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

WelshLukather said:
Struggled all weekend with Dyna Cabs, tried everything I can think of and switching back to a Legacy/Regular IR resulted in instant gratification and just blew DC's out of the water - OK, familiarity and all that comes into play I appreciate that, but I just don't get it..

Anyone else feel the same or am I missing something?

Popcorn available...:laughing:
Click to expand...
I agree. I just can’t get the DC’s to sound as good as my favorite IR’s. It’s mostly a bottom end issue to my ears.
 
I have been supper happy with Dyna-Cabs while dialing in sound for my FRFR. Somehow the more middy sounds of DC end up projecting so much better out of my speaker, definitely gets closer to the elusive amp in the room feel
 
Karl Houseknecht said:
Hasn’t the chief complaint been that they lack mid content?
Click to expand...
compared to what?? - i still see no way to make such comparisons or overall assessments - in order to say Dynacabs generally lack x y or z one would have to capture the same physical cab using the DC mics, preamps + methodology, and compare that to the same physical cabs captured using some other mics, preamps + methodology. Noone has done that, so imo, tho contested in other threads, there is no basis to make blanket statements like Dynacabs overall, lack x y or z. What I do suspect to be occurring is that it takes time for folks to learn how to mix using the DC tools and Cablab4 (+ no ready made mixes), so when results lack x, y or z there is a tendency to say "well, that's the way DCs are".

Rather than wait for a Mesa 412 DC to be released in cablab4 so I can convert my 4 slot Mesa412 DC cab block to 2 slot DC cab block, I've been working with the 1x10 Metro Blues cab in cablab4 - amazing the range of sounds that can be got out of it.
 
Last edited:
sprint said:
compared to what?? - i still see no way to make such comparisons or overall assessments - in order to say Dynacabs generally lack x y or z one would have to capture the same physical cab using the DC mics, preamps + methodology, and compare that to the same physical cabs captured using some other mics, preamps + methodology. Noone has done that, so imo, tho contested in other threads, there is no basis to make blanket statements like Dynacabs overall, lack x y or z. What I do suspect to be occurring is that it takes time for folks to learn how to mix using the DC tools and Cablab4 (+ no ready made mixes), so when results lack x, y or z there is a tendency to say "well, that's the way DCs are".

Rather than wait for a Mesa 412 DC to be released in cablab4 so I can convert my 4 slot Mesa412 DC cab block to 2 slot DC cab block, I've been working with the 1x10 Metro Blues cab in cablab4 - amazing the range of sounds that can be got out of it.
Click to expand...
The comments about DCs lacking mids are usually in reference to the Legacy IRs, this is an observation that was made when the DCs were released. It was stated by Cliff that the DCs are being captured with a different preamp than the Legacy IRs, a Neve rather than an API, with the Neve producing IRs with less mids. https://forum.fractalaudio.com/thre...2-00-public-beta-2-beta-7.193588/post-2409867

It would be interesting to know if any of the cabs the Legacy IRs were created with are the same ones that were used to capture the Dyna Cabs. If so, it would be fairly easy to make direct comparisons.
 
JoKeR III said:
It would be interesting to know if any of the cabs the Legacy IRs were created with are the same ones that were used to capture the Dyna Cabs. If so, it would be fairly easy to make direct comparisons.
Click to expand...
+1 - and to my point, difficult or impossible to assess with any accuracy if not the same cabs, even if the pre used is known (+I've not seen any of the stated assessments of DC cabs lacking x y or z even state which specific cabIRs are being compared to arrive at the conclusion - hence why I shake my head a bit - I guess I'm just not a big believer in what we may think we hear, without some kind of basic rigor to be able to confirm it somehow - in this case, I don't see a way)
 
Last edited:
Karl Houseknecht said:
What I'd really like to see here is a mid frequency and Q control for the mid parameter of the preamp in the cab block. Then we can add in what we need without resorting to an extra EQ block and it's easy to save as a block in the library.
Click to expand...

Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but couldn't you just make that adjustment in the Amp block's output EQ to compensate since it already has the built in functionality?
 
Karl Houseknecht said:
Maybe, but it's not quite the same. And it's not something you could save as a single block in the library so it's instantly re-usable elsewhere. I have to figure there's static Q and frequency parameters for the mid control already there. Just expose them as knobs and done.
Click to expand...
A good workaround is in the Input EQ of the Amp block. Using the 'Peaking' Type, you can set the Frequency, Q and Gain to adjust the mids that are missing to too prominent depending upon the speaker used.
 
Karl Houseknecht said:
Maybe, but it's not quite the same.
Click to expand...

Why is it not quite the same, beyond the EQ not being a separate block?

You said yourself that you want post-gain, pre-amp Cab block tone sculpting, which the output EQ would do exactly that since it's post-gain on the Amp block, pre-amp on the Cab block.

Karl Houseknecht said:
And it's not something you could save as a single block in the library so it's instantly re-usable elsewhere. I have to figure there's static Q and frequency parameters for the mid control already there. Just expose them as knobs and done.
Click to expand...

Why would you use the same EQ settings on different amps and/or different cabs?
 
Karl Houseknecht said:
Because that's what I'm used to with traditional IRs. They come with EQ baked in. The idea here is to replicate that.
Click to expand...
I'm still not understanding why using the output EQ on the amp block isn't a sufficient solution since it wouldn't require an extra EQ block, and uses functionality that's already available in the FM9. Sure it doesn't allow you to copy/paste the EQ, but why would you use the same IR EQ between different amps? If that's something you want to do, why not save an EQ block with the exact settings you like and use it as a reference?

I'm personally stuck on the idea of using the same EQ between different amps/amp types. The idea of that gives me the ick.
 
I have only tried the Dyna-cabs with the new Revv amps. And they sound good enough. Have not tried them with other amps yet.
Will test that out this weekend. lol.... :cool: .......Results post reply coming soon.....To be continued.

Maybe Fractal Admin could post a reply about getting the best out of Dyna-cabs ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom