Static IR versus The new dynamic IR?

I hear no difference either. Maybe it's more of a feel thing. None of the sound clips were very dynamic to start with, so it's difficult to tell if digging in or laying back has any real effect.
 
This IS a big deal. We've been waiting for something like this for a long time. Impulses do a great job of recreating the sound of a real cabinet, but many feel the dynamics of the speaker is lost using impulses and therfore, there is something missing especially in the mix when you compare the real deal to impulses.

IMO... The point of modeling is to recreate the original signal path as closely as possible to the real thing, (Cliff has spoken about all the portions of the signal path he's been able to figure out how to model) this is just one more leap towards a more realistic signal path within the digital domain and is a welcomed addition.

Although this is not a huge improvement to the average listener, it does help to make cabinet simulation more authentic and realistic, and IMHO, everyone modeling should take notice. Anything that helps to improve the signal chain/make it more authentic, should be a welcomed addition to anyone using a modeler.

Great work Shane!
 
When this update was finally complete, after over a year of R&D that went into this one feature, one of the things I knew from the outset was that the difference would be subtle to the point where some people wouldn't be able to hear it. However, this is a difference that I personally care about, as do a lot of others in the guitar and production communities.

The Speaker Dynamics algorithm applies saturation in response to playing dynamics. Real speakers were studied exhaustively, and the simplicity of the one-knob control belies the complexity of the processing underneath. If you want to read more about how guitar speakers are designed and built, check out a great interview with Celestion's Development Director in SoundOnSound Magazine.

I didn't expect Recabinet 3, or this subsequent 3.1.1 update, to be relevant to most of your interests on this forum, if for no other reason than that it's ultimately far more convenient for you guys to keep your tone inside the Axe FX II rather than go outside it. For this reason, it would have never occurred to me to promote this release over here.

Most of all - I greatly appreciate all of the smug, snarky comments from you guys. I will cherish them by putting them in a frame on the wall of my home studio.
 
Kazrog said:
When this update was finally complete, after over a year of R&D that went into this one feature, one of the things I knew from the outset was that the difference would be subtle to the point where some people wouldn't be able to hear it. However, this is a difference that I personally care about, as do a lot of others in the guitar and production communities.

The Speaker Dynamics algorithm applies saturation in response to playing dynamics. Real speakers were studied exhaustively, and the simplicity of the one-knob control belies the complexity of the processing underneath. If you want to read more about how guitar speakers are designed and built, check out a great interview with Celestion's Development Director in SoundOnSound Magazine.

I didn't expect Recabinet 3, or this subsequent 3.1.1 update, to be relevant to most of your interests on this forum, if for no other reason than that it's ultimately far more convenient for you guys to keep your tone inside the Axe FX II rather than go outside it. For this reason, it would have never occurred to me to promote this release over here.

Most of all - I greatly appreciate all of the smug, snarky comments from you guys. I will cherish them by putting them in a frame on the wall of my home studio.
Click to expand...

thanks for the article and elaboration. It is appreciated.
 
I really think that this is. Very interesting and has some potential!

I don't have the best ears, but I definately noticed a subtle change. As cliff has pointed out, among many others, the cab is crucial to tone. Therefore, it would seem that this has a great deal of affect.

Furthermore, it seems that actual speakers have so much complexity to their sound that this can have some relevance. I think that this technology addresses some of the tonal changes that occur dynamically because of physical properties as they pertain to volume and frequency.

Who knows. Maybe this type of implementation is not as hard as we may think. I have no idea... Only Cliff would.

Interesting topic!
 
Last edited:
I'm confused.
The SOS article seems to be nonsense (i don't know why).
On the Recabinet youtube infomercial, they compare IR's to non-moving speakers? At least I know why that's nonsense.

Can somebody make an IR of a cab at different volumes (and not with a tube amp, of course), and compare the results? At least then we know (a little) what we're talking about.

Regards,
Marco
 
AlbertA said:
Ha! that article is a joke...

SOS Article on Guitar Speakers - The Gear Page
Click to expand...


I seems like marketing hype to me as well. no real reasoning or data. Just unsupported statements. The last word I heard where an in depth explanation was given on speaker distortion was by Jay. He made a fairly compelling argument against wanted speaker distortion being a significant part of a speakers sound. I'll see if I can't dredge it up. I'm just a laymen when it comes to theses things, but I do know that myths have a way of being propagated as facts and then theories and/or solutions are postulated based on those myths. I try to keep an open mind and learn though.
 
MarcoB said:
I'm confused.
The SOS article seems to be nonsense (i don't know why).
On the Recabinet youtube infomercial, they compare IR's to non-moving speakers? At least I know why that's nonsense.

Can somebody make an IR of a cab at different volumes (and not with a tube amp, of course), and compare the results? At least then we know (a little) what we're talking about.

Regards,
Marco
Click to expand...

Problem is that IRs do not capture non-linearities.
 
Kazrog said:
Most of all - I greatly appreciate all of the smug, snarky comments from you guys. I will cherish them by putting them in a frame on the wall of my home studio.
Click to expand...

it is a tough crowd here, but people are in Axe mode over here and we're used to getting everything from one box now, not using other gear :p

that said, I TOTALLY hear the difference in the comparison clips and i really appreciate the work put into recabinet. it's something i'm definitely interested in. i do think my axe and tone sounds fine as it is now, and it keeps getting better and better with all the updates, as you know. but the tone is just so more juicy!

cool stuff man. don't let forum comments here affect you.
 
javajunkie said:
Problem is that IRs do not capture non-linearities.
Click to expand...
yes, of course, but if IR's of the same speaker at different volumes are (practically) identical, then that's the first clue that could lead to the conclusion that it doesn't matter that IR's do not capture non-linearities.
 
I think the killer point may be the general use and / or understanding of the words distortion and break-up..

to some it means stomping on a dirt pedal, to others it's saturating tape or a signal clipping...

but then there is another interpretation..
the output of any system being different to it's input can be considered as distorting the original information..
in this sense you could consider 'turning up the treble a bit' - even with a perfecly clean tone - as a form of distortion because the output has changed from the original..
or grab a flat piece of paper and screw it up.. it's now been distorted from it's original form..

the Celestion guy is talking about most speakers - unlike guitar speakers - behaving like a piston [being pistonic] where they are designed not to twist and flex..
so the audio coming out is intended to be an accurate representation of the electrical signal being sent in..
EDIT: this is easy to demonstrate in the Axe when monitored through a hi-fi / studio monitors / PA etc. Just bypass the cab block and your silky smooth driven tone will turn into a kazoo. The cab block is in effect distorting [changing] the incoming audio although to our ears this effect is smoothing / prettier and so is a pleasing one..

I don't think his references to distortion / break-up are audibly in the fuzzy sense that us guitar / sound guy types think..
I think it's more about a colouration of the sound.. what comes out of the speaker is different to what goes in...

I thought the analogy of dropping a rock into a pond, compared with dropping many rocks was very good..
the cone is behaves like lots of cones simultaneously, all interacting..
the resultant effect is not a true / hi-fi representation of the input
so the speaker making folk would see the introduction of these added tonal 'differences' as being a type of distortion or break-up..
the principle thing here though is that these 'differences' are added by design..

I thought it was a very interesting article...
 
Last edited:
I'm for any research into speaker cabinet modelling.

Disclaimer, I used to think that speaker breakup, i.e. desirable distortion, was a missing part of modelling sound. But after reading Jay's comments about it, back when the original threads were posted, I convinced myself I was wrong. I was not hearing the speaker distort, but other components of the sound.

Thanks for the OP.

Richard
 
Most of the time when I hear these "new" technologies, I don't hear a difference. This time I thought it was clear. The doubled dynamic track had that mojo that I usually get only if I'm close mic'ing. Very 3D vs 2D if you ask me.
 
I hear the difference through my laptop speakers particularly on the metal chugging towards the end of the clip sounds little more well dynamic lol. Only 50 bucks I might have to try it.
 
The difference is quite subtle.

Now here's a question I have - does the difference represent a more realistic representation of a speaker's true behavior, or is it just a shift in eq?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom