Dyna-cab, general consensus is that they're "better" than legacy?

sprint said:
ok!, as in the numerous other threads on this same topic, this is my queue to speil...


nope - not just another way to search IRs - the automated speaker curve integration using ICs from the actual cabs makes DCs unique from the legacy process, and objectively better in terms of accuracy (as well as selection efficiency, and integration, as mentioned above). This automated and more accurate speaker curve integration is the groundbreaking aspect of DCs. And again, seems really weird to me that few if any here seem to acknowledge the importance of this new feature and/or state much credit to Fractal for belng the only one (at least to my knowledge of modelling products) to determime a way to do it, and offer it to customers (I am used to explosions of applause here for much less, but on this auto-IC aspect using real ICs taken from the actual captured cabs (raising the bar to a new level for amp/cab modelling imo), I've heard mostly crickets).
Click to expand...
That’s a fair and good point since it’s the exact SIC for the corresponding IR being shot in the Dyna-cab

That’s a +1 to Dyna-Cab for amp-cab interaction modelling accuracy.

But saying that…

I do wonder if the SIC graph curves are smoothed out in the data or a near direct drop in.

I say that because we can adjust LF and HF Q and frequency for the SIC in the amp block which leads me to believe there is some sort of data curve smoothing happening.

Assuming the SIC data is smoothed from here on…

with that information is it really that much more accurate…

compared to when I use a 3rd party IR with the same cab-mic combo as the dyna-cab? (Same IR length compensated)
 
For me, I prefer Dyna-Cabs a ton more for the simple fact that I'm one of the few guitarists out there tends -not- to play wide open on the knobs and using mic placement to influence the tone. A lot of IRs, i've found have been shot with the paradigm in mind to sound good for most guitarists out there who play with the knobs wide open.

I tend to push the mic close to the cap or cap/edge there and roll off the tone knob to and volume around 8-9. Adjusting pickup selection for gain as well as brightness depending on the parts I'm playing. Been doing this long before switching to the digital world. Once I started using third party and factory IRs I always found them a little lacking for my preferences.
 
Funny thing is that if modellers were first released with Dyna Cabs and everyone became familair with them, then someone came along with a new idea of IRs, can you imagine the reaction to needing to take a crapshot scroll through thousands of IR files in search of holy grail tone?
 
ApocalypticKatana said:
That’s a fair and good point since it’s the exact SIC for the corresponding IR being shot in the Dyna-cab

That’s a +1 to Dyna-Cab for amp-cab interaction modelling accuracy.

But saying that…

I do wonder if the SIC graph curves are smoothed out in the data or a near direct drop in.

I say that because we can adjust LF and HF Q and frequency for the SIC in the amp block which leads me to believe there is some sort of data curve smoothing happening.

Assuming the SIC data is smoothed from here on…

with that information is it really that much more accurate…

compared to when I use a 3rd party IR with the same cab-mic combo as the dyna-cab? (Same IR length compensated)
Click to expand...
With 3rd pty you don't get an IC unless the provider baked it in - in the usual legacy case, you would audition IRs and choose one, then guess at the right (if looking for accuracy) IC profile to put on top of it - which means I'm back to auditioning again except now I'm auditioning IR+IC - the permiatations/combinations start getting unweildy real fast. DC is way more straight forward if trying to dial in for accuracy (or even just trying to dial in for what sounds subjectively good since we all probably narrow the field of choices based our knowledge/memory of some benchmarked sounds).
 
I think "general consensus" is too constraining. I agree with everyone that says it takes way less time to get a workable tone than the endless thrashing with IRs. However I have some presets that sound better with IRs than dynacabs. Granted I had to spend way more time to find the right IR and tweak everything to get it just right.

As many have said it is beyond great that Cliff and Fractal have given you something more without taking anything away.

When isn't that a beautiful thing?
 
Since Dynacabs have been released, I've been pretty much 1 preset using a JVM into them. I haven't mucked with my favorite preset I can't even remember exactly what I'm using off-hand. I think it's Friedman v30 and GB in all 4 slots positioned to where it's just sonic goodness.
 
sprint said:
With 3rd pty you don't get an IC unless the provider baked it in - in the usual legacy case, you would audition IRs and choose one, then guess at the right (if looking for accuracy) IC profile to put on top of it - which means I'm back to auditioning again except now I'm auditioning IR+IC - the permiatations/combinations start getting unweildy real fast. DC is way more straight forward if trying to dial in for accuracy (or even just trying to dial in for what sounds subjectively good since we all probably narrow the field of choices based our knowledge/memory of some benchmarked sounds).
Click to expand...

Well yeah with Legacy cabs we don't know if it have tube amp (SIC) /mic coloration added to it so sure.

I do believe Fractal can remove the colorations i.e mic and power amp of the signal path and just get the raw cab IR.

as stated by Fractal here https://wiki.fractalaudio.com/wiki/index.php?title=IR_Capture#How_to_capture_an_IR

so it's a gamble if the Legacy Cab (Or any 3rd party IR ) one is using is colored by mic/power amp or raw IR of the cab

I'll give dyna-cab that point for separation of the two. (still wish it was Ultra-res Dyna-Cab but probably in a future AXE-FX Version considering Cliff said some cabs exhibit data around 170ms) (and I know Cliff stated Quality over quantity for dyna-cab IR length resolution)

What we do "need" is more SIC curves as I've been wishing ( I knew it was going to be another rabbit hole of endless wishing as soon as SIC came out)

Regardless grateful with the choices we have to us and be content if updates ended today.
 
Last edited:
Ben.Last said:
I have conflicted feelings about it.
I think the interface for DC is substantially better than having to cycle through countless IR files.
However, there's elements baked into the DC offerings that I feel it's excessively difficult to counter in order to get any of them to do certain things that are manageable with a lot of the legacy IRs available.
Click to expand...
Can you please elaborate?

I think the legacy IRs by virtue of being "static" have a lot more baked in than Dyna-Cabs.
 
Karl Houseknecht said:
This ^ x 1000.

I start all of mine off at 5, the halfway point. Sometimes it's just a little bit to either side and maybe a little bit back and you're done. Finish up with hi and low cuts. Add in some mid with the preamp.
Click to expand...

I start off dead center, but pulled back about 16.08cm, because I use the ribbon almost exclusively, and haven't had to do any hi/low cuts yet. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom