Dyna Cabs...why don't I get it?

I just want to know how the short IR length on the FM3 compares to the Axe. Plenty of you people have both. Offer up an opinion. Because for me, my best IR’s in Ultrares beat the Dynacab. I play with phones most of the time and can really hear the difference between standard and Ultrares. And I’ve put in several hours trying out the Dynacab. It doesn’t sound bad at all. It’s just that my regular IR’s sound better and bigger, and the feel is better too. Is it the short IR length on the FM3 that’s the issue?
 
Lecchu said:
uffffff, thanks for being brave enough to write this, I am not alone in this "darkness".... ;)
Click to expand...
After playing with DC for a more time (many houers) , it should be said that quite good sounds can be set with DC for clean or crunch sounds. However, for lead/high gain sounds, it's hard to get something comparable to god IRs. In my opinion, for DC the lead sounds are "thin", the bass is missing(?) - but the dynamics are very good, the clarity is also very correct.

I am wondering about the lack of a similar thread in the AXE FX3 or in FM3 sections. They also got DC, and somehow .... they don't complain? Shouldn't this be a signal for the Fractal developers to look into the current beta for FM9? Maybe some bug crept in (unintentional, after all, it's beta), which generates DC differently in FM9? I emphasize - I do not assume anyone's bad will - just, I am looking for reasons why only here, in the FM9 thread there are a noticeable number of users.

Or maybe someone who has both AX fx3 and FM9 could comment on whether the same preset for the same guitar sounds the same on both devices?

Edit: Sorry for the above entry, I looked deeper in the FM3 thread and found some entries from users who also see lacks in low-end for DC:

https://forum.fractalaudio.com/thre...hat-we-have-the-dyna-cabs.195645/post-2436957
https://forum.fractalaudio.com/thre...hat-we-have-the-dyna-cabs.195645/post-2436984
https://forum.fractalaudio.com/thre...hat-we-have-the-dyna-cabs.195645/post-2437127

So it's not a bug in the beta firmware for FM9, it's DC functionality.
 
Last edited:
Its not about sound, it's about workflow. If you want the ease of moving a mic around rather than cycling through a list of "snapshots" of mic positions, then DCs are for you. If you want the speaker impedance curve to adjust automatically with your cab selection, DCs are for you. If those are not workflow enhancements to you and you already have great sounds from your standard IRs, they may not be for you. No one is forcing anyone either way. Both kinds of user can and should be happy here. Carry on.
 
I am overjoyed with the dyna cabs. Finding a suitable IR has cost me a lot of time in the past and in the end I was never completely satisfied, although I had bought three very popular packs to the existing ones.
I built myself a dyna cab set within half an hour that makes me so happy that I no longer tweak, but play guitar again.
That's the best thing you can say about an update.
 
Karl Houseknecht said:
Just out of curiosity, what is stopping Fractal from throwing in some code that automatically assigns the SIC for Factory IRs? That seems like it could be a quick win.
Click to expand...
If they have them available they probably could, but not all factory IRs were created by Fractal, many are from third-parties. Having missing SICs would cause howling from people who wanted one but lacked a suitable replacement.
 
WelshLukather said:
Click Baity? Ok, apologies if you think it is..and in all fairness to me, the thread has gathered it’s own momentum…
Click to expand...
No apology needed. What I meant is that a thread with a provocative question mark in the title seems likely to create tribes and invite a certain type of discussion. You have been polite and seem well-informed and well-intentioned.
 
Last edited:
Karl Houseknecht said:
So if there's no reason to have the Factory cabs anymore, will Fractal just delete them in upcoming firmware revisions? ;)
Click to expand...
I never once insinuated that they would be deleted. That is an absurd extrapolation from my comment. There is, however, no reason to spend time updating them when they have gone to the trouble to create this new IR universe that they can grow. Those Legacy cabs are still fully functional and usable as they are.
 
Karl Houseknecht said:
Just out of curiosity, what is stopping Fractal from throwing in some code that automatically assigns the SIC for Factory IRs? That seems like it could be a quick win.
Click to expand...
I could be off base here, but Fractal invented the DC file format themselves, with no backwards compatibility baggage. It's much easier to add a Default SIC parameter in that situation, then it is to shoehorn one into the existing IR spec.
 
Karl Houseknecht said:
So if they're still fully functional and usable, why not make them EVEN MORE USABLE with a cool feature for those that will continue to use them and not the Dynacabs? Or is there "No reason" to do that "with the DC update"?
Click to expand...
Okay Karl, you win. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. I don't see it happening since they have just created a proprietary new IR program that can be expanded and supported moving forward, but hey, I could be wrong.
 
Karl Houseknecht said:
So if they're still fully functional and usable, why not make them EVEN MORE USABLE with a cool feature for those that will continue to use them and not the Dynacabs? Or is there "No reason" to do that "with the DC update"?
Click to expand...
I'm guessing auto-SiC assignment would not be an easy thing to implement in legacy mode as it works "by cab" in DC mode (the SiC parms change when the selected DC cab changes) - SiC does not change with each varying mic position (legacy cab IRs do not retain a separate "cab level" relationship like DC does to facilitate the auto-SiC-assignment). Also, actual SiC information needs to be maintained for each cab which has been done with dyna-cab and probably required a lot of effort. SiCs auto deployed in DC mode are authentic and taken from the actual cabs used to shoot the associated IRs (I doubt Fractal still has access (for possible SiC measurement) to the actual legacy cabs many of which were contributed by 3rd pty makers). Legacy makes an attempt at setting an approximate SiC by assigning one of the standard SiC profiles when amp selection changes, but they are not changing in response to cab selection changes as in DC mode, and they are not as authentic to the actual cab as they are in DC mode. I have wished for 3rd pty IR makers to provide SiC measurement values with IRs so we (at least those of us going for max authenticity) could input them manually on the amp speaker page, but there does not seem to be too much interest - maybe some have it baked in (I know Mikko gives you some knobs to bake it in yourself but that makes no sense to me as we don't know what the reso values would be for their cabs).

Edit: Just to clarify, I don't necesserily think that DC IRs are somehow "better" due to the auto-SiC feature, but I do think that feature offers more authenticity to how the actual cab would behave with the actual selected amp, so useful to those trying to quickly dial in as close as possible to some ref tone information in hand. For many, better authenticity is not the goal so much as what sounds best to the player - in which case use whatever IR or SiC values you can find from whereever to get to that - Axefx makes all the options available.
 
Last edited:
Lecchu said:
In my opinion, for DC the lead sounds are "thin", the bass is missing(?) - but the dynamics are very good, the clarity is also very correct.

..., I looked deeper in the FM3 thread and found some entries from users who also see lacks in low-end for DC:

https://forum.fractalaudio.com/thre...hat-we-have-the-dyna-cabs.195645/post-2436957
https://forum.fractalaudio.com/thre...hat-we-have-the-dyna-cabs.195645/post-2436984
https://forum.fractalaudio.com/thre...hat-we-have-the-dyna-cabs.195645/post-2437127

So it's not a bug in the beta firmware for FM9, it's DC functionality.
Click to expand...

When I was comparing my legacy IR selections to the best I was able to (quickly) dial up via DC (I'm talking after a few minutes), I made similar observations. I was using a pair of the more "beefy" Ownhammer IRs to get a better sound when using IEMs. I couldn't come close to replicating the girth from these IRs using Dyna Cabs. It's not like I spent hours trying mind you, maybe 30 to 40 minutes give or take. I tried several cabs, different mics, lots of positional adjustments etc. Some EQ. I didn't make any changes to the speaker impedance curve(s) on any of them. Is that something to experiment with? Do tell.

I recently made changes in my legacy IR choices to give my presets more "thickness" (I know - pretty nebulous language) and finally found an IR combination that got me closer to what I'd been looking for. Which is no small thing if you've ever spent several sessions trying different IRs with a specific sonic goal in mind.

Dyna Cabs are a tremendous addition to the feature set of the Cab block. No question. Just because I couldn't dial in something better with Dyna Cabs doesn't mean I think they're bad, or inferior in any way. I'm just having better results with the legacy stuff at the moment. When I realized I wasn't the only one feeling this way I felt somewhat relieved. LOL - So what?

I wasn't exactly joking when I said, "I blame myself." If switching from the legacy system to Dyna Cabs will save me enough CPU to add another effect to my presets, I'm all about figuring out how to get better results out of them. I have found that some preset & guitar combinations will only lend themselves to certain types of IRs. Some are darker, some are brighter, others are something else entirely. Occasionally I've found that some of my amp settings seem to box me into needing to use IRs that have specific attributes (dark, bright, whatever). I spent a lot of time trying to get Dyna Cabs be "darker" and wasn't able to do that without getting a bit extreme with EQ - which I prefer to avoid. Again, just sharing my observations here. Clearly I need to spend more time with DC.
 
so....with the help of a few on this now massive thread I have a working DC which sounds great - it will get a quick audition at soundcheck tomorrow evening but I'm very optimistic at this point as it actually sounds better than the IR!! - 1960TV, Dynamic 1 at P5/D0 and Ribbon at P5.3/D1, Room 43.6% size 15.70 (room) no preamp cuts BUT using Leon's PEQ with a slightly tweaked 80hz Lo Cut (18db slope) - the only thing I might lose is the Room stuff as I've never needed it, but hey its a new way of doing things..
 
I like DC a lot. It works better with the way I think. I think the number of cabs needs to increase but I'm sure it will over time. I personally hate scrolling through 100s of IRs. After a while, my memory starts to blur. Did IR #45 sound better than IR #128? I've despised trolling through IRs since I got my 1st modeler. If IRs work better for others, more power to them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom