NAM A2 vs A1 - The real low-down

 NAM A2 Isn't Just Better... It's the Moment You Realise What You've Been Missing

When I put together my recent video comparing NAM A1 and the brand-new NAM A2 architecture, I deliberately kept my opinions out of it.

The idea was simple: same guitar, same riff, same profile, same signal chain. The only thing changing was whether the profile had been created using the original A1 architecture or the new A2. Then I left it to you to decide what you were hearing.

Having spent a lot more time listening back to the clips, though, I think I've landed firmly on where I stand.

Clean Tones? Honestly... It's Hard to Tell

Let's start with the clean examples because I think this is where a lot of people expected there to be a dramatic difference.

Personally, I don't hear one.

Or at least, not one that really matters.

If there are differences, they're incredibly subtle. Perhaps there's a tiny bit more openness here or a touch more detail there, but we're talking about changes that could probably be matched with a slight tweak of an EQ control.

If somebody swapped between A1 and A2 in a blind test on a clean Fender-style amp, I'm not convinced I'd confidently pick one every single time.

That's not a criticism of A2 either. It's more a compliment to just how good A1 already was.

Then You Add Gain...

Everything changes.

The crunchy amp comparison was the moment that made me sit up.

Don't get me wrong, the A1 profile sounds fantastic. If you'd told me a few years ago that we'd have access to captures that accurate for free, I'd have laughed.

It's thick and punchy.

It has all the characteristics you'd expect from a great cranked amp.

If all you'd ever heard was the A1 version, you'd probably think, "That sounds incredible."

Then you switch to A2.

And suddenly your brain goes...

"No... that's incredible."

The best way I can describe it is that the entire sound seems to open up.

It's almost like someone has pulled back a curtain that you didn't even realise was there.

The 1080p vs 4K Comparison

Trying to describe sound is always difficult because we end up borrowing words from other senses.

A1 is like watching something in 1080p. It looked fantastic for years. Then somebody puts the same footage next to a true 4K version. Suddenly you're seeing textures you didn't know existed.

The 1080p version didn't suddenly become bad...you've just realised what was missing.

That's exactly how A2 feels to me. The harmonics become clearer. There's more sparkle on the top end. The note separation improves. Everything just feels more three-dimensional.

Higher Gain Makes the Difference Even More Obvious

If the crunch comparison was impressive, the high-gain Soldano example removed almost all doubt for me.

That's where A2 really stretches its legs.

Higher gain naturally compresses a guitar signal, so any extra clarity is incredibly valuable. Instead of everything blending together into one wall of distortion, individual notes retain more definition. It's not a completely different sound. It's simply a more convincing version of what was already there.

So What Does This Mean Going Forward?

This is probably the part that excites me the most.

We've already seen several manufacturers publicly say they're working on bringing NAM A2 support to their hardware.

Companies like Sonicake, Valeton and NuX have all posted that they're looking at implementing the new architecture across compatible products.

At the time of writing, nobody has confirmed exactly which units will receive support or when that might happen.

Realistically, I'm not expecting every entry-level modeller to suddenly gain A2 overnight. Ultra-budget devices with very limited processing power may simply not have the horsepower.

That said, one of the interesting suggestions surrounding A2 is that the architecture is actually more efficient than A1.

If that turns out to be true, it opens up some really interesting possibilities.

Could even some of the smaller, cheaper units eventually run A2 captures?

Right now, that's just speculation on my part.

But it's exciting speculation.

Budget Modelling Just Keeps Getting Better

One of the things I've loved watching over the last few years is how quickly affordable modelling has evolved.

What used to require expensive flagship hardware is now appearing in units that cost a fraction of the price.

NAM A1 already felt like a huge leap forward.

NAM A2 doesn't make A1 obsolete—it simply refines it.

It's another step towards making genuinely world-class amp captures available to just about everyone.

And if this is the direction things are heading, I don't think we're anywhere near the ceiling yet.

Personally, I can't wait to hear what comes next.

The Sonicake Pocket Master Finally Gets Proper Foot Control

Sonicake Pocket Control: The Missing Piece for the Pocket Master

The Sonicake Pocket Master made a strong impression as a budget-friendly multi-effects unit in 2025, offering impressive tone modelling and profiling in a highly portable format. However, its biggest limitation has always been usability in real-time performance, particularly the lack of practical foot control.

The whole control of the unit relies on small rubber buttons, which are fine for when it is sat on your desk at home but far from ideal for live playing. As a result, many users have treated it more as a studio or practice tool than a gig-ready rig - a great introduction to nam profiling, but more a proof of concept rather than a fully thought out unit.

The Pocket Control changes that.

The new Pocket Control is designed specifically to address that weakness. It adds four dedicated footswitches and is built around immediate usability rather than deep configuration.

Instead of requiring manual MIDI mapping, it ships with ready-to-use presets that handle the core functions most players need: patch changes, effect toggling, and looper control. This plug-and-play approach removes much of the friction typically associated with MIDI setups.

Live usability becomes the focus

The biggest practical improvement is in looping and live switching. Functions that were previously awkward or impractical using onboard buttons become far more usable with proper foot control, making the Pocket Master a more viable option for stage use. Now I've been told by many in the comments how they have managed to use it live, especially in worship boards going direct in - which is fantastic to hear, but most of those applications were where they had a single sound set up and used pedals to augment the rest. If you're looking to rely on what the unit itself has to offer a bit more, and it does offer one heck of a lot of stuff, then you simply can't do it with the built in rubber buttons.

Setup is straightforward, with both USB plug-and-play and Bluetooth options available, keeping the device flexible for different rigs and stage setups.

Broader compatibility

While clearly aimed at Pocket Master users, the controller is not locked to a single ecosystem. It includes presets for other devices, including the Valeton GP-5, and offers broader MIDI compatibility for users who want to integrate it into existing setups. It is nice to see Sonicake looking further than their own ecosystem for this and realising that they're not the only players in the nam profiling space at the budget end. Offering a preset specifically for the GP-5 is not only inclusive to those other users, but a savvy move also. Showing that it doesn't only work with Sonicake products, but all MIDI controlled devices lets people know from the get go that this isn't JUST a Sonicake product, it's a guitar community product that happens to work incredibly with Sonicake products from the get go.

TLDR

The Pocket Control doesn’t change what the Pocket Master is sonically, but it significantly improves how it can be used in real-world performance. For existing owners, it effectively fills the missing gap between a capable effects unit and a practical live rig.

If the Pocket Master was previously held back by control limitations, this accessory is designed to remove that barrier and make it a genuinely stage-ready solution.

Fender, Cease & Desists - Fret Talk 457 roundup

This week’s podcast very quickly descended into one of those “has one of the biggest guitar makers in the industry completely lost its mind” episodes.

The main story was Fender apparently going absolutely scorched earth with cease and desist letters following their recent German court win over Strat-style guitars.

And honestly, the whole thing feels like watching a car crash in slow motion - painful and inevitable.

The conversation started with Fender’s court case in Germany against a company making Strat-style instruments. Apparently Fender won by default, and now there are rumours flying around that companies ranging from boutique builders all the way up to companies like Thomann and Harley Benton have potentially been hit with legal threats over S-style guitars (no official news, so this is speculation at this point).

Which immediately triggered the age-old guitar community argument:

At what point does a guitar shape stop belonging to one company and just become part of music culture?

Because whether Fender likes it or not, the Strat shape is basically the electric guitar silhouette.

Even people who know absolutely nothing about guitars would probably draw one if you asked them what a guitar looked like.

That’s partly why the whole thing has rubbed so many players the wrong way.

Especially because guitar companies have spent decades carefully avoiding Fender trademarks already.

We all know that S-style is shorthand for a Strat type guitar, much like a T-style is a tele or a "single cut" usually means a LP shape.

The entire industry basically developed its own legal safe-word vocabulary years ago.

One of the funniest parts of the discussion was diving back into the old “lawsuit guitar” era from the 70s, where Japanese brands like Ibanez ended up making instruments that are now weirdly collectible because they got too close to Gibson and Fender designs.

Which somehow led us onto headstocks.

Because guitarists will always eventually end up talking about headstocks.

There was genuine appreciation for Schecter managing to basically reverse the Gibson open-book headstock shape and somehow get away with it.

A sort of subtle legal trolling.

Like the guitar equivalent of copying somebody’s homework but changing enough words so the teacher can’t prove it.

The overall feeling though was that Fender’s current approach just feels… bad.

Not “another overpriced signature model” bad.

Actual morale-killing bad.

The sort of thing that makes the industry feel smaller and less creative.

Particularly when smaller builders are the ones potentially getting caught in the blast radius.

For the rest of the conversation, check out the episode over on YouTube at www.youtube.com/@frettalkpodcast