I have no problem with TH-U at all. I think tonechasers like us will find what works best for each type of sound. (According to their own taste ofc.) For example, I made cool 80s type lush cleans and a few "bigger than life" Lukather/Dann Huff type lead presets with TH-U and I use those. For me, it's all about what you find best for the given mood & mix. Sometimes I record something and I like the feeling of the plugin, then in the mix phase I end up with an another plugin or reamp it. It's great that there is such a wide range of plugins, isn't it? I remember 10 years ago I was glad that Kemper was there, because most of the plugins weren't good enough.

 

Cabinetron is a fantastic tool. AmpHub is great too. I have a bunch of AA models, good value for the money. I've contacted them before (feedback & request) and I'm happy to see the progress.

 

"Paradise Guitar Studio" was mentioned here so I was curious, never heard about it before, went to their website to check it out. in my own honest opinion the online samples seem to be lacking life, sparkle, clarity, vibrancy, presence and definition, they sound dull, muffled and lifeless, but possibly this might be attributed to whomever is recording and playing for the demos. The only way to really see what this can do is to try it out for yourself. I do like Interface it seems to be simple and uncluttered, an absolute plus in my personal choices.
The Biggest issue that really annoys me is when popular musicians lend their names to endorse or recommend any products, praising how good, fantastic and incredible they sound. We all know they are getting paid for these promotions. The plugins will never sound anything at all like equipment they use in their actual studio and live setups. If I recommend anything at all, I absolutely and really do use the plugin, product or instrument as an integral part of my setup and sound.
May everyone have a Very Merry Christmas, health, happiness and best wishes.

 

In my opinions.
1. Is that neural dsp took off the "real" feeling of guitar tones dialing.
I remember most of the guitar amps vst hard to get the right tone right away.
But neural dsp shift that to make a sounds good even on default preset.

2. They have simple and catchy GUI
3. Their marketing is huge and now it can get to John Mayer
4. They add a pedals/feature smartly not only emulating a real pedal. Such as pitch shifter, harmonizer, etc. I mean pitch shifter and harmonizer u can do it in your DAW but these features seems to be missed in other amps sim.

The main reason people love it, for me it's the default sounds already good, no need to spend hours to create a "good tone" and ready to jam.
Their simplicity in the box approaches is what sells them and no need hundreds of amps, pedals, cabinets IMO

 

Neural is the best, fukk the rest.

End of discussion.

@Lois Lane please back me up on this one

 

Another thing that should be mentioned is that when nameless was released we were all impressed by the way it sounded compared to everything else. That single ampsim made them the company they are today and they still make the best sounding ampsims (at least to my ears)

What i'm saying is that its not a random fact that we are really fond of neural dsp. It's not something that happened due to the great GUI but they earned their reputation through their products and the quality they provide. The clean and easy to navigate GUI is a bonus. Sound comes first and they nail it.

 

Professional sound engineers used them a lot with great results so the ones who say it´s too much polished whatever just don´t know how to proper mix the song or set the plugin.

 

definitely quite the way of making friends mate.
But it's true.
NeuralDSP is God
The rest are Shit

And now, to the trenches I go. Will let you know if I survive

 

Absolutely, positively and without a doubt...Neural is the best, fukk the rest...end of discussion!!

You said that the €250 you promised me would hit my bank account an hour ago if I back you up!!! What gives? You're on ignore until you make good.

 

Last edited: Dec 22, 2025 at 9:02 PM

I agree with someone saying that we should be glad that there are so many to choose from. It's a matter of taste and also what type of style you are playing. The thing about TH-U is that there are a loads of preset I really dislike but I only use the ones that fit my taste. It will take some time finding them. But those are now in my favorites. Presets in Rig Player is almost all I use. I do not have the time to tinker with settings so I have found my favorite presets. I do not want a bunch of different plugins but I need one that fit all my needs. I need a plugin that can cover all types if styles from really heavy distortion to clean Michael Landau style, crunch like Kotzen and funk style Prince sounds. My absolute favorite lead sound is Lukes more modern Soldano 100. When recording there is no time for fixing my guitar sound. It need to have a couple of recording ready sounds. The last thing that is crucial for me is extremely low latency. I really love the sound of Plini but as I said before it's way too demanding on cpu. In the end my tone is my own and I will never sound like anyone else. So it's understandable that we have different favorites.

One more thing. I often have no say in what the mixing engineer does with my sound but I need a sound that inspires me. He can put Neural DSP on my track after I have done the recording but its still me playing and the timing is as good as I can get it. All pro studios have all major plugins so If you use custom presets you should come prepared. As I do not use any custom presets all is ready as soon as I choose the preset. Just a tip.

 

Last edited: Dec 23, 2025 at 9:14 PM

I watch a lot of URM Academy/Nail The Mix, those guys use Neural DSP plugins often and really seem to love them. So the pros would most definitely disagree with you.

 

In fact, the "pros" (and any good amateur) can mix ANYTHING.

Do ppl remember metal bands were touring AND recording studio with Line6 multi FX in the 2000's ?
And who nowadays would use a "so dated" 20 years old Line6 POD Pro rack ?

Messhugah done it. And Fear Factory toured /studio with Line6 Flextone (nothing else than a POD XT amp).
They added some tricks, like miking a real amp speaker to shape their sound.
Fear Factory 2012 The Industrialist : Pod HD tour AND studio
And on and on ... i can't remember all.

So if you can't mix Neural DSP or anything else, increase your skills or give up mixing anything.

As a guitarist, my main problem is FEEL : how the sim react to my playing ?

I'm totally disappointed, as metal player, by ToneX and NAM.
I simply stopped loosing my time with them after trying a thousand captures.
Too many useless fillers AND bad dynamic reaction.

Now i'm all Helix native and STL AmpHub.

I see ppl touring with Kemper for 12 years, QuadCortex for years ... but i don't see any metal player touring with ToneX or a NAM loader.
I even seen ppl touring with Mooer GE200 for Pantera cover band (this is my fav budget multi FX).

When you play the guitar (and not only mix it), you can be surprised by the difference between "studio mix praise" AND "guitar player praise".
To me, ToneX and NAM are totally crap to play. Like playing with elastic band strings. Reaction to pick attack totally sucks, even more than my old multi FXs.
Even if NAM is better on this point, and ToneX V2 improved things. Too late for me : i switched and never go back browsing a pile of useless sounds to find ONE.

Yes, i like my old GE200 better than my ToneX ... that i sold some weeks ago.

And here is Dino Cazares explaining WHY he used Line 6 gear since 1999 : fast picking reaction is the first thing he talks about (at 1 minute already)

 

Last edited: Dec 23, 2025 at 2:26 PM

Been there done that, i and i did tell the difference actually, looks like apparently you can't...

A 3rd time with the skill issue argument...

I disagree, but the real problem is, if i can't have you sitting in the studio beside me A/B testing them, we won't get far with that conversation.

Why does this sound to me like you're a dev, and trying to compensate or whatever... All this keep telling that you're more of a technical person that an actual mixing engineer...

Let me explain my point from my personal point of view...

First of all as mixing engineer i'm not required or needed to understand how every piece of hardware or software works nor do i care to be honest, all i care about is that it delivers, so i can count on it, in a profesional setting...

Now, plugin manufacturers have been coding plugins and software for the better part of 3 decades, and to proove your point wrong, it's more common to get it wrong than getting it right, you can see this by how much the scene has been flooded with plugins, some are coded right some are coded bad, some are faithful recreations, some are not, some plugins behave good, with good cpu optimizations some are not, it's very tricky to get it right, and to this day, only a handful of companies deliver good products constantly, it's always a hit or a miss, this applies to amp simulations as well, some amps are well coded are some not, what you need to understand is that not all companies are created equal, some aims to deliver good products that are appreciated by the well established folks in the industry, some aims to sell as much as possible, and this is important because it decides what paths the developping team will take, now with ALOT of Neural DSP plugins, the idea is to sell as much as possible, you can see it in their busniess model, by looking at their websites you can see some very well known names like John Petrucci, Misha Mansoor and Tosin Abasi, the idea is to get as much of their fan base to buy their product...

So the idea is to deliver a product that sounds mostly good for most of the people even if it means sacrificing alot of things, like how an amp reacts to the player, or how pickups affects the end results, Neural dsp will sound the same (good enough) with whatever Guitar/player you throw at it, and this is bad if you aim to acheive a good results...

I have worked with alot of guitar players that didn't like how "dumb" most of Neural stuff sound compared to other, it sounds decend, like the amp distrition and what not, but it is a far cry from how an amp should react, which translates to a lifeless mix...

Now, about the skill issue argument, most mixes nowadays are made in the box with limited DSP capability, even with the latest hardware, and the latest i9s or R9 from amd or whatever, even apple m series computers have limits, therefore i don't want to lose dsp power trying to get a guitar tone to sound realistic, nor do i have the time to spent on a shitty amp trying to justify what i paid for or in this case "it's free so whatever"...

I'm a realistic person with deadlines, that i need proper tools to deliver a product that me and the clients are satisfied with, that's why STL amps and even Line6 products like Helix or Metallurgy Collection is a far superior products that delivers better results with the least efforts, the idea isn't skill, the idea is that my time is more important than putting up with mediocre plugins... and to be honest this is the problem with this industry lately, throw and inject as much as possible and that way you can milk as much as you can from people who have no idea what they're doing... but that's a few cold ones after a steak type of conversation...

TLDR, enough with the "far less because of their modeling techniques. All of these devs nail it" let's grow some balls and have ones own opinion instead of follwing the masses just because some people on the internet said so, or our favorite guitarist has decided to collaborate with a plugin developper...

Do your own tesing record your own guitars and compare and if you can't, search the internet for some recorded multitracks and check and compare with your own ears, enough with the lazyess and enough with the shortcuts, reality could be painful sometimes, but don't be blind following people on the internet, build your own tools your own techniques, do your own shit, basically? do your homework...

Neural isn't bad for guitarist, but it is bad if you're after a proper "Guitar-amp LIKE" software, and if this somehow goes above your head, then i'm sorry, you're stuck in the matrix and nothing i say can help you! so good luck brother.

 

Last edited: Dec 23, 2025 at 7:33 PM

URM isn't your friend, it's there to make money.

 

I really like the Neural DSP, I tried them, they are very good.
However, I was disappointed because the two amps I was waiting for the most were not released:
Morgan Amps Suite and Tone King Imperial MKII... should I hope for a release next week?... May the witches hear my wish!

 

I see you and i agree, but luckily that's not the case anymore. The problem with Nam and ToneX is that there's so much profiles it's hard to find stuff that do sound good and feel good, and your problem has been a very well known issue at first, but it is better now...

i can share a few profiles that has some of the best stuff i have tested, if i can find my notes

Otherwise even if it is late, you might wanna give it another chance even for the what-the-hell of it.

 

That’s a problem with every profiler, since Kemper 15 years ago to be exact

Another problem with tonex and nam is their crappy input sensitivity.

I never had to adjust input trim on any hardware profiler. NEVER
On my plug-ins, it is very easy to set input right.
Even on Kemper, I never seen anyone with such input level troubles.

Thanks for the profiles, but I will keep Helix and STL

And test the new X NDSP releases.

 

Well, let's wait and see if there are other NDSP releases. In addition to the ones you wrote, it's a different style, but Gojira X is also awaited, because it not only got the 'X' features like the other NDSP X plugins, but they also refined it and there's a new mic in the 3rd cab, the dynamic 57 off-axis.

 

@ItsFine

I have a similar opinion about ToneX and NAM as you, except that I have a few custom presets (commercial 3rd party presets modified by me - I mean the whole chain in the DAW, not "in the box") that I'm happy with, but in proportion, out of 100 presets, there are 10-12 that I'm 90%+ satisfied with.

 

I am indeed a technical person, as I now develop tools for musicians and engineers for a living, but don't worry I've been mixing for quite a long time now, and mastering was my first job. It's not clear to me what you're trying to say when you're questioning that, but I can assure you that the huge majority of technical people hearts' are still in the craft of music production. It was very annoying when I was working in acoustics and system tuning when a minority of mixing engineers would disregard objective advice from technical folks, saying things like "they don't know what it's like to mix" and the oh-famous "they only read data and charts, they don't listen"

Back to the subject, properly A/B testing amp sims is very difficult. Guitar amps are some of the analog hardware with the biggest unit-to-unit variation, due to the sheer overload of voltage the components face. So that's why the only TRUE way of knowing the actual quality of the simulation, is to compare with the exact unit they used to model. Because if you don't, you might compare your personal unit to a simulation based on another unit that sounds completely different to yours, and then you will easily be able to recognize it in a blind test, and thus bias will kick in and ruin any possibility of an objective opinion. So in a nutshell, no one objectively knows exactly how faithful a particular amp plugin is, apart from, potentially, the developers themselves.

What matters to us is "when I load a X amp, do I get the X amp sound ?". I did some very thorough tests (settings matched by analysis, additional tests with a magnitude response matching FIR to eliminate tonality variation that could be fixed by an EQ) comparing a Soldano, a Mesa Boogie, and a Roland to their simulations. For the Soldano, I said it in my previous posts, the Neural DSP was the worst. Muddy and compressed. The Nembrini had a bit too much transients compared to my hardware reference (not necessarily in a bad way) Amplitube required some EQ but sounded the same as the hardware afterwards, and Mercuriall and STL Tones were spot on. But that was just MY hardware reference, I heard some real Soldanos that were quite muddy, and thus the Neural DSP would be closer to them. In fact, when testing the Mesa and the Roland, the ranking was completely different. For the Mesa, the Neural DSP was the closest to my unit (eventhough it was an IIC+ against an IIC++ funnily enough). I could post some of the tests if you're interested.

So while I wished that I could've tested more than three amps (and that I could have a way to do this double blind), my conclusion was very simple : From the brands that I shortlisted in my previous post, they all offer quality, realistic emulations. That doesn't mean that the particular unit they emulated was a good sounding one.

And as for the "how an amp reacts to the player, or how pickups affects the end results, Neural dsp will sound the same (good enough) with whatever Guitar/player you throw at it, and this is bad if you aim to acheive a good results..." , this is just mumbo-jumbo. You could say something like "they sound too compressed, they don't reveal dynamics" or "they lack high-end, they don't reveal the tone of the guitar", and that would actually mean something. But there is no such consistent characteristic in Neural DSP's plugins. The only thing that is consistent is their high CPU consumption because of their inefficient modeling technique

Be careful of bias when testing audio products. It can be a big enemy when trying to achieve a good sound. You shouldn't confuse high-budget marketing and mainstream offering with bad quality products. I literally see no objective reason why ALL Neural DSP's plugins would be difficult to mix with, assuming that we're disregarding the cab section.

 

Last edited: Dec 24, 2025 at 3:12 AM