Axe-Fx III Firmware 31.00 Public Beta #2

Status
Not open for further replies.
FractalAudio said:
With Auto-Align OFF the experience will be an "analog" one and you'll get "phasing" as you change the distance of the mics relative to each other. If you want a more "digital" experience set Auto-Align to ON which removes the phasing.
Click to expand...
There seems to be still a missing piece (maybe not that important?) though compared to the analog world: dynamic and condenser mics, since they measure two different things (pressure vs velocity) should have the phase rotated by 90°, right?
I guess this has some influence when two mics of different type are mixed...
But for some reason this phase rotation isn't preserved when capturing IRs. Is the math involved in convolution that causes this loss of information or is there a way to preserve it? (Maybe using a test signal different than a sine sweep?)
 
you can kind of do this align thing now in the cab block with legacy ir's in the align tab by adding a slight delay to one of the cabs in a pair. both have to be panned centre, of course. it can be very useful in taming bass and harsh frequencies. it was cliff's "secret sauce" for live use when it was introduced way back. it's a very useful tool for tonal manipulation.
 
This is gonna be one of those things that someone will have to make a video about for me to wrap my dumb little head around it. I'm sure Leon already has something in mind. Is this at all similar to using the distance parameter to simulate delay between mics like Cliff wrote about way back when?
 
simeon said:
you can kind of do this align thing now in the cab block with legacy ir's in the align tab by adding a slight delay to one of the cabs in a pair. both have to be panned centre, of course. it can be very useful in taming bass and harsh frequencies. it was cliff's "secret sauce" for live use when it was introduced way back. it's a very useful tool for tonal manipulation.
Click to expand...
+1, in Cablab also - applying the math noted above + adjusting alignment can replicate auto-align off - but really nice to have it automated.
 
FractalAudio said:
You must have a different definition of going forward than I do.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand.

FractalAudio said:
Going forward this new parameter will be called "Auto-Align" and default to OFF (the logic will be inverted compared to Auto-Delay). When Auto-Align is ON the behavior will be like pre-31.xx firmware and the IRs will be automatically aligned. When Auto-Align is OFF (== Auto-Delay ON) the IRs will NOT be automatically aligned and will be shifted in time according to the distance of the mic.

With Auto-Align OFF the experience will be an "analog" one and you'll get "phasing" as you change the distance of the mics relative to each other. If you want a more "digital" experience set Auto-Align to ON which removes the phasing.
Click to expand...
Finally. That makes sense.
 
Last edited:
FractalAudio said:
No.

It's like this:
When you are recording an amp in the studio you put two or more mics on the speaker. You then experiment with the placement and the distance of those mics as well as the mix at the board. Sometimes you'll record each mic to it's own track, sometimes you'll just record the mix.

The differing distances of the mics changes the tone because the arrival time at the mics is different which causes constructive and destructive interference.

Going forward this new parameter will be called "Auto-Align" and default to OFF (the logic will be inverted compared to Auto-Delay). When Auto-Align is ON the behavior will be like pre-31.xx firmware and the IRs will be automatically aligned. When Auto-Align is OFF (== Auto-Delay ON) the IRs will NOT be automatically aligned and will be shifted in time according to the distance of the mic.

With Auto-Align OFF the experience will be an "analog" one and you'll get "phasing" as you change the distance of the mics relative to each other. If you want a more "digital" experience set Auto-Align to ON which removes the phasing.
Click to expand...
This seems like a big deal for being more like real world, unless I'm missing something.
 
DLC86 said:
There seems to be still a missing piece (maybe not that important?) though compared to the analog world: dynamic and condenser mics, since they measure two different things (pressure vs velocity) should have the phase rotated by 90°, right?
I guess this has some influence when two mics of different type are mixed...
But for some reason this phase rotation isn't preserved when capturing IRs. Is the math involved in convolution that causes this loss of information or is there a way to preserve it? (Maybe using a test signal different than a sine sweep?)
Click to expand...
Phase is relative. If you're capturing the IR of a single mic, it's neither in phase or out of phase.
 
DLC86 said:
There seems to be still a missing piece (maybe not that important?) though compared to the analog world: dynamic and condenser mics, since they measure two different things (pressure vs velocity) should have the phase rotated by 90°, right?
I guess this has some influence when two mics of different type are mixed...
But for some reason this phase rotation isn't preserved when capturing IRs. Is the math involved in convolution that causes this loss of information or is there a way to preserve it? (Maybe using a test signal different than a sine sweep?)
Click to expand...
You're overthinking it. All we care about is the electrical signal coming from the mic and that's what is captured by an IR.
 
iaresee said:
Phase is relative. If you're capturing the IR of a single mic, it's neither in phase or out of phase.
Click to expand...
Yeah for a single mic it makes no difference but it definitely makes a difference when using two mics panned L/R (see my 'alternative enhancer' video/thread from a couple days ago).

FractalAudio said:
You're overthinking it. All we care about is the electrical signal coming from the mic and that's what is captured by an IR.
Click to expand...
Yeah, probably... :sweatsmile:

Thinking a bit more about it, having a 90° rotation would be a drawback actually, cuz the only difference would be a lower output level when summing them in mono and it'd be impossible to put them out of phase by inverting the polarity.
 
Last edited:
I copied a AXEFXIII FW31.00b2 preset to FM3 FW11.00 and had the wrong dynacabs on FM3 no 1960TV but some Recto...
I think this issue is known because of new dynacab file, or?
 
FractalAudio said:
You're overthinking it. All we care about is the electrical signal coming from the mic and that's what is captured by an IR.
Click to expand...
Just to add on to what you're saying (in case it's not clear to everyone), that phase difference between different types of microphones are already baked into the model of the mics in the dynacab because they were created with real microphones at varying differences. You didn't model the air moving physically, you modeled the electrical signal coming out of the microphone.

Controls engineering! yay!
 
DLC86 said:
Yeah for a single mic it makes no difference but it definitely makes a difference when using two mics panned L/R (see my 'alternative enhancer' video/thread from a couple days ago).


Yeah, probably... :sweatsmile:

Thinking a bit more about it, having a 90° rotation would be a drawback actually, cuz the only difference would be a lower output level when summing them in mono and it'd be impossible to put them out of phase by inverting the polarity.
Click to expand...
And you have the means to accomplish this now with the alignment system.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom