I'll try not to take "That's an opinion" as a complete dismissal of of everything I've said above including the substantial effort I put into making sure it was balanced, factual, included key material details and points, thoroughly and clearly explained, and not based solely on just my own "liking" of the feature.
I see many posts on this forum that suggest conclusions but leave out key material details, or express only opinion with nothing really to back it up, or assume accuracy is not needed unless it sounds good, or confuses one of two perceived equivalent factors with what really is just a difference between 2 different factors (apples to oranges), or tries to compare a whole bundle of factors with a whole bundle of different factors ... ... I could have picked any number of topics here to be irritating and overly detailed about, but I'm interested in / know a little bit about this one, and I feel like it seems to be getting a bad rep in these frequent repeating "what's better leg or DC" threads, so I'm being a pain in the ass about it for some, but hopefully providing a little sorely absent info to others who might need / want it. Actually, I hope we are not at risk of losing this feature due to lack of interest, because I believe that, as a fact, not opinion, it's one of the features introduced recently that is an advancement in modelling, and in the detail that goes into what makes up an IR and its metadata + resulting in improved accuracy - the graphical IR selection portion of DC is great to have, but it's not new or original to Axefx - the accurate and automated application of SIC IS new and original to Fractal - that's fact (unless there some obscure modeller out there that's doing it that I don't know about) - not opinion, and it's optional so anybody can take it or leave it.
So, no it's not fanboyism (which again if you've read my past posts, you'd know grosses me out
). It's a key feature that deserves more credit than it's getting. Even if you don't use auto SIC, I think the feature can be relevant to you, because given the accuracy, it can tell you some of the difference between what you hear given whatever SIC you've selected, and what's native to that amp/DC cab combination which might be relevant if dialling in a tone based on some external reference. I
'm not a fan of have limited interest in most tube selection or Max rez IRs vs lower resolution IRs because I hear almost no difference between most of them, nor can I see anything larger than a minuscule difference in variations of those items on meters. I became
a fan of interested in the SIC subject way back in its beginning because I could hear and see variations in those curves having a huge impact on the sound of a patch (as have many other users), but I thought the general curves approach was flawed because it required a re-auditioning (for SIC) process on top of an already exhausting IR auditioning process - auto-SIC fixed that. I'm a fan of accuracy because I think the accuracy is what leads us to find the sounds we like, by navigating through accurately represented (modelled) parts/controls of amps/cabs based on references we've heard in the past. The "Just Use Your Ears" method needs accuracy (k, that one's my opinion - I believe substantiation can follow). From what I've seen, the evolution of Axefx has been about steady improvement in modelling accuracy to the amp/cab instances in Fractal's inventory - and what's it yielding for customers? tones they like, and that they can easily dial in on Axfx just by ears if they like (hmm - wonder why that result doesn't apply as much to other modellers whose makers have not pursued accuracy as relentlessly as Fractal does).
Anyway - I can't say much more really - so I'll stop being a pita and shut up about it now.
And, as an experiment, when we were testing Dyna-Cabs, I rewired a handful of my presets that I wasn't real happy with and found cabs that sounded much better, including the aforementioned one.
