Do you think the Legacy Cabs will become obsolete now that we have the Dyna Cabs?

Do you think the Legacy Cabs will become obsolete now that we have the Dyna Cabs?

  • Yes

    Votes: 44 21.2%

  • No

    Votes: 164 78.8%
  • Total voters
    208
Well, that's something everyone should decide for themselves.
I myself will not use the 'Legacy Cabs' anymore.
The number of Dynacabs is also a bit too much for me. I only need a 4x12 in Marshall style and a 1x 12 in Fender style. šŸ˜‚
 
Dynacbas for me when they get released on the FM9 no doubts, Im new to Fractal only have 1 custom built preset, so for all future ones Daynacabs for sure, hate IR folder Diving
Mind you I'm keeping my LT TV mixes those are awesome
 
Last edited:
dpeterson said:
I canā€™t get anywhere near the low end from dynacabs. And Iā€™m still messing with them.
Click to expand...
Itā€™s interesting I canā€™t comment on Dyna yet as I am FM9 , but Marco on his live stream thought he got way too much low end with the 121
And suggested not using it with a 412 as itā€™s to bassy
 
I like the options! as to IR's being obsolete I will let my ears determine that. I only ever use 3 -4 IR's anyhow so thankfully I have never really gone down the IR rabbit hole.

I know what I like when I hear it, when Dyna cabs come to the FM9 I will test drive them and see! I think Dyna Cabs would have to be "drastically" better for them to become obsolete and based on what I have heard from YT channels so far it doesn't sound like that the case.
 
It's funny; I run the Dyna Cabs at 512 length and still have to work to mitigate the low end! I sometimes use 256 length as a type of low cut. Although my main thing is to eliminate room reflections. To me one easy way to hear IR length is to hit a really high note and sustain it with wild vibrato: with a long IR, you'll start to hear the room sound.

To me, movable mics have always been the way. Before Dyna Cabs my best IRs were captured from TH-U and Amplitube, and I'd still trim the length on those. To me, the fine tuning of mic position is the quickest way to dial in great tone that works for you. Tone is too individual of a thing, in my opinion, for larger mic placement gaps. What sounds right for one player is not going to be the best option for another, and the fine movement of the mic makes all the difference in that regard.
 
LiquidGuitar said:
Dynacabs are 20ms and Ultrares are 170ms. I hear a difference.
Click to expand...

Tonā€™s of tests have been done on IR length. Iā€™ll link just one great example from Pete Thorn .

20ms is plenty to capture the full speaker range. Longer IRs contain some amount of room detail in them. This can give an impression of fullness. Likely, you are hearing more of a difference between the full gamut of capturing differences: mic placement (we donā€™t know where in the factory IRs), mic pre, etc.

Edit: My argument is not whether DynaCabs will replace IRs. There will always be room for both. Hard to capture every speaker you might want in DynaCab format due to time to capture and storage requirements for them. TwoNotes, for example, created a custom format that does this too. They still support legacy IR formats and people still use them. My argument is that 20ms not being enough is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
JoKeR III said:
My understanding is, that while Dyna Cabs are basically multiple 'traditional' IRs of a speaker, Fractal has discovered a new method of capturing IRs as well as the use of a robot to shoot them. It's not just a UI for selecting IRs.
Click to expand...

There's not a new way for a mic to pick up sound from a speaker, that's the same as it ever was. While they may be programming the rig in a specific fashion, the result is an IR and robot mic rigs have been around for a while.

Now...they are offering phase alignment/correction when using 2 IRs which is nice but that's offered to some degree by some 3rd party vendors as well.

The tech/benefit is in the UI.
 
One more observation: moving a mic for tone is not very difficult; it's just a matter of learning the characteristics in general, like the proximity effect. It's so powerful, and can utterly change the character of your tone in the best way. What's great is, if you've tried to get a tone right, and you're pretty close, just nudging the mic barely, and I do mean just barely, in a different direction, can magically solve a harshness or bring in warmth.

And if you brought in your cab to a studio with good engineers, an assistant engineer or robot would be trying different mics and positions until the optimal placement was found, because your rig and your playing style will interact with their room in a unique way, and that fine tuning makes everything easier down the line. So Dyna Cabs bring you closer to a real world experience, which is really what modeling is all about.
 
Randalljax said:
Itā€™s interesting I canā€™t comment on Dyna yet as I am FM9 , but Marco on his live stream thought he got way too much low end with the 121
And suggested not using it with a 412 as itā€™s to bassy
Click to expand...
I'm used to using the proximity in the cab block to thicken it up a bit. This is gone in dynacabs as you are doing the proximity manually with the distance from the cab with the mic. but it's not the same amount. It's not super bassy but it just adds some low end girth, chunk if you will.
 
dpeterson said:
I'm used to using the proximity in the cab block to thicken it up a bit. This is gone in dynacabs as you are doing the proximity manually with the distance from the cab with the mic. but it's not the same amount. It's not super bassy but it just adds some low end girth, chunk if you will.
Click to expand...

Personally after years of cutting lows trying to fix it in the mix I've trained my ear to prefer a more lean tone, but if you need more bass use any of the EQ options available.
 
Last edited:
Will Chen said:
There's not a new way for a mic to pick up sound from a speaker, that's the same as it ever was. While they may be programming the rig in a specific fashion, the result is an IR and robot mic rigs have been around for a while.

Now...they are offering phase alignment/correction when using 2 IRs which is nice but that's offered to some degree by some 3rd party vendors as well.

The tech/benefit is in the UI.
Click to expand...
There are comments Cliff made that suggest there's more to it:

In response to the Line 6 release of their new cab - "FWIW we've been working on something like this for the past six months or so. We have several robots that we use for automated IR capture, custom control software, etc., etc." https://forum.fractalaudio.com/thre...-needs-to-catch-up.188394/page-3#post-2337208

"Content producers can make their own Dyna-Cabs but they will need to rent our robot and software." https://forum.fractalaudio.com/threads/whats-cliff-doing-now.192448/page-6#post-2393913

Cliff's response of "Haters gonna you know..." to this comment - https://forum.fractalaudio.com/threads/whats-cliff-doing-now.192448/page-14#post-2394557 -
 
A major tech/benefit is the auto IC assignment - I can't quite fathom why this point keeps getting left out and/or diminished in various comments posted - its setting variation with cab selection change can impact tone as much if not more than pre, mic, or capture position.
 
Last edited:
JoKeR III said:
There are comments Cliff made that suggest there's more to it:

In response to the Line 6 release of their new cab - "FWIW we've been working on something like this for the past six months or so. We have several robots that we use for automated IR capture, custom control software, etc., etc." https://forum.fractalaudio.com/thre...-needs-to-catch-up.188394/page-3#post-2337208

"Content producers can make their own Dyna-Cabs but they will need to rent our robot and software." https://forum.fractalaudio.com/threads/whats-cliff-doing-now.192448/page-6#post-2393913

Cliff's response of "Haters gonna you know..." to this comment - https://forum.fractalaudio.com/threads/whats-cliff-doing-now.192448/page-14#post-2394557 -
Click to expand...
No idea what you're getting at. The way in which IRs work is novel and been around forever and in tests have been proven to accurately capture and be indistinguishable from a miced cab given the same monitoring situation. I already acknowledged the phase thing is a nice addition, but that only impacts 2 mics mixed together (and IRs could be manually adjusted with the align parameter previously). It's no surprise that if 3rd parties want to load their cabs into Fractal's system that they'd need to rent out the system to ensure uniform implementation of the mic set up ensuring the ability of the UI to function with expected results as well as to implement the phase alignment piece and have it work with the existing dyna cabs.

Look, I'm fully dedicated to Fractal.products at this point but I don't see any claims by Fractal that they reinvented the wheel.
 
Last edited:
millman said:
Tonā€™s of tests have been done on IR length. Iā€™ll link just one great example from Pete Thorn .

20ms is plenty to capture the full speaker range. Longer IRs contain some amount of room detail in them. This can give an impression of fullness. Likely, you are hearing more of a difference between the full gamut of capturing differences: mic placement (we donā€™t know where in the factory IRs), mic pre, etc.

Edit: My argument is not whether DynaCabs will replace IRs. There will always be room for both. Hard to capture every speaker you might want in DynaCab format due to time to capture and storage requirements for them. TwoNotes, for example, created a custom format that does this too. They still support legacy IR formats and people still use them. My argument is that 20ms not being enough is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Enough for what? Live, sure. Recording? Not sure. When I listen on HD600s it's night and day. Whether that difference ultimately translates to a recording is hard to tell, but my philosophy is always record the best signal available.

I'll quote Cliff: "The problem with conventional IRs is that they are too short to capture the detail in the low frequencies. There are those that maintain 20 ms is the maximum length you need to fully replicate the speaker. This would be about 1000 samples at 48 kHz. I disagree with this as I have many IRs here that exhibit significant energy beyond 20 ms. I believe the room has some influence as the low-frequency modes of the room will impact the resulting sound. The amount of this impact depends on the room, the mics, distance, etc., etc. Or perhaps certain speakers have particularly high Qs in the low frequencies. Regardless, it is my opinion that you need IRs much longer than 20 ms to fully capture the "mic'd amp in the studio" sound. My tests show that IRs of 8000 samples are required to fully capture the low-frequency detail. Unfortunately to process an 8K IR in real-time require copious processing power... Fortunately I have developed "Ultra-Res" cabinet modeling. Ultra-Res cabinet modeling provides the frequency detail of a very long IR with little or no added processing power requirements."

https://wiki.fractalaudio.com/wiki/index.php?title=Impulse_responses_(IR)#UltraRes
 
LiquidGuitar said:
Whether that difference ultimately translates to a recording is hard to tell, but my philosophy is always record the best signal available.
Click to expand...
a longer IR length is not always best for everyone in every circumstance - Fractal has also said: "FWIW, I almost always reduce IR length on my personal presets. Usually 512 or 1024. I like the lack of reflections".

I also still think the level of difference people hear is often exaggerated in relation to other factors as with tube type discussions, tonewoods ... it's there, but it starts getting into the hair splitting zones that many can barely hear or not at all. For those that can hear it and want it as an option, then ya, I guess it's a benefit of legacy IRs not yet in dynacab
 
Last edited:
I think the ideal would be long IRs captured without reflections. Two Notes actually had two cabs (I think) that were captured in an anechoic chamber. I'm not sure you would need to go that far, but putting up some kind of baffling or other acoustic treatment around the cab and mic might just be enough. But I'm not sure how many people do this. I know Mikko argues that the room reflections are historically part of what ends up on your favorite records, so there's no need to remove them now. To me, I can add room sounds after the fact, but the only way I know to remove them from an IR is via trimming, which will necessarily destroy low end information. My two cents.
 
LiquidGuitar said:
Enough for what? Live, sure. Recording? Not sure. When I listen on HD600s it's night and day. Whether that difference ultimately translates to a recording is hard to tell, but my philosophy is always record the best signal available.

I'll quote Cliff: "The problem with conventional IRs is that they are too short to capture the detail in the low frequencies. There are those that maintain 20 ms is the maximum length you need to fully replicate the speaker. This would be about 1000 samples at 48 kHz. I disagree with this as I have many IRs here that exhibit significant energy beyond 20 ms. I believe the room has some influence as the low-frequency modes of the room will impact the resulting sound. The amount of this impact depends on the room, the mics, distance, etc., etc. Or perhaps certain speakers have particularly high Qs in the low frequencies. Regardless, it is my opinion that you need IRs much longer than 20 ms to fully capture the "mic'd amp in the studio" sound. My tests show that IRs of 8000 samples are required to fully capture the low-frequency detail. Unfortunately to process an 8K IR in real-time require copious processing power... Fortunately I have developed "Ultra-Res" cabinet modeling. Ultra-Res cabinet modeling provides the frequency detail of a very long IR with little or no added processing power requirements."

https://wiki.fractalaudio.com/wiki/index.php?title=Impulse_responses_(IR)#UltraRes
Click to expand...

Part of the problem is so many guitar players ā€œlisten with their eyesā€. They see what is being used or the settings and suddenly hear a difference that in a blind test is indistinguishable. If you take a completely dry signal and switch the same IR between Standard and Ultra Res, yes there will be a small difference. As soon as you add effects, especially wet, the difference is negligible. Certainly not enough to justify excluding an effect you absolutely desire to be in the signal chain.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom