Something Cool I've Been Working On

Perhaps this question was raised earlier, but I cut everything below 100 Hz in the Cab block; would I still hear an improvement (since the largest mismatch appears to be at frequencies below 110 Hz) ? Or in other words, does a more accurate capturing of speaker resonance frequency have a signifcant effect on a (much) larger part of the response frequencies (instead of just around that particular resonance frequency)?

Or you might just construe this as a very roundabout way of asking for sound samples. I'm not even sure I understand my own last question there. :p
 
Awesome show. Great job!

LOL

Love it.

mind_blown.gif
 
It's not a mathematical mistake and nothing to do with windowing.

That peak in the bass response might be the speaker, it might be the room. Looking at the actual IR it appears to be the speaker as there are no discernible early reflections.

The frequency resolution of an IR is the sample rate divided by the number of samples in the IR. The window function has nothing to do with frequency resolution (except for making it even less). So a 1K IR at 48 kHz sample rate has a frequency resolution of roughly 48 Hz. If a speaker has a resonance (formant) at, say 80 Hz with a Q of, say, 3.0, then 48 Hz is insufficient to capture that resonance accurately. You need a frequency resolution of several Hz to accurately recreate that resonance. I chose 80 Hz and a Q of 3 because that's what that response looks like. The Q could even be higher than that.

It doesn't take much mental energy to realize that if you have a narrow formant at a low frequency then you need fine frequency resolution to reproduce that. An 80 Hz formant with a Q of 3 only spans about 25 Hz. Obviously a frequency resolution of 48 Hz is not going to be able to reproduce that.

Windowing only smooths the response even more. This is basic FFT theory. The less time-domain information you have, the less frequency domain information you have and vice-versa. This is the uncertainty principle. I always window IRs with a Hann window.

EDIT: I broke out my impedance measurements for that Vox cabinet and the speaker resonance is 80 Hz.

Errr....yes, of course. I almost am getting motivated to dig FFT again, but think I'll keep it to guitar playing. Cliff you must have been sleeping with "Calculus" for years. The way you are dealing with this must be close to Einstein level. Congrats and looking forward to hear it in due time. Thanks so much again go FA
 
Well, since Cliff said this new IRs will not take if any more power to decode, i don't see why not...
Easy...
1) he's talking about power in the Axe II (which could take up more in G1)
2) the cab block needs to do both old and new process, so that's added code
3) ...
 
Last edited:
It's almost comical seeing the responses on The Gear Page.

While I refuse to get sucked into an argument over there let me state these points:

1. We don't record guitar amps in airplane hangers or anechoic chambers. We record them in studios.

2. When we record a guitar amp we carefully set the amp up in the studio to get the best sound "on tape". This involves moving the amp around, placing gobos, etc. When we collected the Producer's Packs IRs we spent hours arranging the amps/speakers, mics and gobos and playing through the amp and readjusting until we were satisfied. This also included adjusting the preamps and mixing board. In one studio we found that we got the best tone raising the cabs off the floor by a couple feet, orienting them towards a particular wall and placing gobos behind (this was the engineer's standard recording arrangement).

3. At this point our objective of the IR is to capture the sound of that amp/speaker at that position in the room, with the gobos, mics, preamps, etc., etc. The goal is not to capture the raw sound of the amp/speaker in an airplane hanger or outside using a ground-plane measurement and measurement mics. That might be someone else's goal but it is not ours. IOW our goal is to treat the cab, mics, preamps, room, etc. as a whole, as a good engineer/producer would.

4. Subsequent analysis of the data shows that there is significant energy out to 100ms and even beyond. However there is little energy beyond 200 ms or so (as it should be in a well-designed studio). This observation was the catalyst for the UltraRes algorithm. There are other observations about the statistics of the data that I cannot disclose.

5. Some cabinets displayed noticeable resonances at low frequencies. Others did not. The frequency of these resonances were not consistent and, not coincidentally, matched the measured resonance of the impedance sweep. It is a logical conclusion, therefore, that the resonance was NOT caused by the room but by the speaker/cabinet combination. Furthermore a plot of the group delay for the raw data showed that the delay of the resonance was too short to be a room mode. Regardless, whether the resonance is from the speaker or room or mics or preamps is irrelevant. All we care about is recreating the sound of that speaker as it would be recorded as accurately as possible.

6. Truncating an IR destroys information by definition. We don't care where the information comes from, be it the speaker or the room or the mics or the preamps. We want all the information. If a plot of the frequency response of a truncated IR differs considerably from the non-truncated version then we have lost information and concomitant accuracy.

7. NO ONE producing commercial IRs records them in an airplane hanger, for obvious reasons. The best ones are done in a studio using the same technique we used for the Producer's Packs: setting up the cab, adjusting the position, mics, preamps, etc. and playing through the amp/cab and readjusting until the best tone is achieved. The new OwnHammer IRs are an example of this. Many, if not all, of those IRs exhibit significant energy to 100 ms (and likely beyond but the data stops at 100 ms). Truncating them to 20 ms destroys vital information. You can argue the semantics all day long. I've compared truncated and non-truncated and the difference is clearly audible. It is especially noticeable when chugging power chords. You can hear the resonance. It goes "bonggggggg" as opposed to "thuk". Most importantly it sounds "better" IMO.

8. UltraRes is an algorithm that markedly increases accuracy. It gives the frequency resolution of a 200ms IR without additional processing overhead and no added latency.

9. Sometimes people can't see the forest for the trees.
 
Cliff thanks for the insight into the IR and analysis.

I always like the theory and background information.

I can say that ever since MIMIC, the realism of the AxeFx II is stunning to my ears.

I'm really looking forward to trying some of the UltraRes IR's for sure!

Rock on,
Richard
 
Who is Jay Mitchell any ways?

Jay was a moderator at the board for the first two or three years here before he had some....mmh....differences in option with the rest of the crew - he's an well experienced and very skilled loudspeaker designer/engineer (working for Frazier Speakers and was the main designer behind the new Atomic CLR concept). That's all I know.....

I wish he would join forces instead of "moking" against others, but I guess he need " staying in the opposite position, saying how good he does instead of others" ....sad story!
 
Quick question regarding UltraRez, apologizes if it has already been asked... Will we be able to export tone match info to UltraRez? And to add to this, will this UR algorithm be used to increase the accuracy of the TM capture as well?
 
Quick question regarding UltraRez, apologizes if it has already been asked... Will we be able to export tone match info to UltraRez? And to add to this, will this UR algorithm be used to increase the accuracy of the TM capture as well?

That is the plan. UltraRes is especially powerful in Tone Matching applications, particularly real-time matches and was another impetus behind the development.
 
Back
Top Bottom