Does Dynacab + SIC create something similar to DSR?

[macfly]

So it looks like Dynamic Speaker Responses have been around for at least 3-4 years, but I had not paid any attention to them since they were only available as plugins, which I don't use. That said, Celestion just pushed out another email about them, and now that I've been enjoying SICs in my FAS gear and am anxiously awaiting the the final release of DynaCab (but not asking when ), I went and read up a little on DSR. To my extremely uneducated mind, it sounds like @FractalAudio is creating something like DSR but proprietary to this gear...and perhaps less CPU hungry?

If its a dumb or somehow offensive question, I apologize and I'll take my lumps. At the end of the day, I'm really happy with what I'm getting now with IRs, so if DynaCab will make that better...well, I'll be even happier.

 

[ApocalypticKatana]

I believe all the “dynamic speaker responses” algorithm for the fractal is akin to these parameters in the amp block , see link below

https://wiki.fractalaudio.com/wiki/index.php?title=Amp_block#Speaker

The dyna-cab from fractal is just an interface for selecting IR’s represntative of it’s mic-positioning in front of the cabinet.

 

[sprint]

I don't knw exactly what DSRs claim to do, but for me a major benefit of Dynacab in Axfx (other than the obvious graphical mic placement aspect) is that a correct impedance curve is automatcally assigned for the cab I choose (I no longer have to go through a list and pick one manually).

 

[macfly]

I believe all the “dynamic speaker responses” algorithm for the fractal is akin to these parameters in the amp block , see link below

https://wiki.fractalaudio.com/wiki/index.php?title=Amp_block#Speaker

The dyna-cab from fractal is just an interface for selecting IR’s represntative of it’s mic-positioning in front of the cabinet.

Understood. I think I misspoke: I should be asking if SICs + DynaCab is essentially achieving tha same thing Celestion's Speakermix plugin and DSRs are trying to do? Sounds like it is. The cool implication is that its yet another thing that other modelers/profilers can't do. Quad Cortex has the graphic mic placement thing, but not the interactions between amp > speaker and speaker > amp. I'm way out of my lane trying to talk about this stuff, but am just fascinated by this latest round of upgrades starting with SICs.

 

[peteri]

Understood. I think I misspoke: I should be asking if SICs + DynaCab is essentially achieving tha same thing Celestion's Speakermix plugin and DSRs are trying to do? Sounds like it is. The cool implication is that its yet another thing that other modelers/profilers can't do. Quad Cortex has the graphic mic placement thing, but not the interactions between amp > speaker and speaker > amp. I'm way out of my lane trying to talk about this stuff, but am just fascinated by this latest round of upgrades starting with SICs.

Different I feel, Dyncab is not dynamic speaker modelling - it's allowing you to move away from the IR standard of a IR maker putting the speaker in a certain place and calling it 'A' and moving it a distance and calling it 'B' and those are the choices you have.

With Dynacab, you're moving the microphone like a recording engineer - it sounds amazing, but the captures are still that - they're captures of a speaker being fed a set signal level, they're not modelling how the speaker changes under different frequencies etc.

SICs are amazing, and is where Fractal leads the way IMHO, it's about how the speaker influences the behavior of the amplifier, Celestion can have nothing like that because it's not their wheelhouse,

So combined - it's worldbeating, but it's solving a different problem (and the far more important one in my mind)

 

[laxu]

To me all these claims of "dynamic IRs" have been a lot of marketing speak to be honest. To me Celestion's DSR stuff from what I've tried doesn't sound better than what you'd get from various IR vendors or mix yourself with the Fractal Cab block.

Dyna-Cabs (movable virtual mics on a virtual speaker) are mostly about providing a more intuitive workflow. Instead of picking between "cab X mic Y position Z" until you find someone else's idea of that matches your sound preference, you pick between "I want this to be a bit brighter/darker" type and just move the mic a bit to get there. It's way more intuitive and flexible.

Another bonus with Fractal's system is that it can automatically configure the amp block to match the speaker impedance behavior so it feels more like if you were playing through that cab. It's another extra step towards realism in the digital realm.

I'd say Dyna-Cabs are the most important improvement to making it faster to get great results out of Fractal since the introduction of the Authentic tab on the amp block.

 

[Petrocelli]

To me all these claims of "dynamic IRs" have been a lot of marketing speak to be honest. To me Celestion's DSR stuff from what I've tried doesn't sound better than what you'd get from various IR vendors or mix yourself with the Fractal Cab block.

Dyna-Cabs (movable virtual mics on a virtual speaker) are mostly about providing a more intuitive workflow. Instead of picking between "cab X mic Y position Z" until you find someone else's idea of that matches your sound preference, you pick between "I want this to be a bit brighter/darker" type and just move the mic a bit to get there. It's way more intuitive and flexible.

Another bonus with Fractal's system is that it can automatically configure the amp block to match the speaker impedance behavior so it feels more like if you were playing through that cab. It's another extra step towards realism in the digital realm.

I'd say Dyna-Cabs are the most important improvement to making it faster to get great results out of Fractal since the introduction of the Authentic tab on the amp block.

This
+ the automatic time align if you use more mics is also a great functionality in the dyna cabs!

 

[Greg Ferguson]

With Dynacab, you're moving the microphone like a recording engineer - it sounds amazing, but the captures are still that - they're captures of a speaker being fed a set signal level, they're not modelling how the speaker changes under different frequencies etc.

This doesn’t sound right. As I understand it, it’s supposed to be multiple sine-sweeps capturing the speaker, cabinet and mic response to the frequencies. Once captured the sound is transformed into the IR, but the capture itself is the frequency response initially.

 

[Werpinater]

This doesn’t sound right. As I understand it, it’s supposed to be multiple sine-sweeps capturing the speaker, cabinet and mic response to the frequencies. Once captured the sound is transformed into the IR, but the capture itself is the frequency response initially.

As I under it much the same. The IR sweeps the entire frequency spectrum to capture a file of that combo of speaker, mic, and preamp. So yes the IR’s are frequency dependent.

If I am correct, IR’s are linear processing, and affect the general EQ of the signal. Whereas the SIC models the nonlinear aspects of the system, mainly replicating the interaction of the amp’s output transformer and the voice coil of the speaker. In that interaction different frequencies experience greater or lesser amounts of damping (compression in a way) thus impacting how the amp feels and how it reacts to the “speaker”. That’s why “Thump” is tied to the SIC, it’s the low end interaction between the amp and the cab beyond just the general EQ.

If SIC is similar to the Two Notes or Celestion plugins, I’m not sure, but it sounds like those are also trying to model the nonlinear behaviors as well.