Do you use stock or user cabs more?

Do you use the stock cabs or user IR's more?

  • Total voters
    49
Status
Not open for further replies.
SouthernShred said:
The 4x12 V30 is my favorite as well...that blows. heck, I won't upgrade my firmware if that one is going away
Click to expand...


my fav cab too (and i own a framus v30 cab so that's sweet!)

i don't get why the creater of this IR is so defensive about others using it... he did put it on the internet after all.. :roll: :lol:
 
Not only that, but is there any intrinsic way to include authorship information within an IR? How would Cliff or any individual obtain that?

There may be, but I don't know of any.

edit: Found the answer to my own question. It can be, but the .wav files of the said author's IR's I downloaded from http://www.guitarampmodeling.com/viewto ... =32&t=2850 did not contain information regarding authorship, licensing or restrictions.
 
Jay Mitchell said:
SouthernShred said:
The 4x12 V30 is my favorite as well...that blows. heck, I won't upgrade my firmware if that one is going away
Click to expand...
No need to go that far. Just download it here http://www.guitarampmodeling.com/viewto ... =32&t=2850 and put in a user IR spot.
Click to expand...

Thank you very much Jay, but....


"You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post."


Do you have to join this forum to access the files?

And which IR is it exactly?
 
Ok, I joined that forum and downloaded the IR pack, but it was all Wave files. There were no impulses in it. :evil:

Am I doing something wrong, or did this guy remove the impulses?

I don't have much of an understanding of how this IR stuff works, so this might be really dump question - But are the Wave files the impulses and they have to be converted?
 
godprobe said:
shredi knight said:
are the Wave files the impulses and they have to be converted?
Click to expand...
correct.

strictly-speaking, they're the responses, but yeah... you know what you mean.
Click to expand...

I do know what I mean, and apparently you do too, thanks. :mrgreen:

Now, which one of the IRs is the 4x12 V30 that's in the Axe FX?
 
It's pretty clear that the mods of that forum don't like the Axe-Fx, although it's equally unclear exactly why. Much of it seems to boil down to the Axe-Fx being "too expensive."

Makes me wonder if they think the Axe-Fx would sound better if it were cheaper.
 
Doesn't seem to be the mods so much as some of the users.
They're jumping in to defend their own (which is cool) by attacking anything they can about the Axe-Fx and Cliff (meh... whatever), without the benefit of first researching their statements (not so cool).
Alu seems to have been pretty reasonable, imo.

I see it like this...
- say I'm a hobbyist photographer...
- I take a picture of the statue of david
- I share it with friends via the internet, and throw a Creative Commons Attribution, Share Alike, Non-Commercial license up on the page where I'm displaying it
- some book publisher finds my photo on the internet, with no attribution, amongst a collection of other public domain photos other people took, and uses the photo on the cover of his book
- I walk into a bookstore and see my photo on a best-seller... wtf?

I'd be both flattered and pissed off. Photography, however, probably isn't as much of a legal gray area as impulse responses since photography can definitely have artistic merit and a generic impulse response probably won't.
 
godprobe said:
I'd be both flattered and pissed off. Photography, however, probably isn't as much of a legal gray area as impulse responses since photography can definitely have artistic merit and a generic impulse response probably won't.
Click to expand...
If you can show that your IR is an original work - i.e., it contains your creative content and is not just the result of data you took on a particular speaker/microphone, etc. - you might have a case. It's not a battle I'd ever choose to fight myself. That's why I chose, after careful consideration, to freely share my IRs with the community at large. I don't flatter myself that anyone would buy an Axe-Fx because the factory firmware contains some of my IRs.
 
I think it's also possible that much of the turmoil may be rooted in some rather widespread misconceptions of what impulse-responses actually are.

With today's availability and popularity of software guitar-amp modelers, we're now seeing a sizable number of musicians who use this technology. I think it's also possible that many of these players are using impulse-responses in their modeling rigs, without perhaps having the most in-depth understanding of the acoustical and mathematical principles involved.

And, hey, I'm not saying that you need to have a physics degree to know if an IR sounds good - any player with an ear can tell you that. But, when a popular subject is poorly understood by large numbers of people, there's a tendency to ascribe mystical qualities to things. Orange-drop caps, anyone? Bumble-bee pots?

If two people acquire impulse-responses of a given system, using repeatable measurement techniques, one would expect the resulting IRs to be almost identical. So, how is it possible for one to assert copyright?
 
(edit: This post was in response to another user's post which has now been deleted, so it may seem non-sensical.

Actually, Cliff's post script did grant permission:

"Thanks for your understanding,
Cliff Chase
President
Fractal Audio Systems

P.S. Please feel free to publish this in your forum"
 
xrist04 said:
I think it's also possible that much of the turmoil may be rooted in some rather widespread misconceptions of what impulse-responses actually are.
Click to expand...
There is no doubt in my mind. We're seeing the beginning of a whole new wave of audio voodoo mythology, and the "secret sauce" allegations will potentially bury any rational discussion of what IRs can and cannot do.

I think it's also possible that many of these players are using impulse-responses in their modeling rigs, without perhaps having the most in-depth understanding of the acoustical and mathematical principles involved.
Click to expand...
Yep.

If two people acquire impulse-responses of a given system, using repeatable measurement techniques, one would expect the resulting IRs to be almost identical. So, how is it possible for one to assert copyright?
Click to expand...
This is the whole intellectual property issue in a nutshell. It's related to the reason that amp models always have euphemistic, rather than literal, names. The intellectual property issues associated with cloning the sound of another piece of gear are very gray, at best. If anyone owns the sonic signature of a speaker (I assert that nobody does), it would have to be the manufacturer of the speaker, not the guys who come along after the fact and take (often amateurishly-done) IRs.
 
Jay Mitchell said:
If anyone owns the sonic signature of a speaker (I assert that nobody does), it would have to be the manufacturer of the speaker.
Click to expand...
Along the same lines, observers may note that I never took Michaelangelo's rights into account in my photography example. (Afaik, his rights have expired though.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom