DynaCab vs DynaCab HD

biggness

biggness

Power User
I’ve tried to get some more information about the new next gen DynaCab HD available in Icons, but due to what I attribute to just too many questions and comments about Icons, it’s went essentially unanswered the few times I’ve asked.

I would like to know what the differences are between the two, other than more available mics to choose from, and what noticeable differences one would hear or notice when comparing the two.

From a different forum:

IMG_3444.jpeg

That’s understandable, and to be expected from our older hardware.

I just want to know what the differences are, and what “higher temporal and spatial resolution” means for the layman.

I seem to recall reading that DynaCab HD are 8k samples. Which I thought we already had? Or at least according to the York Mesa 4x12 DynaCab information.

IMG_3443.jpeg

Thanks in advance, and looking forward to learning more about it. 🤘
 
Last edited by a moderator:
biggness said:
I just want to know what the differences are, and what “higher temporal and spatial resolution” means for the layman.
Click to expand...
Higher temporal resolution = longer IRs.
In another post Cliff mentioned next gen products will have 170ms long IRs including dynacabs, so I guess it's the same in the plugins.
Dynacabs in current hardware are 2048 samples in the axe fx and 1024 samples in fm3 and fm9 (don't recall the length on the am4 atm).

Higher spatial resolution = more IRs per surface of the speaker
Exact numbers are unknown to us mere mortals, but if e.g. dynacabs have a discrete IR every 1 cm, dynacabs HD might have an IR every 0.5 or 0.1 cm.

biggness said:
I seem to recall reading that DynaCab HD are 8k samples. Which I thought we already had? Or at least according to the York Mesa 4x12 DynaCab information
Click to expand...
That might be referred to Cab-Lab packs, on the hardware they're not that long for sure.
 
DLC86 said:
Higher temporal resolution = longer IRs.
In another post Cliff mentioned next gen products will have 170ms long IRs including dynacabs, so I guess it's the same in the plugins.
Dynacabs in current hardware are 2048 samples in the axe fx and 1024 samples in fm3 and fm9 (don't recall the length on the am4 atm).

Higher spatial resolution = more IRs per surface of the speaker
Exact numbers are unknown to us mere mortals, but if e.g. dynacabs have a discrete IR every 1 cm, dynacabs HD might have an IR every 0.5 or 0.1 cm.


That might be referred to Cab-Lab packs, on the hardware they're not that long for sure.
Click to expand...

Thanks, man.

Am I misunderstanding that the York Mesa DynaCabs will sound “better” if ran through CabLab at 8192 samples instead of natively on the AxeFx at 2048 samples?
 
biggness said:
Thanks, man.

Am I misunderstanding that the York Mesa DynaCabs will sound “better” if ran through CabLab at 8192 samples instead of natively on the AxeFx at 2048 samples?
Click to expand...
Well, "better" is subjective, as one might prefer a shorter IR for a tighter sound. But if that's really the case, they will contain more room information on cab-lab for sure.
 
biggness said:
Thanks, man.

Am I misunderstanding that the York Mesa DynaCabs will sound “better” if ran through CabLab at 8192 samples instead of natively on the AxeFx at 2048 samples?
Click to expand...
With Cab Lab, you can export as UltraRes. I personally think UltraRes sounds better but opinions vary. Do you like UltraRes more for other things? Try taking an UltraRes IR and changing the length between Max and 2048.
 
giantslayer said:
Am I correct in understanding the new software is basically running CabLab specs, or are there more differences?
Click to expand...

I’m curious about this as well.

I do find it peculiar though that a new tech was released for us, and there’s basically crickets about it. Even after asking multiple times.

I guess FAS hasn’t told people what to praise about it yet. 😅
 
biggness said:
I’m curious about this as well.

I do find it peculiar though that a new tech was released for us, and there’s basically crickets about it. Even after asking multiple times.

I guess FAS hasn’t told people what to praise about it yet. 😅
Click to expand...
What do you need to know? DynaCab HD has greater temporal and spatial resolution. That says it all.
 
DynaCab HD isn’t about “more mics” or some vague upgrade — it’s about resolution in two dimensions. Temporal resolution means the impulse response runs longer, so you capture more of the speaker’s time behavior: low-frequency bloom, cone decay, subtle resonance tails — the way a cab actually unfolds after the pick attack. Spatial resolution means the speaker surface is sampled more densely, so mic movement across cap-to-edge isn’t stepping between coarse points but transitioning through finer positional increments with smoother phase interaction. In practice, that translates to more continuous mic positioning, more complete low-end development over time, and less interpolation “grain” when dialing sweet spots. It doesn’t automatically sound brighter or hyped — it sounds more continuous in space and more complete in time. And the 8k sample references typically relate to export length (Cab-Lab/UltraRes), not necessarily what older hardware processes internally. In short: same DynaCab concept — just higher resolution on both axes.
 
ulti said:
DynaCab HD isn’t about “more mics” or some vague upgrade — it’s about resolution in two dimensions. Temporal resolution means the impulse response runs longer, so you capture more of the speaker’s time behavior: low-frequency bloom, cone decay, subtle resonance tails — the way a cab actually unfolds after the pick attack. Spatial resolution means the speaker surface is sampled more densely, so mic movement across cap-to-edge isn’t stepping between coarse points but transitioning through finer positional increments with smoother phase interaction. In practice, that translates to more continuous mic positioning, more complete low-end development over time, and less interpolation “grain” when dialing sweet spots. It doesn’t automatically sound brighter or hyped — it sounds more continuous in space and more complete in time. And the 8k sample references typically relate to export length (Cab-Lab/UltraRes), not necessarily what older hardware processes internally. In short: same DynaCab concept — just higher resolution on both axes.
Click to expand...
Artificial Intelligence Ai GIF
 
DLC86 said:
Well, "better" is subjective, as one might prefer a shorter IR for a tighter sound
Click to expand...

You might distinguish between the ways people use the word "tight".

I'll try to explain what I mean.

“Tight” can of course mean short in time (shorter "decay", more "damped") BUT it can also be used to describe how frequency content and response makes a sound feel more controlled.

Those two meanings are interrelated but they aren’t the same thing. IRs affect both meanings. They shape frequency response... over time.

Frequency response is going to be right up front. How did the speaker respond? How did the mic capture that?

Think of the time part as a "listening window". Cabs and the spaces they’re in have resonances that linger, and a longer IR reproduces more of what happened there. A shorter IR cuts things off sooner.

Either way, depending on a lot of variables (amp, settings, guitar, playing, resonances in the physical space you listening in, etc.) even the shortest possible IR could result in you hearing a sound that may or may not be perceived as tight.

Depending on the IR and where/how it was captured, more length will let you feel more of the the resonant box of the cabinet, or more of the space of the room/studio. These things "cradle" that up-front tonal color of the IR!

A fun experiment is to load an IR of a long space and try it at a short length. You'll hear the sonic window "shifting" through time.... but no moment ever extends to let you hear the tail. People say this "feels like a gate" ....But a gate is level-dependent. In comparison, the truncated IR only contains at any moment as much of history as the IR length allows.

(Paging Tom Baker, or is is Oliver Sacks we need?!)
 
Last edited:
Admin M@ said:
You might distinguish between the ways people use the word "tight".

I'll try to explain what I mean.

“Tight” can of course mean short in time (shorter "decay", more "damped") BUT it can also be used to describe how frequency content and response makes a sound feel more controlled.

Those two meanings are interrelated but they aren’t the same thing. IRs affect both meanings. They shape frequency response... over time.

Frequency response is going to be right up front. How did the speaker respond? How did the mic capture that?

Think of the time part as a "listening window". Cabs and the spaces they’re in have resonances that linger, and a longer IR reproduces more of what happened there. A shorter IR cuts things off sooner.

Either way, depending on a lot of variables (amp, settings, guitar, playing, resonances in the physical space you listening in, etc.) even the shortest possible IR could result in you hearing a sound that may or may not be perceived as tight.

Depending on the IR and where/how it was captured, if it gets long enough you can begin to feel more of the the resonant box of the cabinet, or more of the space of the room/studio. These things cradle the underlying frequency response of the system -- which again, is also represented in the IR.

A great experiment is to load an IR of a long space and try it at a short length. You'll hear the sonic window "shifting" through time.... but no moment ever extends to let you hear the tail. People say this experiment "feels like a gate" ....But a gate is level-dependent. In comparison, the truncated IR only contains at any moment as much of history as the IR length allows.

(Paging Tom Baker, or is is Oliver Sacks we need?!)
Click to expand...
Thanks for this, Matt! Let me ask a question to see if I'm getting it right. The longer IRs that contain more of the cabinet/room resonant and reflective information still are just a frequency filter of sorts, correct? I mean, they are NOT actually producing anything back in the time domain when used (like a reverberation). It's just that the resonances modify the filter, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom