Axe-Fx III Firmware 22.00 Public Beta #2 (Beta 7)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not sure why but I do not have the option under cabinet for Legacy or Dyna Cab after installing. I went back to 21.04 All is well. I reloaded 22.07 Beta and still do not have that option.
 
Does CabLab no longer audition cabs to scratchpad with this firmware? I can’t get it to do so any longer.

Otherwise this firmware is wonderful. Thanks so much!!!!
 
I've been traveling a haven't gotten to try out DynaCabs so far but look forward to it!

I get the new flexibility and workflow that DynaCabs offer, which is very cool. In reading thru the thread, (most) people seem to say that they prefer DynaCabs to the legacy cabs, not just for the workflow but sound-wise as well. Is there a "special sauce" that's making the resultant DynaCab IR selections get processed differently than legacy IRs to sound different? Or are folks just liking the sound of the DynaCab IR captures better than legacy ones? I read about the Neve difference in the captures compared to the Fractal legacy cabs with API.

Just wondering - looking forward to trying it out.
 
CodePoet said:
I've been traveling a haven't gotten to try out DynaCabs so far but look forward to it!

I get the new flexibility and workflow that DynaCabs offer, which is very cool. In reading thru the thread, (most) people seem to say that they prefer DynaCabs to the legacy cabs, not just for the workflow but sound-wise as well. Is there a "special sauce" that's making the resultant DynaCab IR selections get processed differently than legacy IRs to sound different? Or are folks just liking the sound of the DynaCab IR captures better than legacy ones? I read about the Neve difference in the captures compared to the Fractal legacy cabs with API.

Just wondering - looking forward to trying it out.
Click to expand...
There's a post from @FractalAudio explaining that a different mic pre was used, with less low mid.

If that's responsible for some of what people like about these, it would seem like appropriate EQ could get other packs in that ballpark.
 
Last edited:
CodePoet said:
I've been traveling a haven't gotten to try out DynaCabs so far but look forward to it!

I get the new flexibility and workflow that DynaCabs offer, which is very cool. In reading thru the thread, (most) people seem to say that they prefer DynaCabs to the legacy cabs, not just for the workflow but sound-wise as well. Is there a "special sauce" that's making the resultant DynaCab IR selections get processed differently than legacy IRs to sound different? Or are folks just liking the sound of the DynaCab IR captures better than legacy ones? I read about the Neve difference in the captures compared to the Fractal legacy cabs with API.

Just wondering - looking forward to trying it out.
Click to expand...

To me, freely moving and placing a mic oneself is essential to matching precisely the sound of an IR to your guitar, and I just think it makes the IR more intuitive to discover as well as faster to discover. It really is the best of all worlds. I think you can usually find something usable in just about any movable mic simulation, so your options become orders of magnitude greater and more appropriate to the character of your playing specifically
 
After several days of exploring DynaCabs, I can just say the hype is real!

I stuck a Looper block in the beginning of my signal chain and recorded a variety of parts and swapped back and forth between a Cab channel with my go-to IR blend (from the YA MTCH pack) and one with DynaCabs.

I adjusted until things were sounding good to me - not trying to really match them since there's not really a similar speaker set (G12H30 + G12M25).

As others have noted, there's a level difference between Legacy and DynaCab - a 1dB increase in the Level seems to do the trick.

I started with the Lonestar and got good results mixing 2 mics on the same cab. Ribbon and Condenser (although Ribbon and Dynamic worked, too).

I saved the channel to my library and started over with the 1960tv... Same thing - quickly got a sound I was happy with using a couple mics on the cab.

Again I saved the channel.

Next I tried the Bad Kitty with the Ribbon and found the best sound to me so far.

Don't forget the Cab block Preamp EQ. In the case of the last example, a bump of 1dB on Mid there got it where I wanted faster than moving the mic around.
 
I've installed the firmware and I'm of two minds.

The Dyna-cabs make dialing in a great sounding tone simple as pie. Seriously - just pick a cab you're familiar with, twiddle the little nub, and get great tone. Awesome! The sound (especially alone) sounds freaking fantastic - the Texas Star IR is killing me! Timmons HAS to get one of these magic boxes!

One thing that I notice though is that the Dyna-cabs sound extremely produced - like they've already been mastered. They don't seem to have the nastiness and intermodulated sizzle of a cab that helps cut through a mix. Most of the time I cut out the "nasty" after mix down so I can leave a little sizzle in the final tracks for realism. I'm not sure how Dyna-cabs will work with this workflow - or whether they will survive being mastered yet again by the mastering engineer. Time will tell I guess!

I'm finding that mixing in a bit of my York or BHG IRs with a low cut helps to restore the harshness that my ears expect with a cab.

Maybe I'm just doing it wrong or my ears haven't adjusted to the new sound yet . . . I think this is the right direction regardless! The sound is amazing - just give me a "nasty" button or something. Hahahaha.

Great work regardless - this is a huge step forward. I would kill not to have to doom-scroll through thousands of fixed IRs to get the sound in my head recorded!
 
Last edited:
Anybody using these settings in dyna-cab?

1681672309364.png

Makes a big difference, IMO, but eats up CPU.

Anybody see issues with 82-85% CPU being used? I have few kitchen sink presets and with the Preamp and High Quality I'm in that range.
 
CodePoet said:
I've been traveling a haven't gotten to try out DynaCabs so far but look forward to it!

I get the new flexibility and workflow that DynaCabs offer, which is very cool. In reading thru the thread, (most) people seem to say that they prefer DynaCabs to the legacy cabs, not just for the workflow but sound-wise as well. Is there a "special sauce" that's making the resultant DynaCab IR selections get processed differently than legacy IRs to sound different? Or are folks just liking the sound of the DynaCab IR captures better than legacy ones? I read about the Neve difference in the captures compared to the Fractal legacy cabs with API.

Just wondering - looking forward to trying it out.
Click to expand...
I'm going to go out on a limb and bet that a lot of it has to do with there being more high end energy and perceived volume increase with the Dynacab. Whether that's paired with actual higher realism and fidelity or if it's just our caveman brains dictating things for us: time will tell. (this isn't a knock at all. I just know that I've definitely gone down rabbit holes of adding way too much high end to patches in the past because of this, and could see a bunch of us experiencing a similar thing in this transition)
 
Ben.Last said:
I'm going to go out on a limb and bet that a lot of it has to do with there being more high end energy and perceived volume increase with the Dynacab. Whether that's paired with actual higher realism and fidelity or if it's just our caveman brains dictating things for us: time will tell. (this isn't a knock at all. I just know that I've definitely gone down rabbit holes of adding way too much high end to patches in the past because of this, and could see a bunch of us experiencing a similar thing in this transition)
Click to expand...
From what I've seen and experienced, the DynaCabs are quieter not louder...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom