• We would like to remind our members that this is a privately owned, run and supported forum. You are here at the invitation and discretion of the owners. As such, rules and standards of conduct will be applied that help keep this forum functioning as the owners desire. These include, but are not limited to, removing content and even access to the forum.

    Please give yourself a refresher on the forum rules you agreed to follow when you signed up.

AITR

NeoSound

Fractal Fanatic
I'm excited also to try full-res, but for the intended purpose, I would guess a select handful would be all that's needed?
 

randyvanmartini

Power User
Maybe I still don't have my head properly wrapped around this having abandoned ir reflections for the most part some time ago in favor of cpu miserly 512s and'some room in the reverb block.
This is why I was wondering if we can go back if this ends up not being the great thing it seems to be. Even if we can’t get the IR bank back, can this space be used for a different addition in the future? I mean, those samples do sound great that Cliff posted, but sometimes stuff doesn’t stick around, you know?
 

Piing

Fractal Fanatic
I don't know if anyone here has already asked this, but will it be possible to save the Preset-Cab Bundle in version 17.00? I have been waiting for this feature for a very long time. Thanks!

They are still working to implement that feature on Axe-Edit. A while ago they did show a screenshot of how it looks like.

It must me challenging, because there are many permutations of the two CAB blocks ~ four IR slots ~ eight Scenes, but I hope that it will be available soon.
 

jrayjr

Member
You would play a riff through full-res, then simply use the same ir trimmed to ultra-res and reamp. Same thing we can do now with ultra-res vs normal-res, as we can select length of the ir in the cab block or with cab lab.
Oh now i got you, your first post was the otherway around thats why i wrote that
 

biggness

Power User
What intrigues me about this change is having the room reverb I normally use the reverb block for, replaced by a far better room reverb baked into the IR. From what I can gather reading about this, no separate reverb effect could approach the quality of the true reflections captured
into an IR.

My apprehensions are:
  • I have no parameter control at all - with a separate reverb block, I have loads.
  • I have no placement control as I do with reverb block (do I really want this much reverb before blocks like modulation?).
  • few variations are available yet.

Maybe I still don't have my head properly wrapped around this having abandoned ir reflections for the most part some time ago in favor of cpu miserly 512s and some room in the reverb block.
I agree with you on this. I kind of touched on it a few pages ago, and got blasted for being ungrateful, so it's nice to see someone else think objectively about it as well.

I did link to in one of my posts to a twelve year old post with a discussion about this with Jay Mitchell.

I'm just finding it odd that we were told for the whole duration of the product lines that longer IR's weren't needed, and to use reverb to fill in the missing pieces.

So why is this new feature added to the IR block now, and not the Reverb block, or its own block, and may or may not fit on the mk1, but if you buy the mk2 it will definitely fit.

That older discussion
 

biggness

Power User
It’s not hard to imagine Cliff thinking “No good deed goes unpunished.”

When the AFX III MKII was released, it was made explicitly clear that the MKII had additional memory to allow functionality that the MKI would not share.

Cliff has let it be known that he has something cool in mind for the MKII … and wait a minute – there may be a workaround that would let the MKI take advantage of this same new coolness! Cause for celebration, right?

Instead, some are grousing that they weren’t personally notified about Fractal’s private business plans. (As if it’s a huge revelation that Fractal might be working on things we don’t know about. (FM9, AXE-FX IV, etc.))

Since I first bought my Ultra years ago, it’s been pretty much a constant progression of win/win for the end user, and we’ve all benefited from that. It will be difficult to find anyone on the forum who can seriously present a cogent argument otherwise.

It’s almost a law that when you buy a new phone, computer, tablet, TV, etc., it seems like that’s when the announcement comes about a new, upgraded product you’d really like. Unless you’re oh, 12 or so, it’s happened to you enough times that you understand “that’s life, Jack.”

So, feel free to direct some anger and frustration my way, instead of trying to kill the Golden Goose. Give the guy a break, and show some gratitude. Sheesh.
It's foolish, for a lack of a better word, to think that Fractal Audio doesn't play things close to the vest to maximize sells of each product line. If you've been around for any amount of time, you've watched it happen about ten times now. Zero heads-up for anyone interested in a purchase, and no continuity in release dates keeps everyone purchasing all the way up until the essentially the day before a new product is released. For them to release any details about anything would stall purchases until the release of the new product. You see it all the time with cell phones, televisions, gaming systems, computer parts, vehicles, etc. The list goes on. And every item on that list has a lead up and anticipation factor associated with it before it's release. That's their business model, and they can afford it as they're generally multi-billion dollar companies. Fractal Audio, not so much, but I still imagine doing well.

So yes, I am miffed the that I had no head ups on a back up unit I bought, paid the same price for it, and the updated version was released a month and a week later. There was no research I could have done to prevent this either.

That's what I'm saying. So don't turn it into something negative please. I'm a huge Fractal supporter, and I'm willing to bet I've sold more units to the musicians in my area than this forum has through the years.
 

biggness

Power User
My novice understanding is that the reverb block (or any other simulated reverb) is not going to be able to replace the quality of fullrez IR reflections which are "real" in the sense that they are captures of the actual sounds that surrounded the cab at recording. So given this, it does not seem it can be done in a separate block. Was reading through the post you mention but it had turned into such a mud slinging match I never did get to the crux of if/why Jay feels/felt that IR reflections could be as well or better replicated outside of an IR.
The whole point of reverb is to replicate a room or surrounding. Briscati is the crème de la crème of this.

And I agree. Jay is undoubtedly incredibly intelligent and knowledgeable, but gets sideways quick lol
 

unFILTERed

Power User
What intrigues me about this change is having the room reverb I normally use the reverb block for, replaced by a far better room reverb baked into the IR. From what I can gather reading about this, no separate reverb effect could approach the quality of the true reflections captured
into an IR.

My apprehensions are:
  • I have no parameter control at all - with a separate reverb block, I have loads.
  • I have no placement control as I do with reverb block (do I really want this much reverb before blocks like modulation?).
  • few variations are available yet.

Maybe I still don't have my head properly wrapped around this having abandoned ir reflections for the most part some time ago in favor of cpu miserly 512s and some room in the reverb block.

Since it’s ment for recording, imagine it as a room mic channel. You can record it to a separate track and mix or even mute later on. You don’t have to commit to it.

It is giving us many more options for recording, even for live, for inear mixes etc.

and in my opinion this is also smth which is getting Axe Fx closer to having a convolution reverb block!!! I am pretty sure it will happen... not too soon probably.
 
Last edited:

AlbertA

Fractal Fanatic
My novice understanding is that the reverb block (or any other simulated reverb) is not going to be able to replace the quality of fullrez IR reflections which are "real" in the sense that they are captures of the actual sounds that surrounded the cab at recording. So given this, it does not seem it can be done in a separate block. Was reading through the post you mention but it had turned into such a mud slinging match I never did get to the crux of if/why Jay feels/felt that IR reflections could be as well or better replicated outside of an IR.
It would probably help to read about convolution based reverb.

it’s all about the length. A short IR is not long enough to characterize a room or space. But a 1024 sample IR is enough to characterize a guitar cabinet.

Since I’m the past we did not have support for real-time convolution of seconds long IRs - then yeah it made sense if you want to provide some room/space simulation to do it through the Reverb block.

Now with this new feature you will have the choice of both reverb through convolution with long length IRs or the tools you already previously had

Since this feature is about supporting much much longer Impulse responses, it makes sense to put it in the blocks that already do convolution (the cab and the IR player blocks). Could it be done in a completely separate block? Yeah it could. Could it be done in the reverb block? Yeah it could. But what does that really change for you? It would just be a different block.

Why does MKI need to “give up something”? Simple, longer IRs take more storage which the MKI version had already partitioned to user IR slots.
 

ertan

Inspired
Thanks man. My room captures are all 500ms, but I’ve got some ideas for larger and longer room sounds to try to FullRes. If they sound cool, I’ll include them in future packs.

I mainly use and enjoy your 4x12 Mesa OS and 4x10 Ampeg packs' close miced mixes.

Do you see any benefit for these mixes with FullRes? What are their average length?
 

unFILTERed

Power User
I mainly use and enjoy your 4x12 Mesa OS and 4x10 Ampeg packs' close miced mixes.

Do you see any benefit for these mixes with FullRes? What are their average length?

It’s up to you and depends how you wanna mix for a particular song, project. How can someone else answer this for you? Do you want your room/someone elses in your mix/sound or not? Up to you...soon the door is opening for it.
 

mr_fender

Axe-Master
If you prefer a more dry, closed mic'd sound, then FullRes cabs will likely be of little use to you. The extra length is really only useful for longer room reflections.
 

vangrieg

Fractal Fanatic
Since it’s ment for recording, imagine it as a room mic channel. You can record it to a separate track and mix or even mute later on. You don’t have to commit to it.

It is giving us many more options for recording, even for live, for inear mixes etc.

and in my opinion this is also smth which is getting Axe Fx closer to having a convolution reverb block!!! I am pretty sure it will happen... not too soon probably.

Is it meant for recording though?

The problem here is that if you want to use a reverb to glue instruments together, it's better to use the same reverb for all of them, IMO - that will kind of create an impression that they are in the same space.

With this reverb hardcoded into an IR, how do you achieve that? It'll be from some room where you can't do anything else, you don't even know where it is. And you can't add reverb to signal already containing reverb, I'm afraid. Neither can you adjust the mix to lower reverb level. Or length. Or anything.

Guess that's the whole point of close micing - to get rid of room influence and add it during mixing.
 

unix-guy

Legend!
I would be more than happy to give up user 2 slots for this, if it is possible.
It requires a bank of 1024 existing IR slots to get 32 FullRes... That means you would need to give up 32 slots for ONE FullRes IR.

Regardless, from previous comments it's a full bank or nothing as far as I can tell.
 

York Audio

Power User
Vendor
I mainly use and enjoy your 4x12 Mesa OS and 4x10 Ampeg packs' close miced mixes.

Do you see any benefit for these mixes with FullRes? What are their average length?
All of the files in a YA pack are 500ms, so using any of the Mixes and Single mics with FullRes will probably just accentuate some low end, so you don’t need to use FullRes with those. The Room mics will sound much better with FullRes though, so that will be fun to try.
 

mi$ho

Member
1+ for using the AXE3 MK1 user IR banks for this new feature in one way or another. My poor knowledge on the unit’s memory distribution unleashes my imagination: Is there a way to add support for longer IRs in both user banks and leave it up to the user to manually load the desired IR length? In that case a single FullRes IR will take the space of four regular IRs or so, leaving the decision to the end user.

The two clips Cliff provided are so inspiring and bringing the Axe to a whole new level, that it would be a shame for MK1 to be left out, especially with all that processing power available!
 
Top Bottom