AITR

FullRes seems best for recordings, IMO?

I'd imagine playing live with an extra long IR like this would have mixed results since the natural room acoustics may or may not jive with the Fullest length IR, no? @FractalAudio ?

If so, Seems like it isn't a must have for most FM3/9 users who primarily play live. Unless they split signal and MUST have that in their in ears.

Cliff already stated it's not intended for live use.
 
specially when you just drop a new product last week with half memory on it ... completely remove the will to have an fm9 if the axe 3 is already has been ...
The full fat Axe 3 is a more feature rich product than the floor units, it is what it is. It has always been that way between floor units and rack versions. The prices reflect that.
 
A stereo file contains two discrete channels, just like two panned mono files created from those same two channels, you don't lose any information when converting a stereo file to 2 mono files and pan them hard L/R. If the latter sounds different you're definitely doing something wrong.
Are any of your commercial music mixes discrete left and right mono files that you pan in stereo?

There's a reason it's delivered in interleaved stereo versus dual mono.
 
if you take a stereo export from MixIR3 and load each side, hard panned to the sides that's not stereo? it sure would be handy to have two cab slots linked, with individual pan controls, so you don't have to do everything twice. that gets tedious
Even that would be an improvement along with a dialogue that pops up when you load a stereo file, "left will be in slot x, right will be slot y".
 
No it doesn't, by definition.
The problem with make your own stereo with the separated left and right tracks is it gives variables in panning and volume between channels where people say it doesn't sound the same.

If you could take the one stereo file and the Fractal software splits the channels into two slots, hard pans the slots, and links the to slots' volume, it would be much more user friendly.
 
I'm interested to see this, as an MK1 owner I agree to removing some user IR slots for a few of the new ones.
I don't know if I would use it in a recording personally, it does sound great, but atm I prefer having everything bone dry and adding the same room to almost everything. So unless I somehow had access to both the AITR IR and just an IR of the same room itself to use on other instruments, I think I might prefer the current method. It seems really nice/realistic in headphones though.
 
Are any of your commercial music mixes discrete left and right mono files that you pan in stereo?

There's a reason it's delivered in interleaved stereo versus dual mono.
Yes, and that reason is convenience, not a better sound.
And if we talk about convenience I might agree that it could be useful to be able to load stereo IRs, but that would need a rework of the cab block and of user memory slots architecture, not worth the effort imho.

Btw, iirc when you import a stereo IR axe-edit already asks for which channel(s) you want to import
 
Who said a room mic is a room mic in a reverberant room!!! :) Can we please responde to what we actually write/ask? :)

And yes plz, if it sounds bad (subjective but if the IR Pack Builder things their room sounds bad or their cab sounds bad in that room) than i would wish/hope they don’t sell/include those room mic IRs.


Sure thing. My last post addressed this last thing you said (sorry multi quotes is misbehaving on my phone);
"Sorry yes in a reverbarent room, you can capture not only the cab but even the room reflections (even though the cut at the end sounds unnatural like the room parameter which already exist in Cab Block)

and as i said “acoustically treated professional environment” I am not talking about shooting IRs in a iso box or in a dead room!"

Unless I am misinterpreting your writing, you are talking about capturing IR files in a reverberant room, but you give no specifics on the particular parameters in terms of pleasing characteristics.

You later say and even in your last post that it should be a good sounding room.

Therefore it's only fair to ask what specific measurable parameters you think makes a good sounding room.
 
Last edited:
Yes, and that reason is convenience, not a better sound.
And if we talk about convenience I might agree that it could be useful to be able to load stereo IRs, but that would need a rework of the cab block and of user memory slots architecture, not worth the effort imho.

Btw, iirc when you import a stereo IR axe-edit already asks for which channel(s) you want to import
Correct. Most complaints I get about the separate left and right files are from people that either don't hard pan them or don't put them at equal volumes or when trying the stereo interleaved files, they inadvertently import two lefts.

It would be great to make the process less error prone for users.

Otherwise, the net result is it ends up sounding different to the user.
 
No matter the new features in a Firmware, not scrapping my Mk I to buy a Mk II.

Save the fancy limited use FW features for the Axe-Fx IV, or make it useable on all Axe-Fx III.
Have to admit first thing that crossed my mind when diving in to this thread. "So much for future proof" (As the Axe Fx III Mark I was advertised as)

But pretty sure we will get it, it was already put out there it can be done, but -----.

I remember years ago The Axe Fx Mark I, did not have enough room to run a certain firmware (I forget which one), it was never put out there it can be done. However it was not long afterwards Fractal asked how people would feel about losing the ability to roll back the firmware (within the unit) in the Mark I. Don't remember seeing one "nah". It was done got the firmware and many afterwards.

But I'm with you @VegasGuitar , wont purchase a new unit just for this feature.
 
Save the fancy limited use FW features for the Axe-Fx IV, or make it useable on all Axe-Fx III.

Not following ...
If it's of limited use, why wait with the introduction?
If it is not of limited use, why wait with the introduction?
Why is it good for a IV but not for a III Mk II?
 
Going from 8k samples to 64k samples means those cab files are 8 times as large, so you'll probably have to give up 8 UltraRes user cab slots for 1 Full Res cab in the MK 1. Taking an entire bank of 1024 user cabs would give you potentially 128 Full Res slots. I'd be fine with that trade off.
Normal IRs are 2K. FullRes IRs are 32 times larger so an entire bank would provide 32 FullRes slots.
 
Wouldn't it great if more fractal-devices would at least be able to have the option, so that creators of IR-packs have a bigger crowd for this application? ;)
 
AxeII MKI user here, but I'm intrigued by this new development for the III.

The clips sound like a recording that was made to sound like the amp was in a room.

But, if I were playing through one of those IRs, via my CLR, would it sound more like a cab in the room to me in the room that i'm playing in?
[If that makes any sense. lol]

I.e. Will these longer IRs make it more possible to mimic the sounds I get when running the Axe (w/o the Cab Block) into a neutral power amp and real guitar cabs?
Or is the intended purpose to just allow for more sophisticated mic'ing techniques within a single IR?

I saw that Cliff said these IRs are not intended for live use.
But what about just practicing at home via FRFR or studio monitors?
IOW Can it help make the FRFR experience more like the Cab-In-The-Room experience.
 
Back
Top Bottom