Dyna Cabs...why don't I get it?

This ↑. Except that specific position may or may not sound good with your preset through your speakers. With Dyna Cab, you're not limited to just that one specific position. You can move the mic around anywhere between the center and edge of the cone at any distance within the adjustment range and you get the matching impedance curve in the Amp block too.
 
Options are good. And, besides, they’re… well, optional. Use what works.

There is so much in the Fractal products, and we’re blessed that it all comes with the package and we aren’t charged extra to have all the great choices. It’s totally cool some people don’t use certain things; I doubt anyone uses it all.

Again, use what works for you. If you’re happy with your tone, then play! The rest is there if you ever need it.
 
Moving mics is really just another piece of the overall tonal puzzle. If your mics are in a position where you’re not grabbing much beef from the speaker, you may turn up the bass on the amp. That may or may not sound good. Or you’ll move a mic to compensate which may or may not sound good. Or you’ll adjust some pre or post EQ to compensate.
With an IR you’re left with a puzzle piece you have to dance around to make fit as opposed to dyna cabs where you get to actually mold the piece to fit the picture.
What I’ve also found is they’re equal in the sense not every IR cab or dyna cab fits every amp. This just comes with trial and error and also comes down to taste. In the physical world I have a Marshall 4x10 I love. But my triple rec just doesn’t work with it. Virtually every other amp I own does. Some stuff just does or doesn’t go together
 
When I first read about it I thought, wow, what a hype around something I had in Amplitude 3 10 years? ago. But then again, browsing through 100s of IRs is no fun so why not. To each his own.
 
Wow, didn't expect this to kick off like it has..haven't seen many popcorn orders though? But a lot of good stuff here, I have been reading and not just gone silent on the matter, just haven't had the time to respond.

It has brought up quite a few opinions and perhaps a little background that I wasn't aware of with regards to Dyna's themselves and how they were captured - @JoKeR III thanks for your explanations which have really cleared a few things up for me and perhaps explains why I'm not feeling the love with DC's (the API vs Neve thing).

A lot of others have also said about the familiarity with IR's and essentially their ease of use especially to those of us who play out a lot - I for one certainly don't have the time to worry about whether my Dynamic mic is 0.6 mm off where it should be at a soundcheck, I'd rather just worry about a simple Hi/Lo cut (you could say that the repositioning of the mic would yield the same results?) and that's why we have the choice - and it looks like I'm not alone - I for one have never found the IR scrolling to be a chore - I suppose I know in a ballpark way what cab suits me and its then a case of scrolling those types to find the "one" - I'd rather have those mic's "professionally" positioned rather than my half-arsed attempt to get it right.

I suppose my frustration comes with the "messiah has arrived" type hype thats attached to new releases like this (I need to learn to filter...), as it stands now I don't see DC's giving me anything of an improvement over a professionally mic positioned IR - again, thats my own personal opinion and not a complaint @Greg Ferguson :tonguewink::tongueclosed::tongueout: :kissingsmiling:

I think I might have missed the Leon episode/preset on this and that could also be a factor here, I find his tutorials to be a lot more informative than an RTFM too, I'll jump on that too when time allows.

Talking of RTFM's - is there going to be a manual or any type of documentation around these?

Thanks All..
 
At the end of the day, a DC profile is an IR. Maybe ear-fatigue comes into play at some point when moving the DC dot around for some time. Would be nice if we could make some “snapshots” of certain “dot-coordinates” to compare them and then, when we have reached the Goldilocks zone, press Save. And I think not many people try regular IR’s with different EQ and cut settings. We just scroll through them (nope, nope, nope, yep) and then start to fiddle around with mic distance, EQ, high and low cuts etc. With DC it’s fiddling from the get go.
 
just my opinion.. I have spent quite a lot of time with Dyna IR´s and can get usable sound for clean/low gain sounds but for anything heavy, it just falls short, especially compared to 3rd party traditional IR´s that are mixed with some fractal legacy IR´s.
It´s a good thing that Dyna Cabs exists, that´s for sure, they are just not for me.
Maybe that will change in a future with 3rd party Dyna releases, but for now, I´m super happy with traditional IR´s.
 
Last edited:
Karl Houseknecht said:
Yes, third party or factory IRs are going to be easier, particularly if you’ve identified a small handful you really like. They already did the hard work for you by selecting good sounding mic placements, mixes, and preamp settings.

This becomes obvious when you compare a dynacab to your favorite IR. You start to realize what all is baked into that IR and it’s not just a mic position. Use the high and low cut generously. Use the preamp.

Here’s how I approach it. Start with the Dynamic1 mic halfway between cap and edge, right against the speaker. Dial in low cut if there’s too much bass. Yes, you can pull the mic back too but that adds other things and is something you can fine tune later. Dial in high cut to get rid of annoying top end. This will get you 95% of the way there. Now mute that mic and dial up the ribbon or condenser and do the same. Aim for what the other mic missed sonically. Blend. Dial in the preamp to get what’s missing. More mids? Less highs or lows? More lows?

I disagree with the assertion that every dynacab mic position is an expertly captured and dialed in IR. It’s an IR, but it’s raw and unpolished and will take work to sound good.
Click to expand...

That's right. Also retouch it with the Preamps available inside the CAB block, in HQ mode, play with its Drive/Saturation/Tone controls, and do not be afraid to use and abuse any type of EQ block, or the Output EQ and the Speaker settings inside the Amp block. Most of our favorite static IRs are not a "pure" or "raw" unprocessed capture
 
Well its a feature Implemented, Use it or not, it is up to the individual, Most that have been using IR will stick with what works
Other will use the DC feature as ease of use feature
I mean with all the Possible tone parameters in the Fractal is the IR or Cab the Ultimate tone block ? sure its important
But I would say its the sum of all parts not just the Cab be it IR or Dynacab
YMMV
 
Karl Houseknecht said:
Another thing that makes Dynacabs a little more tweaky is that you aren't starting with a baked mic position. Nor are you starting with an amp that already was dialed in to sound good in the room. With a real amp, you'd dial in the amp to sound good un-mic'd. Then you'd put a mic in front, with preamp, and you'd go to the control room and attempt to replicate the good things you heard in the room from the amp.

Dynacabs are backwards. You have no idea what the amp sounds like in the room to start. You have to dial it up and kind of guess at the tone stack. And then you try to dial in mic placement(s), mixes, hi/low cuts, and preamp EQ.

And that's why static IRs are easier. You have a fixed target and you dial in the amp to sound good with it. Again, still backwards, but you've fixed the mic position and EQ and eliminated that variable.
Click to expand...
And unless you're using the exact same tone stack as whomever developed the DynaCab block/preset, I think it may be tough for 3rd Parties to provide anything more valuable than static IRs unless they are either simply adding more cab/speaker/mic choices or also going a step further to provide matching amp blocks. That said, there's nothing wrong with either approach. I've got tones I love using both methods. :)
 
Well, I actually quite like the DynaCabs. Admittedly, I play mostly clean and low gain stuff so I don't need the thump higher gain players like. I find they generally more articulate with greater clarity than the IRs I have usually used in my presets. They make it really easy to sculpt the tone. I do find that they are about 2 dB or so quieter than my IRs but that's an easy fix.
 
Knaggster said:
Well, I actually quite like the DynaCabs. Admittedly, I play mostly clean and low gain stuff so I don't need the thump higher gain players like. I find they generally more articulate with greater clarity than the IRs I have usually used in my presets. They make it really easy to sculpt the tone. I do find that they are about 2 dB or so quieter than my IRs but that's an easy fix.
Click to expand...
Oddly enough, I was just thinking about this and this could be part of my problem, they are definitely quieter.
 
This is the mistake I made, and I think others are making: I tried to recreate my favorite IR. In my mind, I would get it identical, and then make it better. Essentially, you've already done that by picking that IR with professional mic placement and/or mix. Then we dial in the amp to get it "perfect." Based on this, the fun with DC is starting from scratch. To me it makes more sense to start with the default amp settings, tweak the cab, then tweak the amp. If its not better, use the Legacy IR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom