About that 0.06mS Delay

clarky said:
ah I see..
so really I'm just helping to lead this thread down the path of confusion then..
I can confuse it a little more if you guys want.. lol..
Click to expand...

clarky said:
ah I see..
so really I'm just helping to lead this thread down the path of confusion then..
I can confuse it a little more if you guys want.. lol..
Click to expand...

Guess I'm with you, lol. Cliffs post is based on using two cabs, one delayed, one not. This simulates two cabs having different mic placement essentially.
This does effect frequency exactly as GM describes using the Flanger bock and single cab.
But.....is this the same sound as delaying a separate cab block? I guess dry signal passes the same sound the non delayed cab would, and the the level of mix in flanger block would decide how much of the signal gets delay applied?
In Cliff example, 100% of one cab is non delayed, 100% of other is delayed, in other words no mix or 50% delay? He's also recommending 2 different mics, or even 2 different IR's to achieve this.

I'll try both tonight. Think GM was giving a way to save CPU, and getting similar effect with 1 cab and Flanger block?

Or am I still confused and adding to the mess, [emoji15]


Sent from my iPhone
 
FractalAudio said:
My suggestion was not to use a Flanger but use the delay in the Cab block. A Flanger doesn't accomplish the same thing, it's just a comb filter. The idea is to use two different IRs in the cab block (thereby simulating two mics) and delay one slightly vs the other. This effect is different because the phase between the to IRs is different.
Click to expand...

that's exactly what I tried earlier in this thread.. two different cabs panned centre, one with a very short delay..
I liked it so much, I may end up doing exactly this when I reamp in the future..
I'm thinking of experimenting with something like this:
- 2 performed / recorded dry guitar tracks
- then a left reamped pair of tracks with one amp, two cabs, one cab delayed, and the same again on the right side [different amp and cab combinations..]

I've no idea what it'll sound like, but I'm hoping for something rather nice..
 
Any chance of setting up the Cab Block Cabinet->Delay to be controlled by an external modifier?
It would be nice to be able to change the delay via an expression pedal so we could hear the differences in delay time change in real time.
 
Thanks Cliff, I was wondering about phase differences between different IRs. I described the combined response as "jumbled" to cover this contingency. cheers
 
"""""Clarky: that's exactly what I tried earlier in this thread.. two different cabs panned centre, one with a very short delay.. """"

I assumed: Hard panning left-right ? anyway will give it a try both way's
 
Maurice said:
"""""Clarky: that's exactly what I tried earlier in this thread.. two different cabs panned centre, one with a very short delay.. """"

I assumed: Hard panning left-right ? anyway will give it a try both way's
Click to expand...

haa.. no.. I was panned dead centre for that experiment..
 
I always used a single stereo cab block, with my own cab IR (the same one) in both left & right slots, panned fully L & R. Now I've introduced the 0.06ms delay to the one on the Left.
OK, this signal goes to the desk/PA at gigs, so the effect might be a bit to subtle in use, but it certainly hasn't made it worse, so I'm going for it!
 
there's no point using the delay if the cabs hare hard panned left and right. you won't notice any difference. the point is to have both cabs in the centre, so that the delay causes phasing between the two signals. both signals have to be on top of each other for it to work.
 
simeon said:
there's no point using the delay if the cabs hare hard panned left and right. you won't notice any difference. the point is to have both cabs in the centre, so that the delay causes phasing between the two signals. both signals have to be on top of each other for it to work.
Click to expand...

I only work in stereo, not mono, but I've used delaying techniques similar to this in stereo before (just not in the cab block) to create as pseudo doubling effect, and it always worked quite well. However, with a much longer delay time than this. It's likely way too subtle in a live scenario to have any effect. Anyway, I've left it in there, it's not likely to be doing any harm at all. Still sounds truly awesome of course!
 
looks like we have a couple of different things here:
the principle theme of this thread - a cab block [or two] followed by another fx block that has a delay feature [like a delay, flanger, pitch shifter] to use comb-filtering to shoften the hi's

an alternate config to achieve the effect of a pair of mic's at different distances from the cab - a pair of cab blocks in mono where one cabs has a very short [sub 1.0ms] delay which is used for the smoothing / softening of the upper freqs
EDIT: I like this one.. it's more natural sounding to me..

a pair of cabs panned hard in stereo where one cab has a delay [normally a much larger delay.. generally in the 8ms to 15ms range] - this is for stereo widening and not really related to the theme of this thread..
 
Last edited:
So let me ask a few things to clarify...

1. If you're running an amp into a single cab block (mono), you should add an additional block (such as a flanger, demonstrated in the screen shot above) and set the delay in its parameters to simulate this effect?

2. If you're running an amp into 2 cab blocks (panned L and R), you can just delay one of the cab blocks by the specified amount?

3. What if you're running a stereo cab such as an NL212 and you're not using any cab blocks? Should I add an effect to one of the signal paths and add the delay to it?

4. How does adding a delay for lead tones effect this? My lead patches all use delay (~350ms, or even a multidelay), so should I follow the cab blocks or effect block (with the added delay) with another delay block?

I know that this is a simple concept, but is a bit confusion in discussion. Just wanted to get a better handle on how I should have my setup to make this work.
 
I think there is a small misunderstanding considering this subject.

What this short delay does is simulate another mic being slightly out of phase with the other mic. Now if you're using the same IR for this then what you're basically doing is something that's impossible in real life... basically you're placing two mics in the same position which is impossible and still one mic is capturing the signal later.

The "realism" factor IMHO is that you use different IR's and set them out of phase a little bit since in real life perfect phase is close to impossible to do. Basically all the real multi miked signals are at least a little out of phase. That is the sound our ears have gotten accustomed to on our favorite records.

If this is done properly you get a good dimension to your tone and it will smoothen your treble area and fatten your low end making your tone "better" but a little phasy. So basically trying to simulate this in post is a hit and miss process since the amount of phase and mic position are both strongly tied to each other. I'm not saying that you can't get a good tone doing this... you definitely can and should experiment with this. Just realize that you don't start doing it by first finding an IR that you like and then finding another IR that you like and then forcing them to work by putting them out of phase. You kind of need to pick the IR's simultaneously to find a complimenting IR pair to get the best result. That's far from easy. :)

Doing this with the same IR gives you that high cut thing which I wouldn't call "better". It actually muffles up your IR's quite a bit. It's a good technique to mask up an IR that has issues in the high frequencies.

This is actually the same technique I was using for those ZERO CURRENCY IR's I posted last March. Go download them for free: http://forum.fractalaudio.com/axe-f...nts-zero-currency-ultrares-ir-collection.html
 
I'm amazed at how the original suggestion / tip (Cliff's) and subsequent, additional explanation (GM Arts) have become soooooo confused and mixed up
blink.gif
Panning and flange block etc etc - there was never any suggestion of either of those...
shrug.gif


So it really is true that everything is simple... it's only people who make things complicated!
laughing.gif
 
craiguitar said:
I only work in stereo, not mono, but I've used delaying techniques similar to this in stereo before (just not in the cab block) to create as pseudo doubling effect, and it always worked quite well. However, with a much longer delay time than this. It's likely way too subtle in a live scenario to have any effect. Anyway, I've left it in there, it's not likely to be doing any harm at all. Still sounds truly awesome of course!
Click to expand...

Right, the Haas effect or precedence effect, which you are describing only comes into play ~2-50ms (or higher depending on source material). Very different from what is being described in this thread.
 
Clark Kent said:
I think there is a small misunderstanding considering this subject.

What this short delay does is simulate another mic being slightly out of phase with the other mic. Now if you're using the same IR for this then what you're basically doing is something that's impossible in real life... basically you're placing two mics in the same position which is impossible and still one mic is capturing the signal later.

The "realism" factor IMHO is that you use different IR's and set them out of phase a little bit since in real life perfect phase is close to impossible to do. Basically all the real multi miked signals are at least a little out of phase. That is the sound our ears have gotten accustomed to on our favorite records.

If this is done properly you get a good dimension to your tone and it will smoothen your treble area and fatten your low end making your tone "better" but a little phasy. So basically trying to simulate this in post is a hit and miss process since the amount of phase and mic position are both strongly tied to each other. I'm not saying that you can't get a good tone doing this... you definitely can and should experiment with this. Just realize that you don't start doing it by first finding an IR that you like and then finding another IR that you like and then forcing them to work by putting them out of phase. You kind of need to pick the IR's simultaneously to find a complimenting IR pair to get the best result. That's far from easy. :)

Doing this with the same IR gives you that high cut thing which I wouldn't call "better". It actually muffles up your IR's quite a bit. It's a good technique to mask up an IR that has issues in the high frequencies.

This is actually the same technique I was using for those ZERO CURRENCY IR's I posted last March. Go download them for free: http://forum.fractalaudio.com/axe-f...nts-zero-currency-ultrares-ir-collection.html
Click to expand...

if I'm blending cabs I generally like to choose them to of a generally similar voice [ie, a pair of 4x12 cabs], but with characteristics that the other don't have.. so maybe one is a little more scooped and the other has slightly stronger mids..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom