Just speaking as a player, I don't really fiddle with my tube amps all that much. The tone changes come from dynamics of my hands and controls over my pickup volume controls, and it's accentuated by my drive and boost pedals. That kind of play doesn't translate well to modeling amps which don't have the low headroom, lower impedance inputs of a pure tube stage. I don't need 300 different amp models, I need 1 amp model for 300 tones.
Are there ABX tests for digital vs. physical tubes?
ABX test is definitely the wrong type of test here. It is only really useful for testing if there are differences, and in general a tube amp and a digital sim are not going to sound the same as each other. What I’ve seen as more common is that you’ll have someone playing blind through a selection of digital models and tube amps. If you’re lucky, the digital models and tube amps may be closely matched, but that’s not necessarily the only way you would want to run a test.
There are also an incredible number of different scenarios that need to be taken into account in a simulation, so you’d want to try different styles of amp. Various overdrive scenarios are harder to simulate, broadly speaking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6AwTp4ZUm0
Note in this video, the speakers are being simulated for the tube amps. So it’s a bit of an unusual comparison, it’s just something I found.
I don’t know what your idea of “lower impedance” but a pure tube stage has an input impedance that measures close to open. Off the range of my multimeter, I bet. You just see the Miller capacitance and with the grid-plate somewhere around 1.6pF and maybe 20dB gain, it’s not a lot. The input impedance of the guitar amp is usually dominated by the 1 MΩ resistor to ground, and the tube barely registers because the input impedance of a preamp tube is so high. This is usually considered “high impedance” (as opposed to “ultra high” like you see in a piezo amp, which might run 10 MΩ).
It is very common to see solid-state equipment with lower input impedances, especially guitar pedals.
There’s a lot of weird voodoo electronics repeated around guitarist’s forums so you got to watch out. Just quick fact check: small tubes = high impedance input, in most normal configurations, normal operating conditions (cathode is positive relative to grid).
Just as another point of reference—this is why you hear about “tube microphones”. These microphones have a vacuum tube inside them as a preamp / buffer, and the reason you might want to use a tube for these applications is precisely because the input impedance is so high. When they moved away from tube mics what you see replacing them is something like a FET, possibly bootstrapped, to try and replicate the naturally high impedance of a tube.
That's a million ohms so not much of your guitar signal is wasted passing through it to ground.
The input impedance of the tube reacts dynamically according to the signal coming in, and the often dynamic behavior of whatever is plugged directly into it.
When that's just your guitar without any pedals or anything, that can be the most dynamic from a touch-sensitive point of view.
I've been in high end music retail for several years and even the big name stars we deal with are buying primarily combo tube amps in the 40w range.
Ehh only on the lower end. Most mid to pro musicians still use tube amps.
The modeling amps are good but tube still sounds better.
The katana and fender GT sound "fine" but the assertion that they can model traditional tube amps well enough for stage use is also a little suspect. Those specific amps sound thin and lifeless compared to the amps they attempt to model.
Where these types of amps shine is that they're lighter and you can have a more consistent sound at lower volumes. For a person in their house who isn't really worried about having a specific sound or may not even know the difference between british and american voiced amps these are great options. Also the volume issue only comes into play when we're thinking about gain and compression. My fender Deluxe Reverb sounds amazing at low volume.
The AxeFx and helix stuff is a little better but that stuff is way more expensive than your average tube amp, particularly on the used market. Your average 40 watt tube amp from fender, vox, marshall, etc will run you $700-$1500 while these high end modellers can easily be $2500+.
As far as tube amps being unreliable goes I'd love to see some sources on that. I've played fender amps from the 50s and marshalls from the 60s that sound every bit as good today as they did when they were made.
I work in very high end music retail where I'm fortunate enough to get to play all kinds of new and very old gear. I can confidently say that modelling is getting better and has drastically improved in the last 20 years but still has a ways to go if it's going to completely replace tube amps for stage and studio use.
But the same fingertips can not even be trained to fully master the pallette available from a simple amp like a vintage Champ or Bassman without even reverb or tremolo.
Careful choice of guitar, pickups, strings, tubes and speakers each broaden the pallette and build on each other and these are all user selectable, just nowhere near as convenient as changing digital models. Also most vintage pro amps in excellent working condition or fully restored are more reliable than the cabinets, whose reliability mainly depended on how high it fell off the truck from. You're supposed to have spare guitars, cables & strings anyway, plus tubes and an extension speaker to avoid show-stoppers if you only have one amp.
Transistor amps shouldn't be turned on in direct sun either, but they can last quite a bit longer before expiration.
We had a very talented guitarist locally who had a great sounding Line 6 100 watt 2x12 which lasted a long time, but replaced by an older, longer-lasting Twin Reverb he regained a certain stonk that you could tell had an effect on the dance floor.
I'm hoping that the nolly plugin can cover both dirty and clean sounds well enough to not need a second plugin, fingers crossed
Nolly: most versatile thanks to its multiple amps, far and away my favorite for most things. I recently used it to mix an entire album of very polished black metal, replacing the real fuzzy mic signals captured in the studio. The band loved it. Extremely detailed. Got some gorgeous cleans out of it, too.
Cali: this one reminds me a lot of my own Marshall tube amp. It was the first one that really sold me on using Neural DSP plugins instead of amps in the studio. It’s a lot dirtier than the Nolly and I don’t find it appropriate for situations where I want a very polished sound. Recently chose this over the Nolly for a more organic sounding black metal project.
Nameless: this always sounds unnatural to me. It’s good and intense but I always come away feeling like it’s fizzy and flat. It’s a simulation of an amp Fortin made for Meshuggah, so I think it might have a very specific audience. Last year, I blended this with some live amp signals to get some added bite and it worked nicely but I haven’t reached for it since then.
You might also consider disabling the cab sim in the plugin and use a third party IR loader. I find GGD Zilla Cabs to be a complete game changer, a cheap and crucial upgrade to every one of Neural DSP’s plugins.
Any experience with Plini? It seems to be the closest to Nolly, and from a cursory look it seems people generally like it better. I suppose I'll have to get the trials for both to compare
I had never heard of GGD's IR loader, seems awesome! Definitely on the list of things to buy now
Feel free to drop a link to the album you made with the nolly plugin, I'd love to take a listen
I seriously can’t say enough good things about Zilla Cabs. Just make sure to disable the cabs in the amp plugin or it’ll sound weird!
The album I did with the Nolly plugin isn’t something I can share yet, unfortunately.
Those Kemper profiling amps are widely used in the music industry, from hobbyists to absolute professionals. There are studios who profiled their 100s of custom amps with different mic pickup settings, and now only use the profiling amp instead. Paul Gilbert has one, and loves it, and he is reaaally picky about sound.
Apart from profiling your own amps, there is also a vast online library of profiles uploaded by community members. So if I want my amp to sound like Green Day, or just pick a certain amp like a Mark IV, I just search for that, load a matching profile into the profiling amp, and try it out. A plethora of parameters like gain can additionally be adjusted like on a normal amp - the profiling process somehow accounts for those parameters too.
However, it still fails to model the response of a nice tube amp to dynamics. It gets close, but not quite there.
This is why people like Paul Gilbert use it: he plays with so high gain and compression that dynamics would be basically flat.
Personally I think that most problems people report about Kemper‘s sound stem from their speaker setup. If you use it for audio recordings or for loud stage setups, you most likely won’t be able to tell any difference. There are lots of blind tests out there and people often think that the Kemper is the real amp.
[0]: https://shop.electrosmash.com/product/pedalshield-mega-kit/
Not that my wish will be reality, both academia and the last company I worked for used ardiunos for various tasks(non production).
Not sure why, is it entirely the shape of Arduino is standard and can use Arduino based shields?
If you then see that you don't require all the good things an ESP32 has to offer, maybe because you only want to drive a LED strip via WiFi and read some sensor values, then you can step down and use an ESP8266
Serious, because I am building a complex product and trying to keep costs down.
Or are you referring to hobbyists?
In my case, I can order a bundle of three esp8266 13.79€, or a bundle of three esp32 for 17.99€, both as the most lazy, fastest delivery option on Amazon. If you know that you don't need the extra features of the esp32, save yourself the 4.20€ (1.40€ per board) to keep the cost down. But if you're new to it and want to explore the possibilities of a modern µC, it would be a mistake to save in the wrong place.
Even consider getting a LOLIN32 Lite (three for 19.99€), since the width of the board is smaller than the normal esp32 and esp8266 dev boards, which then lets you use both sides of a breadboard to plug in cables. All the other boards are so wide, that on a normal breadboard you will have to decide which side of the board you want to have a row of externally accessible pins, and on the other side all the cables must be plugged in below the board (search for "LOLIN32 Lite width breadboard")
Saving on cost can also be a premature optimization.
> Or are you referring to hobbyists?
Any context that is not production. Development, Education, Hobby.
Neural DSP, developers of what are arguably the best amp sim plugins available right now, claim that their upcoming floor modeler uses what they describe as “unique biomimetic AI technology” to create its sounds. I wonder how different their work is from this. https://neuraldsp.com/products/quad-cortex
I’m personally kind of over lugging an amp around and if live music ever comes back, I’m likely to sell mine and go with a modeler + power amp. The technology has just come so far and the convenience can’t be beat, especially if you do a lot of studio work or need to travel with your gear. A lot of demanding metal bands have switched away from tube amps and I’m already using plugins for recording as much as possible, so this seems like the next step.
If you look at the WaveNetVA repository from Aalto University that my plugin is based on, at least one person affiliated with that project works at Neural DSP. I suspect that the QuadCortex uses something like this (maybe a more advanced neural net) combined with other proprietary techniques and application specific hardware. They claim they can do the rig capture in 3 minutes, whereas the models I trained for the SmartAmp took a few hours on a GPU.
I was very pleasantly surprised at the quality I was getting, and it was simple enough to run in real-time using pytorch (well I exported the model to onnx and used a c++ lib to run it). I was on my way to making a little startup company around the idea when covid hit and priorities radically changed
The biggest challenge is to try and convince the tube amp enthusiasts that it sounds indistinguishable to the real hardware ;)
The of neural networks in this field should be measured against current modelling technology, not real hardware.
Anyway, it's super simple. I just wanted a type-c version of what was already out there, and maybe for it to sound 'reasonable' at a sub $30 price point. It is only 16-bit 48kHz, but does a great job at dialing in tone, recording a quick riff, etc. Bottom line, it's about -90db noise floor and 80db SNR.
Thanks
Among others:
> Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.
This site just has a preference to more technically descriptive titles.
Considering this project sat for a month with no stars and after this post (and one hour) it jumped to 134 stars, not discouraged at all!
(For those who are curious, the submitted title was "Free guitar plugin on GitHub sounds like $600 tube amp by using deep learning".)
In any case, it’s total BS that waves, et. al, can charge hundreds of dollars per plug-in when at the end of the day it’s just software, and I was wondering to myself the other day why there isn’t more stuff in the open source space. I’m grateful to have seen this now, and I’d probably be interested in poking around this kind of stuff more. I have no idea how one actually goes about writing a VST or UA or AU plugin, but this is a great start, thanks!
Its a bit like of like saying “free emulator behaves like $600 console”
Also, what do you think about diffwave? Only seen speech examples so far but seems an order of magnitude faster than wavenet.
I'm not talking about the DSP though.
You need an ADC on the frontend and a DAC on the backend.
But at that price point just get a used Helix LT which will be light years ahead of anything you can bodge together.
This is one of those areas where both the hardware AND the software really matter.
You can't touch the available hardware because of economies of scale - they're buying DSP chips, enclosures, power supplies, by the thousand at least.
And they have multi-person full time teams working on the software.
(I Am Not A Guitarist)
A lot of the time they don't mean analogue when they say they don't want digital - they mean that they want knobs and switches to play with. I think some modern Moog's even have a digital stage in the signal path (I might be making that up but I have some vague recollection of it in a schematic)
Making a synth sound good has very little to do whether it uses analogue or digital synthesis these days, but analogue equipment is (for the same price) less reliable, uses more power, less flexible, and more susceptible to being damaged by impacts (and keep in mind that you can't repair a lot of modern gear with SMD soldering experience anyway)
I gigged around Boston in the early 2000's playing guitar in various rock and metal bands, usually in front of 15-20 people. I had been using a 1960's Fender Bassman and changed out the tubes to some Sovtek ones. Sound guy at one of the clubs (who's had been around for 20+ years at that point and seen everything) noticed right away and asked why my amp sounded off. A little while later I bought one of the first Line 6 modeling amps and my first gig with it the same sound guy said "Ahh, you put the old tubes back in". I'm like, "Nope, totally different amp, and it's all digital.". He didn't believe me and while he was inspecting the amp kept saying "No, no, no. There's tubes in here I can smell them warming up".
Sounds (to whom?) like a $600 (which one?) amp using deep learning (why does it matter?).
To expand on this:
-$600 tube amp is not description of a sound. And a plug-in is not something you plug your guitar into to make enough noise for 300 people. "A plug-in sounds like a $600 speaker" makes almost as much sense as the title; by the sound of an amp people often mean the sound of the combo box which houses an amp and a speaker.
-If this emulates a particular amp, the title should say which one
-If it does a good job at emulating a particular amp, where's the side by side comparison? The video demo only shows the plug-in.
-There are plethora of guitar amp plugins. What makes this one any different or better?
-What's the significance of deep learning here? Plenty of ways to make this plug-in without deep learning. Why use deep learning?
Etc, etc, etc.
"An open-source guitar amp VST plug-in made with deep learning" would be a better title, even though the article leaves much to be desired.
I think it sounds good for a hobby project though!
Oh, a $350 amp?[1] then?
Linking a store page just to illustrate that price tags are pointless when you talk about musical instruments, and also to give people who don't know an impression of what these $$$ go for.
You still need a sound system to get the sound out of a plug-in, and PA systems certainly aren't free. The cost of a comparable PA system + free plug in will easily exceed the cost of this amp.
This is why talking about $$$ while comparing a plug in vs. speaker hardware is kind of silly.
>I think it sounds good for a hobby project though!
And it's great that we have this project! The project is great, the documentation is lacking, the title is not good at all.
[1]https://web.archive.org/web/20201010183759/https://www.guita...
But yes all good points and further proves that more money does not mean better sound.
To answer the question of why it's $600 specifically, it's based on a model of a Fender Blues Jr. Tweed, msrp $600. The models are evaluated to have a 1.5% error to signal ratio, meaning it's 1.5% different from the actual recorded signal, coming from an SM57 microphone.
I really do appreciate the constructive criticism, and well observed points. I'm new to promoting a project and also this Hacker News site. I'm actually floored it's getting this much attention.
The fact it uses deep learning doesn't make it better than traditionally modeled amps, but it does mean that someone with no domain experience for amp modeling (like me) can come in and make a good sounding guitar plugin.
That stuff aside, good work, and I starred it on Github.
Well, you did get the attention :)
Now that you are here, you can update the project description.
I feel like the point that this way of making a plug-in allows anyone with the hardware to easily create an emulator for it is not really coming through. That's the selling point of deep learning.
What I'm really aiming to do in the long run is to get other musicians and machine learning enthusiasts to train and share models that will work with these plugins for a variety of hardware. It's very much a new technology to me and I'd like to figure out what all it can do.
Looks like the point of the project is that this can be used to make their own models easily.
Different construction of the same tube type will have different musical characteristics, sometimes dramatically so especially when overdriven beyond linear operation. Even though measured performance would be equivalent in things like power supplies or most other non-audio circuitry, or even non-overdriven audio.
There is a unique difference when plugging guitars straight in versus using a common pedal or preamp of any type. The very limited magnetically generated power coming out of the quite high impedance of your pickups is directly connected through minimal resistance to the input pin of the even higher impedance tube electrode which extends into the vacuum. From that point on, your music is being basically sprayed through space.
So plugging direct (or true bypass) is the only way to be magnetically coupled directly to the vacuum you will be spraying your music through to begin with. You can feel it when you crank it whether overdriven or not.
A pedal or preamp inserted between guitar and legendary amp can overdrive the amp in its legendary way much easier sometimes because of the gain provided by the additional circuitry upstream of the amp, it can be very tasty but you are no longer magnetically coupled to a legendary tube amp.
Also unless the preamp/pedal is a simple clean gain stage such as an EH LPB2, which simply boosts the high impedance guitar signal unchanged using 9V battery power to give the amp more input amplitude than a plain guitar, the pedal is more likely to be generating the audible distortion rather than, or at least in addition to, the overdriven tubes.
You probably have more than one 12AX7, even most individual amps. Might as well try each one in the most critical input socket to get the most musical one picked out, along with checking for hum, hiss & microphonics which you don't want being amplified from that early of a gain stage.
It's only the big power tubes that can require matched pairs or quads, 12AX7's can be switched at will.
If some of your 12AX7's don't sound better than others, you've got all crummy tubes or there is something else concealing the full tone available.
Seems to me an emulator based on ML could be trained by live playing of the exact guitarist, guitar, and rig that you wanted to generate sound similar to.
Then it should be able to convincingly generate a synthetic tune of its own having the characteristic musical style of the player using the tone of the combined gear. Probably easier said than done.
Instead when you trigger tone output from the model digitally you would think some of the fingering variations might be heard too, but probably not any musical style, even if all are in the model to an extent.
When you plug in your guitar and play through it I think your own musical style would prevail like normal, and the fingering influence could be good for augmenting less expressive fretwork, but there are going to be times when you want to plug your own select guitar into just the amp portion of the model.
To get this option you would need to have sampling/insertion points between the elements, or at least between the guitar & amp.
You need to know what the signal looks like right before it goes into the amp so you can see the exclusive effect of the amp model alone and compensate for the guitarist & guitar (& pedal) during training.
If you're not going to draw on the musical style or instrument being in the model, maybe it shouldn't always be there to begin with.
It might be possible to switch them in or out like an effects loop.
Otherwise when you plug in your guitar and process it using the model, you're hearing a guitar plugged into another guitar plugged into a tube amp. And that's provided the training guitarist's musical style is only lurking silently.
And thank you for answering the questions!
Now, putting this answers back into the Github README would make for a much better and informative project description.
Just ignore that part, trust me, it opens up debates that go literally nowhere and leave you feeling worthless or worse. Any advertising is the devil incarnate to some people.
The title worked fwiw.
Just take the criticism related to the product itself.
Which, to me, looks very interesting, but I'm not into audio at all.
So my dumb question is, do you use this to emulate guitar sounds or can you plug in a guitar through a computer and use this plugin as an amp? D:
I'm too tired, I'll re-read the GitHub page to maybe understand it better.
Best of luck!
Thanks!
Using deep learning for this makes sense, play a lot of tones and music through it, adjust the knobs, train AI to reproduce the transfer function.
If that's what they've done they should have had comparisons etc though.