Helix 3.5 New Cab Engine is Awesome! Fractal needs to catch up!

[NeoSound]

Fractal should catch up to line6??? LOL!!!!!

Have you not noticed all of the updates related to cab interaction and realism in the last couple years by Cliff? Cygnus X2? Line6 will never catch up.

The graphical interface for mic selection and placement has been around for a long time. Almost all modern irs have mics and positions baked into them, so unless all of the ir makers get on board with new methods and techniques this is a simulation running through an algorithm to approximate something. May be nice to look at and even sound good, but accurate? Don't think so.

 

[fractalz]

Fractal should catch up to line6??? LOL!!!!!

Have you not noticed all of the updates related to cab interaction and realism in the last couple years by Cliff? Cygnus X2? Line6 will never catch up.

The graphical interface for mic selection and placement has been around for a long time. Almost all modern irs have mics and positions baked into them, so unless all of the ir makers get on board with new methods and techniques this is a simulation running through an algorithm to approximate something. May be nice to look at and even sound good, but accurate? Don't think so.

The UI could be improved so much to make finding the right cab+mic+mic position pleasurable rather than tedious.

I get why it's not a priority, but this and the whole block/algorithm/preset scheme are ripe for improvement.

 

[Bioloop]

Fractal should catch up to line6??? LOL!!!!!

Have you not noticed all of the updates related to cab interaction and realism in the last couple years by Cliff? Cygnus X2? Line6 will never catch up.

The graphical interface for mic selection and placement has been around for a long time. Almost all modern irs have mics and positions baked into them, so unless all of the ir makers get on board with new methods and techniques this is a simulation running through an algorithm to approximate something. May be nice to look at and even sound good, but accurate? Don't think so.

Think they’re saying the Helix”really sucked” and it’s trying to catch up…

 

[rsvette12]

Thanks for sharing - Helix still sounds like crap the IR implementation is a nice to have but the AXE III is superior in the sound dept

 

[NeoSound]

1. set up preset chain pictured below
2. choose amp
3. record riff with looper & play
4. scan ir library
5. fine tune with impedance curve

After playing with enough irs to know what I like and have a handful of favorites, it doesn't take long to find a great base tone. This seems pretty easy.

 

[Michael R]

If Fractal ever "catches" up with Line 6 to make that kind of cab engine then I hope they leave the existing cab blocks the same and just come up with a new block that a user could use named "BS Cab" block.

 

[holgar]

I also think that the UI is fine. My problem at the beginning was the large range of IRs and an inscrutable sorting. Since I limit myself to the ownhammer revolution pack and have understood the system behind it, it goes very easily and quickly.

 

[sprint]

Mikko's UI selection UX is exactly what I am advocating here, e.g. some similar UX like that to be supported by Fractal natively.

Even if Axfx had graphical IR selection, I woundn't use it because I always use mixed IRs (ie 57/121) of which there are few in the stock list. (yes, I could "mix on the fly" in the cab block but I don't due to the resulting hi cpu usage). Same with Helix - wouldn't use their graphical UI selection since I can't mix (+ *Helix does not provide "mix on the fly" to the extent Fractal does). I'd wonder if we would have arrived at the advanced level of modelling we have in Axfx today had Fractal diverted likely limited resources toward a graphical UI for IR selection. I like the focus Fractal has toward maximizing modelling accuracy while I mix my preferred IRs externally either thru a graphical tool like Mikko or other (ie Cablab - tho less convenient w/o graphical UI), or use vendor premixes.

 

[Fenderbendr]

I don't want to spend hours playing with different mics and mic positions. I just use a York IR with one of his preset mixes and they sound great without any tweaking. I've tried a Helix a few times and always come back to Fractal. It just sounds and feels better, even with the same IR's on both. I also much prefer knobs instead of the sliders Helix uses.

 

[GlennO]

I do like the way the cabs are organized by size and type, and something similar with the FAS factory cabs would be pretty useful. That's why the wish list exists right

And this has been in the wish list forum for years: https://forum.fractalaudio.com/thre...-presets-irs-and-blocks-and-set-lists.162038/

But I think your point hits on the bigger issue here. A flat list of hundreds of IR's which cannot be moved without breaking presets makes the IR library nearly unmanageable. A draggable mic UI is helpful not simply because it is graphical, but because all the mic position IR's for a speaker/mic collapse into a single entry in your IR library, making the library much simpler to navigate, manage, and organize.

There really is a good reason other modelers are adopting a graphical UI. They're not doing it just to add eye candy.

 

[lqdsnddist]

I’d say there is no question a graphical UI makes it easier if your doing something like wanting to change position, axis etc. dragging a virtual mic back 6”, off axis 2” in one mouse movement is a lot easier than finding the list of IR’s for distance then finding the off axis one….

Then let’s say you want to switch mic types, toggle a list of mic models is sure faster than opening a folder of 400 IR’s, finding the mic type, distance etc all over again…

Then let’s say you want dual mics, again way quicker to visually see what’s going on and have everything change in the background.

Whole reason (imo) people like the ready made blends from IR producers is because it’s a PITA to do that work yourself lol.

Sit down with a folder of 600 files to work with or just pick one easy to use one someone already said works good ?

Again, the current system works, sounds good in the end, but working with 4 IR’s in the III with all the relative mix adjustments, often arbitrary labeling methods per providers, endless folders on the PC, scratch pads etc…..

It’s not an elegant solution or workflow compared to something like the Two Notes app where you can just touch and move stuff around and have essentially real-time experience.

Don’t really see it as a point that can really be argued honestly lol

 

[FractalAudio]

We could do it but it would break existing presets.

 

[GlennO]

We could do it but it would break existing presets.

FYI, Line6 handled this by adding a new cab block type.

But...I'm surprised to hear you worry about maintaining preset compatibility. .

 

[GreatGreen]

For front panel editing, there's really no need for a fancy UI with a picture of a mic and speaker to get the same functionality of the Helix. What you'd need for the Axe-Fx would be a list of built-in search filters (mic, speaker model, number of speakers in the cab, cab brand, etc) to narrow down from the list of displayed IR's already in the Axe-Fx and that would be enough.

For Axe Edit, I like the idea of a tagging system where you can filter by search phrases. This kind of thing currently can't really be done in Axe Edit because of how the search function interprets the "space" character. What I mean is that if I'm looking for IR's in Axe Edit and type "2x12" and hit enter, I'll get a list of 2x12's. Good deal. And if I type "57" and hit enter, I'll get a list of all IR's that contain "57" in the name. Fine. However, if I type "2x12 57" and hit enter, the search results come up blank because the search function is looking only for that specific string of characters, which no IRs contain.

It would be more useful if the "space" character wasn't viewed as a part of the search string, but was instead viewed as a separator for search terms in an AND/OR format. Default could be the more narrow AND format so if you type "2x12 57" you'd get a list of IR's containing both "2x12" and "57" terms, but if you typed "2x12 or 57" you'd get a list of everything that contained either one of those terms.

 

[Dave Merrill]

I like the idea of a tagging system where you can filter by search phrases. This kind of thing currently can't really be done in Axe Edit because of how the search function interprets the "space" character. What I mean is that if I'm looking for IR's in Axe Edit and type "2x12" and hit enter, I'll get a list of 2x12's. Good deal. And if I type "57" and hit enter, I'll get a list of all IR's that contain "57" in the name. Fine. However, if I type "2x12 57" and hit enter, the search results come up blank because the search function is looking only for that specific string of characters, which no IRs contain.

It would be more useful if the "space" character wasn't viewed as a part of the search string, but was instead viewed as a separator for search terms in an AND/OR format. Default could be the more narrow AND format so if you type "2x12 57" you'd get a list of IR's containing both "2x12" and "57" terms, but if you typed "2x12 or 57" you'd get a list of everything that contained either one of those terms.

For front panel editing, there's really no need for a fancy UI with a picture of a mic and speaker to get the same functionality of the Helix. What you'd need for the Axe-Fx would be a list of built-in search filters (mic, speaker model, number of speakers in the cab, cab brand, etc) to narrow down from the list of displayed IR's already in the Axe-Fx and that would be enough.

Plus a bunch for search term conjunctions of some kind, so you can AND or OR separate search terms.

 

[Greg Ferguson]

I do like the way the cabs are organized by size and type, and something similar with the FAS factory cabs would be pretty useful.

I think that'd be useful too. IF there was some metadata associated with the cabs, or if the names were structured so they could be parsed into usable fields, then we could sort, but, as is, it'd be like herding cats with the current variety of naming schemes and no metadata.

If the IR vendors created a consortium and came up with a consistent naming scheme that'd be wonderful, but they're probably another example of herding cats.

 

[Dave Merrill]

^^^ This, unfortunately.

Mikko and TwoNotes only work with their own cabs, with their own custom organization and presumably metadata.

 

[stdout]

^^^^

imo it would be of benefit to everyone if there was a common standard. It’s the primary reason MIDI is influential. A consortium led by Fractal+Line6+Kemper with open participation to IR vendors would go a long way to accomplishing that. A tide that lifts all boats.

 

[Dave Merrill]

^^^^

imo it would be of benefit to everyone if there was a common standard. It’s the primary reason MIDI is influential. A consortium led by Fractal+Line6+Kemper with open participation to IR vendors would go a long way to accomplishing that. A tide that lifts all boats.

That'd be cool, but there are so many IRs out there already, commercial and not, it'd be a shame to leave those behind.

 

[Mark Al]

Guys, please do not make this a Helix vs Axe III discussion. I owned and played both for years, no doubt I much prefer what I get out of Fractal.

As an avid fan of Fractal, I just want it better, that Is all.

How good Helix cabs sound is NOT relevant here. We are only saying that UX/workflow is clearly better than what we have in Fractal flat folder. I have confidence that Fractal will implement it better should they decide to do so.