The Most Important Thing Guitar Gear Reviews Ignore: Firmware Updates

What do you think is the most important factor when you're looking at reviews of guitar and bass gear? I'd wager that that most musicians would say something about "tone." Maybe "features." But for digital/modeling gear, I'd argue that there might be an even more important factor: the ease and robustness of the firmware update process.

Stick with me here. Of course you want to love the sounds of the gear you buy. But with digital gear, how that tone holds up over time can matter just as much.

I probably surprised some readers by focusing so much on the associated apps and the firmware update process when I reviewed the Sonicake Pocket Master, but this was actually central to the value proposition since NAM support came through a firmware update. Also, I have to assume that users will "bring their own tone" (in the form of NAM models and IRs), so it's important this kind of pedal works with your tech and devices into the future.

Since writing that review, it has only become more clear to me how important smooth, robust firmware updates are with this kind of gear. It's also probably not something you see talked about a ton since structurally gear reviews tend to cluster around release time, before any firmware updates exist. In this article, I'll elaborate on the dynamic and identify some things to look out for when buying gear.

Reviewing moving targets

With digital gear, reviews can only capture a snapshot in time of functionality. Some reviews even directly reference this fact by saying something like "I hope they can fix this issue in a firmware update."

If products are going to have features added and issues corrected after launch, it makes it important that:

1. The company has the capability and will to support the product by rolling out well-tested updates

2. Musicians can easily update the gear AND fully reset it to the factory state if needed

When both of those conditions are true (and yes, I'll admit the second depends on the first), a pedal or amp can get new effects, features, modes, and more. And bugs can be fixed, including ones you haven't heard or identified with your own ears yet.

A reviewer has to review a product on what it is, but changeability is also often part of the product when there are software components involved.

Furthermore, when a product is a part of a broader open-source ecosystem like Neural Amp Modeler (NAM), there is a lot of value in keeping up with changes to the ecosystem. We are seeing that play out with the A2 architecture update on the horizon. Slimmable models in A2 should help support in constrained environments like lower-end pedals, but current products will need a firmware update to replace their existing conversion processes. And even if a product was great at launch, there will start to be more friction over time for users if A2 support doesn't eventually come while musicians otherwise start switching over to A2 for their workflows.

Software tone, hardware support?

The Boss Katana, from my frustrating experience, is an example of a product where technical debt in the firmware update process becomes a real liability to the ownership experience of the amp for musicians. Updating an amp's firmware shouldn't feel like flashing a bios.

If something goes sufficiently wrong with a firmware update on a Katana, the "factory reset" won't return your amp to a usable state, and you'll need to send it back to Boss as if it's broken. This can cost you missed gigs, studio sessions, and other opportunities. And my point here is not to crap on Boss, but this was not something I was prepared for from the online content and discussions I saw.

Early review gets the worm

The window right before and after a guitar amp or pedal is released is where the interests of gear brands and content creators align with the attention of consumers. There is a lot of money to be made serving up information and tone samples. It is then hard for anyone to beat the algorithmic winners that emerge relatively early.

And let's be honest, tone is what gets attention, clicks, and sales. And deviating from established, expected formats is risky too.

If you don't have some form of what I'll call "audience momentum" (which can be subscribers on Youtube, an email list, or "Authority" with search engines), then you are further incentivized to be early and timely with your content. There are limited opportunities to gain more visibility in a niche with larger-scale players, and one of them is to be early.

The problem is that firmware quality, update reliability, and long-term support are all invisible at launch.

What can we look for?

If you are buying something where firmware and apps can be updated, look for more recent reviews if you're buying after launch in order to see the current state of the product. Even before any updates are possible, the company might have information on their website about what their support policy is. You can also look for firmware changelogs for whatever you are looking to buy (or a previous generation/product). Interpreting changelogs isn't an exact science, but hopefully you should see a steady, non-chaotic release cadence. What kinds of features and fixes are being rolled out?

Also, some brands might post about upcoming updates on social media, which makes it worth checking out as well when buying something. For example, I saw Dimehead Electronics post on instagram about working on NAM A2 support for their pedal.

Creator Strategy

For creators on Youtube and with blogs, I think it's a fair strategy to do a normal release review and then do a series of follow-up mini-reviews after firmware and app updates (for being timely for algorithms). Then, link from the initial review to the series to keep discoverability strong while allowing your content to reflect the true experience of owning the gear over time.

Conclusion

With a lot of reviews, we have to worry about the risk that a pedal or microphone, for example, could break right after the reviewer finishes creating the review. With various forms of digital/modeling gear, there is also the risk that the firmware update process could later be fragile, slow, high-friction, or disregarded. This can reduce the useful lifespan of the device, especially when there's open-source components (like NAM) or heavy reliance on connecting to computers and phones (since operating systems necessarily change over time).

In a way, this is just a new form of maintenance.

With traditional gear, maintenance was visible and local. If something sounded off, you noticed it (hopefully) and got it repaired by a tech. With digital gear, the need for maintenance hasn't gone away, but it's more abstract. It's delivered through firmware updates and apps. If we don't take this into account, we risk having an unrealistically rosy picture of owning modelers compared to analog gear.

If it is easy to update the firmware on a pedal or amp (from both the consumer’s side and the manufacturer’s), your gear can become better over time. But it can be a liability if the opposite is true.

It's something that I'll continue to deliberately pay attention to here in my own articles and reviews going forward.