Helix 3.5 New Cab Engine is Awesome! Fractal needs to catch up!

hippietim said:
Couple different issues here:

Spiffy UX with mic positions - this sort of thing only really works if you've got the IRs to back up the combinatorial explosion of all the parameters. This sounds cool and Cliff mentioned something cool is in the works. Doing this generically with any random IR would not likely be able to produce results that would make much sense - although metadata could be used to provide some info that an interesting UX could be built on.

IR metadata support and usage for IR selection UX - there's a lot of possibilities here. It wouldn't be too hard to come up with a list of tags and publish this information - a defacto standard would suffice - IR vendor, type (cab/instrument) and mix/single, mic vendor/models/positions, speaker vendors/models/positions, cabinet vendors/model/config, far/near field, instrument vendor/model, etc. It also wouldn't be too hard to write a batch tool to auto generate the metadata for most existing IRs based on file names - just some regular expressions and abbreviation mappings would be required.

Metadata support in WAV files is somewhat sketchy. To avoid dependencies on embedded metadata support and to enable vendors to easily distribute metadata updates for their libraries (and let users customize the metadata with a text editor), it would make a lot of sense to expose the metadata via XML/Json/Yaml files. When IRs are imported, the directory could be scanned for files with a well known file extension to retrieve metadata.

In the midst of all this, it would be nice to add support for IR IDs/hashes to identify which IR to load rather a specific slot - this greatly simplifies preset sharing. There's already a wish list item for this.
Click to expand...
Since we’re blue skying here I think mkv a good analogue. The key thing is that mkv is a container format not a codec. It’s a metadata protocol. Something analogous for IRs would allow IR vendors to package IR suites that could then be used across a range of modellers.

https://docs.fileformat.com/video/mkv/#:~:text=An MKV file is the,container and not a codec.
 
NeoSound said:
Peavey Revalver 4 has prettier graphics, so it surely sounds better... right?

View attachment 110755
Click to expand...
ahhhh, yes, Revalver, now i remeber, i had an older version back in the day where you could tube swap and mod some things, it made the best jtm
the pc modeling world had at the time no comparsion to Guitar Rig and Amplitube but nobody knew, it even liked the fuzz i threw at it :sweatsmile:
 
FractalAudio said:
FWIW we've been working on something like this for the past six months or so. We have several robots that we use for automated IR capture, custom control software, etc., etc.

I didn't want to spill the beans this early but...

Your patience will be rewarded.
Click to expand...
If you'd like to spill some other beans... will this be embedded in the axe fx and fm3/9 or a standalone software/plugin?
 
FractalAudio said:
FWIW we've been working on something like this for the past six months or so. We have several robots that we use for automated IR capture, custom control software, etc., etc.

I didn't want to spill the beans this early but...

Your patience will be rewarded.
Click to expand...
That's fantastic news and really appreciated. This shows why competition is good for us end users! Strives everyone to do something even better!

As it is to me the sticking point of the current cab sim system is that there's a ton of great cabs but since it's a huge file browser list to pick through it's a bit of a chore compared to the "move a mic around a virtual speaker" type system that is perhaps more intuitive and encourages play and experimentation in a different way.

Fractal has long had better IR mixing capabilities than most modelers and I can't wait to see what you bring out!
 
jellodog said:
This is what I'm hoping for! 🙏
Click to expand...
The news from Fractal above is quite interesting as it suggests that maybeee (reaching here) if Fractal is creating a new IR selection feature supported by their own IR captures, they might include an automated linkage for IC. For me, a robust set of quality IRs that are graphically selectable / mixable and with automated IC pairing is definitely something I would dump Mikko for.
 
Awesome news about the IR work being done by Fractal! I'm certainly prepared to be patient while it's being developed! The cab update for the Helix is a pretty nice improvement for that platform and as many users have noted, that was an area they were deficient in. Fractal has been ahead of the modeling competition in many ways for years. I'm sure whatever they come up with will be stellar! :cool:
 
NeoSound said:
I've watched three demos of the line6 cab updates. It looks interesting but if I close my eyes and listen... ??? I don't get the excitement.
Click to expand...

Have you ever miced a cab? For those who cut their recording teeth with actual mics on speakers or spent time running live sound, an interface like Line 6 (and Neural) have is a million times more efficient than auditioning IRs. Not for everyone clearly, but I have a Stomp in addition to the FM3 and this is a huge update IMHO and I'm very excited for Fractal to implement something similar.
 
Will Chen said:
Have you ever miced a cab? For those who cut their recording teeth with actual mics on speakers or spent time running live sound, an interface like Line 6 (and Neural) have is a million times more efficient than auditioning IRs. Not for everyone clearly, but I have a Stomp in addition to the FM3 and this is a huge update IMHO and I'm very excited for Fractal to implement something similar.
Click to expand...
I mic'd cabs for quite awhile and have a pretty specific location that works for most speakers. Knowing this position actually makes auditioning IRs easier. I know the preferred speaker location and distance so it narrows the choices down for me.

Not saying that this type of feature wouldn't be welcome, just saying that knowing what works in the 'real world' saves a lot of time by greatly reducing the number of possible IRs to audition. For me, it's a 1-2" mic distance and Cap Edge or Cone eliminating about 80% of the IRs I have.
 
JoKeR III said:
I mic'd cabs for quite awhile and have a pretty specific location that works for most speakers. Knowing this position actually makes auditioning IRs easier. I know the preferred speaker location and distance so it narrows the choices down for me.

Not saying that this type of feature wouldn't be welcome, just saying that knowing what works in the 'real world' saves a lot of time by greatly reducing the number of possible IRs to audition. For me, it's a 1-2" mic distance and Cap Edge or Cone eliminating about 80% of the IRs I have.
Click to expand...

You absolutely do not know with a vast majority of Fractal IRs, the location distance and angle. For example, 4X12 TV 57 E. 3rd party packs tend to be labeled better but having a UI within say the FM 3 allowing one to place a virtual mic on a cab clears that right up in the box without the need to buy, load, and manage IRs. Of course, if one already has their go to IR a new system may change nothing (or at least bring no immediate advantage) but the second one needs a specific tone for which they don't have a dedicated library a virtual system would have you up and running in seconds.
 
JoKeR III said:
I mic'd cabs for quite awhile and have a pretty specific location that works for most speakers. Knowing this position actually makes auditioning IRs easier. I know the preferred speaker location and distance so it narrows the choices down for me.

Not saying that this type of feature wouldn't be welcome, just saying that knowing what works in the 'real world' saves a lot of time by greatly reducing the number of possible IRs to audition. For me, it's a 1-2" mic distance and Cap Edge or Cone eliminating about 80% of the IRs I have.
Click to expand...

If the irs are shot by an experienced pro, most of the headache is taken care of. Plus, I'm not sold on the line6 version being truly accurate.
 
this is great news.
Randomly clicking on arbitrary IRs until you find one is dated. The self contained Speaker/Mic strategy is a total time saver, especially when you are tracking and need to adjust slightly to get the guitar track to sit better in the mix. Just re-amp and adjust accordingly.
 
dean701 said:
...Randomly clicking on arbitrary IRs until you find one is dated. The self contained Speaker/Mic strategy is a total time saver, especially when you are tracking and need to adjust slightly to get the guitar track to sit better in the mix. Just re-amp and adjust accordingly.
Click to expand...
Maybe a time-saver if you're got experience in mic'ing real cabs, but there are others (like me) who have very limited experience moving mics around cabs. I would just be randomly moving the mic(s) until I got a sound I liked. For some of us, a new UI wouldn't necessarily be faster, just different. That said, I would have no objection to using a new UI.
 
TG3K said:
Maybe a time-saver if you're got experience in mic'ing real cabs, but there are others (like me) who have very limited experience moving mics around cabs. I would just be randomly moving the mic(s) until I got a sound I liked. For some of us, a new UI wouldn't necessarily be faster, just different. That said, I would have no objection to using a new UI.
Click to expand...
I'm another without much experience mic'ing cabs irl, but, Imo after many years of using modellers, even if one doesn't know about typical cab mic'ing positions, using a graphic UI to select IRs is immensely more intuitive and efficient than selecting from a modeller's list or 3rd pty IR lib folder, though in either case, the more one knows about the sound of various cabs, speaker types, mics, mic combinations, mic pres, and mic positions...the faster selection goes in any format.
 
Last edited:
TG3K said:
Maybe a time-saver if you're got experience in mic'ing real cabs, but there are others (like me) who have very limited experience moving mics around cabs. I would just be randomly moving the mic(s) until I got a sound I liked. For some of us, a new UI wouldn't necessarily be faster, just different. That said, I would have no objection to using a new UI.
Click to expand...
point noted. I'm not the most experienced user either but different companies employ different sounds so it's still trial and error at times. They each have their own flavor. A 121 IR on a particular speaker and cab from one company doesn't always sound the same. OH, YA, ML and others all sound slightly different plus the fact when they include hundreds of IRs in a pack, it creates option paralysis. With an in-house solution, there could be recommended settings to help but dragging microphones around is a lot easier than file manipulation with so many files.
 
ak301 said:
The Helix one with the sliders made me think I was selecting what attributes my Avatar would have in a game
Click to expand...
Haha those bloody sliders are so sensitive that even a minor alteration changes the tone quite a bit.

I haven't done the Helix 3.5 update yet so can't say how good it is but there is a general concensus that overall sound quality is improved.
I'm going to go the other way on the updated stock cabs though because in my opinion once you're settled on your favourite IR's it's better to stick to them regardless of cab updates. Leon Todd did a good video on the update and summed it up the same way.

Editor interface is a different discussion but to me, I would always prioritise sound quality over anything else.
 
As a relatively new Fractal owner who has gigged over the years with Line 6 gear, the update, while very important for Line 6, doesn't seem like something for Fractal to "catch up with". In fact, I don't expect and would be disappointed if Fractal were to pull a Behringer. I'm sure they can come up with something that moves their own goalposts. And we are the ones who will benefit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom