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

Denny99 said:
I have yet to find an optimal Dyna-Cab setting. I mean, they sound good and the fine tuning is awesome.
Still, I prefer a couple of Legacy Cabs that I use in 90% of my presets. I'm not able to replicate the same sound with Dyna-Cab.
Click to expand...
Damnit! Strange thing. The good news is: You have the sound already.
 
mattgreenrocks said:
Dyna Cabs remind me I have no clue how to actually mic a cab, so I stick to IRs. I read on this board that metal sounds good with a 57/421 mix and that was revelatory. :)
Click to expand...

Who knows, those mics may have been used to shoot the Dynacab IR’s. But it is a top secret as to what mics were used. If they told us, they’d have to take themselves out I guess. I was playing today for awhile and I tried my DC preset and it didn’t sound bad but not a big as my usual IR’s in Ultrares. Maybe I could get it closer but I’m happy with my IR’s as is. It’s safe to say there is no general consensus that DC is better than regular IR’s.
 
I would have to agree with what many have said here. I love the idea of Dyna Cabs and was stoked when I first read about them. But I just can’t get them to work. To me, they sound scooped and lack punch in the low/low mids.

Their brightness (which many have mentioned) isn’t really a problem. It’s actually their strength. But because of the lacking mids and lack of punch in the lows, that brightness can become a bit harsh.

The funny thing is, all my presets now uses FAS legacy IRs. IMO they are among the best out there (they replaced both Ownhammer and York Audio IRs). So FAS definitely knows how to make good IRs. The Dyna Cabs just didn’t hit the mark for me.
 
md1234 said:
Isn't it just as simple as that the Dyna Cabs are unengineered (/ uneq-ed / raw) captures, where as most other IR's are engineered before release? So yeah, we get the raw sound... it's up to you to work and polish that raw sound to your liking.
Click to expand...
Exactly this!
I have mentioned that earlier in this thread.
You have to eq and mix the Dyna Cabs if you would have a similar result like regular IR‘s.
 
Rogerthat said:
This is why we need presets😃
Click to expand...

Isn't that--more or less--what the IR collection is?

IDK....I've never felt buried in choice for IRs. There are enough, but not "too many". I skimmed through what was available on the cab models list on the wiki, narrowed it down to some I was interested in based largely on either preconceptions or experience with real cabs, A/B'd some using a switch in a sports bracket style, made the choice, and tweaked details. It never seemed all that hard to me.

There is certainly a question of whether or not I'm using the absolute best possible IR ... but, if I wasn't happy, I'd keep looking. And, it's still easier to pick out IRs than it is to pick out a real cab.

At least for me, it also helps that I only use one kitchen sink preset. I never wanted a different rig for different songs. That preset is on like version 50-something (I reset the numbering each time I do a major firmware update), but it's based on the same idea as the first time I went "yeah, this is it" from the first week or so I had it.

ETA: I guess there is a little nagging feeling in the back of my mind because so many people talk about really liking specific microphones. And as much as I know and accept that they're responsible for a lot of the sound...it just doesn't bother me as long as I'm using IRs. A lot of the YT guys (and my experiences in actual studios with huge mic lockers) lead me to believe that maybe I'd prefer a blend of different mics on the cab and probably would experiment with other setups on a real cab (assuming I could afford said cabs and mics)...being limited to what's sitting there in the cabs list feels refreshing.

Plus, and this may be a coincidence, almost all of the IRs that I actually end up using are just an sm57. If I were actually micing a real cabinet and only owned an sm57....I'd feel FOMO. Youtube and memories of micing cabs at my internship would have me GASing for other mics...that I know I'd never actually spend the money on. I recently decided to go back to a mono cab and blend in a room mic. And that room IR was captured with a U67. Whether it was the tube "collectors edition" or the "affordable" version, that's more than I'd ever choose to spend on a mic.

All that applies to the DynaCabs too. But, at some point, you have to just "let go" and use what you got. And I'm perfectly willing to let "the pros" mic up the cab for me.
 
Last edited:
Along with mic positioning, don't forget that you also have a LPF/HPF for each cab/mic, and the Alignment Tool.

For example you can LPF one mic and position it for the low mids and lows, and HPF another mic and position it for upper mids and highs. You can then adjust their levels and phase relationship!

Dyna-Cabs with their high resolution positioning granularity can sound anyway anyone wants, with their only current limitations being their shortage of studio standard guitar cab mics (421 and 160 being the most important IMO...), plus various cabs/speakers (and these limitations are supposed to be addressed going forward by both Fractal and third party developers).

Last, don't forget the Cab Block's Room Sim to add back some full-freq room tone.
 
Last edited:
md1234 said:
Isn't it just as simple as that the Dyna Cabs are unengineered (/ uneq-ed / raw) captures, where as most other IR's are engineered before release? So yeah, we get the raw sound... it's up to you to work and polish that raw sound to your liking.
Click to expand...
actually, many IR producers takes great pride in their IRs being “Raw” and “unprocessed”. Producers such as York Audio and ML SoundLab has numerous times specified that their IRs are a direct capture, without any HPF, LPF or other post processing. Based on the sound of FAS legacy IRs, I suspect they are the same.

I think the difference in sound is more to do with the capture method and choice of hardware (mic pre amp etc).
 
E-Sound said:
actually, many IR producers takes great pride in their IRs being “Raw” and “unprocessed”. Producers such as York Audio and ML SoundLab has numerous times specified that their IRs are a direct capture, without any HPF, LPF or other post processing. Based on the sound of FAS legacy IRs, I suspect they are the same.

I think the difference in sound is more to do with the capture method and choice of hardware (mic pre amp etc).
Click to expand...

Interesting. I'd assumed that they were EQ'd on the way in. I guess leaving it flat makes more sense....you don't know how people are going to play or set their amps, so it'll be EQ'd later anyway, so you might as well leave it.

FWIW, though, microphones (and technically preamps) already naturally high and low pass. Everything in recording/processing is inherently band limited. But, I get the point...they didn't filter it after that. Cool.

I think I'm using an Austin Buddy IR right now (it says AB at the end of it).
 
E-Sound said:
actually, many IR producers takes great pride in their IRs being “Raw” and “unprocessed”. Producers such as York Audio and ML SoundLab has numerous times specified that their IRs are a direct capture, without any HPF, LPF or other post processing.
Click to expand...
I did a search and found a post from ML SoundLab where he stated: "All ML Sound Lab IR's that have ever been created are 100% raw and authentic with no post processing whatsoever. This is the #1 reason why I highly recommend people should use my IR's.".
I don't know if this implies that others are not, but I could be wrong when i said "most", thanks for your reaction.
 
md1234 said:
Isn't it just as simple as that the Dyna Cabs are unengineered (/ uneq-ed / raw) captures, where as most other IR's are engineered before release? So yeah, we get the raw sound... it's up to you to work and polish that raw sound to your liking.
Click to expand...
I mean, they're still going through a mic pre.
 
E-Sound said:
actually, many IR producers takes great pride in their IRs being “Raw” and “unprocessed”. Producers such as York Audio and ML SoundLab has numerous times specified that their IRs are a direct capture, without any HPF, LPF or other post processing. Based on the sound of FAS legacy IRs, I suspect they are the same.

I think the difference in sound is more to do with the capture method and choice of hardware (mic pre amp etc).
Click to expand...
Most people who use IRs from either brand use mixes from multiple mics at different positions. ML Sound Lab MIKKO cab sim plugin even lets you make your own mixes similar to Dyna-Cabs and export that as IRs. That the IRs themselves don't have post-processing is a selling point only for adding that processing yourself if you want it.

To me the Dyna-Cabs can easily be just as good as any mixes, but you have to roll your own rather than expect a single mic on a speaker to do it for you. The tools are all there, the only thing missing is room mics.

Don't sleep on the Cab block's Room tab for adding a bit of room-like sim to the sound and the Align tab to add a bit of phasiness to smooth out the sound by moving one of the mics maybe 5-20mm.
 
Some things I found when testing dyna-cabs.

  1. Playing with the alignment tab helped me better fine tune the sound after positioning. Alignment greatly affected the bass content of the signal for me.
  2. Try adjusting the bass on your amp when testing the dynacabs.
  3. Different strokers for different jokers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom