Wish Impedance curve capture with user slots.

York Audio said:
My use case isn’t all that unusual. A lot of people use the Axe with a power amp and a real cab... with no cab block. Or the Axe directly into their DAW and use an IR loading plugin... with no cab block so they can change their sounds after they’ve recorded their performances.

The “Part 2” of your post would be the User Slots part of my wish. We already have quite a few factory curves. My wish adds user slots along with the factory curves in the same window so you can easily access the correct curve for the cab you’re using. Think if it like the cab block... you’ve got factory IRs as well as User slots for any other IR you choose to load. This keeps all of the factory curves we currently have and let’s us add more curves to the list.

What I’m suggesting just adds to what we already have instead of trying to change how blocks interact with each other. Trying to put impedance stuff in the cab block would defeat the purpose of this wish. Keeping curves in the amp block works for everyone’s use (since we already have to change it to suit what’s closest to the cab we’re using). Moving the curves to the cab block would only work for cab block users.

Anyway, I think it would be really awesome and hope that it’s possible to implement.
Click to expand...
+1 on this. It fits with the current topology, provides the flexibility for users to bring their own curves, and avoids a lot of complications when multiple cabs connect to one amp.
 
Unless I missed it in the discussion, some design considerations:
  • What if there are 2 CABs downstream in parallel or series and/or IRP blocks?
  • Would the amp block need to detect which are active?
  • Would the amp block only take the first/"closest" imped curve or one flagged as primary or an average of all active impedance curves? Etc.
This might be why having a single curve in the amp block makes design sense wrt all possible (dynamic) configurations.

That said it would be cool!
 
yyz67 said:
Unless I missed it in the discussion, some design considerations:
  • What if there are 2 CABs downstream in parallel or series and/or IRP blocks?
  • Would the amp block need to detect which are active?
  • Would the amp block only take the first/"closest" imped curve or one flagged as primary or an average of all active impedance curves? Etc.
This might be why having a single curve in the amp block makes design sense wrt all possible (dynamic) configurations.

That said it would be cool!
Click to expand...
If you tried to use an impedance curve downstream, you’d still have to have a “base curve” in the amp block that your new impedance curve would correct. In other words, you’d still need to go to the amp block, select Base Curve, and load in the corrective curve elsewhere for that method to work. It ends up adding more steps than to simply collect the curve data and store it in the amp block with the factory curves. You still go to the amp block to select the proper curve, you just wouldn’t have to load an additional block. It streamlines the whole process with minimal room for user error.
 
York Audio said:
If you tried to use an impedance curve downstream, you’d still have to have a “base curve” in the amp block that your new impedance curve would correct. In other words, you’d still need to go to the amp block, select Base Curve, and load in the corrective curve elsewhere for that method to work. It ends up adding more steps than to simply collect the curve data and store it in the amp block with the factory curves. You still go to the amp block to select the proper curve, you just wouldn’t have to load an additional block. It streamlines the whole process with minimal room for user error.
Click to expand...
I believe he's referring to my suggestion of having the amp block detect the downstream cabinet to retrieve the impedance curve from the "bundle" which contains both the IR and impedance curve. That would be the way to "streamline the whole process with minimal room for user error", since you'd only have to load one thing into one block instead of two things into two blocks.

But, as was discussed above, that would require Cliff to move the storage of impedance curves from the amp block to the cab block (even though the impedance curve would still be applied in the amp block). Then it would make sense to extend the IR format to include the matching impedance curve since those two things are a matched set. Realistically, though, I can't see a design change like this happening in the AxeFX III, but it's probably worth considering for the AxeFX IV.

In any case, this only addresses the issue of how to deliver the impedance curves to users. Your idea of measuring the impedance curve is the important part and is a great idea.
 
Last edited:
GlennO said:
He's referring to my suggestion of having the amp block detect the downstream cabinet to retrieve the impedance curve from the "bundle" which contains both the IR and impedance curve. That would be the way to "streamline the whole process with minimal room for user error", since you'd only have to load one thing into one block instead of two things into two blocks.

But, as was discussed above, that would require Cliff to move the storage of impedance curves from the amp block to the cab block (even though the impedance curve would still be applied in the amp block). Then it would make sense to extend the IR format to include the matching impedance curve since those two things are a matched set. Realistically, though, I can't see a design change like this happening in the AxeFX III, but it's probably worth considering for the AxeFX IV.

In any case, this only addresses the issue of how to deliver the impedance curves to users. Your idea of measuring the impedance curve is the important part and is a great idea.
Click to expand...
I guess I don't understand the benefit of storing another IR layer somewhere else when you could have everything in one place that works for everyone's use case.
Please correct me if I'm unclear, but it sounds like...

Your approach:
1. Choose Base Curve in Amp block (a new curve Cliff would have to create to use as a uniform starting point for all impedance captures since the new curve data would be applied to it in order to "correct" the curve in the Amp block to match your own cabs)
2. Capture cabinet impedance curve data (determine where to store it... cab slots or a new Impedance block?)
3. Load Impedance correction curve in Cab Block (which would require serial processing instead of the current parallel processing)

Even if all of this was implemented, it only helps those who work entirely with the Cab block and wouldn't work for those who use live cabs, IR loading plugins, or send an IR (Cab block) to FOH while also running a live cab (not going through the Cab block) with a power amp.

The user error comes into play where someone has to make sure they have the Base curve, Impedance correction curve, and cab IR processing type (series/parallel) all set correctly in various blocks and windows for it to be accurate. If any one of those three steps doesn't match, then you lose accuracy and have to figure out what isn't set up properly.

My approach:
1. Capture impedance curve data
2. Save actual curve data to User slot in Amp block's Impedance curve list.

This approach retains the current method of selecting whichever curve matches the cabinet/IR you're using. It would work for traditional Cab block users, live cab users, IR plugin users, and hybrid IR/live cab users without having to select any additional files, add blocks, change processing types, etc...
 
I'm just pointing out the storage of the impedance curve isn't in the right place. It's a property of the cabinet/speaker, not the amp. (It needs to be applied in the amp block, but that doesn't mean it needs to be stored in the amp block.) Further, it's a matched set with the IR. The two go together. So, when you load an IR, that should automatically load the matching impedance curve.

Current method:
1. Load the IR into the cab block.
2. Find the matching impedance curve and load that into the amp block.

What I'm suggesting is:
1. Load the IR into the cab block and this automatically loads the matching impedance curve.
2. There is no step 2 :).

I fear this is derailing the thread though, so feel free to start a new thread if it's still not clear.
 
GlennO said:
I'm just pointing out the storage of the impedance curve isn't in the right place. It's a property of the cabinet/speaker, not the amp. (It needs to be applied in the amp block, but that doesn't mean it needs to be stored in the amp block.) Further, it's a matched set with the IR. The two go together. So, when you load an IR, that should automatically load the matching impedance curve.

Current method:
1. Load the IR into the cab block.
2. Find the matching impedance curve and load that into the amp block.

What I'm suggesting is:
1. Load the IR into the cab block and this automatically loads the matching impedance curve.
2. There is no step 2 :).

I fear this is derailing the thread though, so feel free to start a new thread if it's still not clear.
Click to expand...
It still only helps Cab block users. Plus, IR makers would have to create double the files to accommodate a specific Fractal “extended” IR format along with normal IRs that work with every platform. It just seems like a lot of extra work that only benefits one type of user rather than keeping it localized where it works with all types of users.

Discussion is good, and it’s nice to bring all ideas to the table. We don’t even know if Cliff is open to the idea or not. I’m just hoping to find the most direct solution with the least amount of complications, especially since all of the blocks work independently at the moment.
 
York Audio said:
It still only helps Cab block users. Plus, IR makers would have to create double the files to accommodate a specific Fractal “extended” IR format along with normal IRs that work with every platform. It just seems like a lot of extra work that only benefits one type of user rather than keeping it localized where it works with all types of users.

Discussion is good, and it’s nice to bring all ideas to the table. We don’t even know if Cliff is open to the idea or not. I’m just hoping to find the most direct solution with the least amount of complications, especially since all of the blocks work independently at the moment.
Click to expand...

You're right, the expedient way to deliver impedance curves to users is to use the existing design and not rely on proposed new features. And it's also true that improving ease of use (for example, the one-step workflow I described above) for end users would require effort from developers. That's been true since the dawn of mankind when it comes to new features that improve ease of use :). But one can easily imagine tools that IR developers could employ to automate the packaging of IRs and impedance curves.
 
GlennO said:
You're right, the expedient way to deliver impedance curves to users is to use the existing design and not rely on proposed new features. And it's also true that improving ease of use (for example, the one-step workflow I described above) for end users would require effort from developers. That's been true since the dawn of mankind when it comes to new features that improve ease of use :). But one can easily imagine tools that IR developers could employ to automate the packaging of IRs and impedance curves.
Click to expand...
I’m still saying that your approach won’t work for people who don’t use a cab block and still use Fractal’s amp modeling with alternative cab options.

I understand that you feel the way you do, and maybe someday Cliff will rewrite everything to work as you’re describing. As an IR maker and someone who uses the Axe in the studio, live, by itself as well as coupled with analog gear, it just makes sense to me to keep things as they are and expand on something that is already great.
 
York Audio said:
I’m still saying that your approach won’t work for people who don’t use a cab block and still use Fractal’s amp modeling with alternative cab options.
Click to expand...
Sure it will. I think you're assuming that a significant design change like this wouldn't also have a user interface change to go with it. It would, and there are any number of ways to design the user interface for this feature to accommodate the needs of users who are not using an IR.

Again, I don't see this happening in the AxeFX III, but I believe it's a worthwhile idea to consider for the AxeFX IV.
 
Great feature to have. But I shudder at the thought of now having a 1000 slots of impedance curves, cross 1000s of cabs. I think the whole IR / impedance thing needs to be revamped, at least from a UI perspective to make it simple to get the sound you need.
The amps are so easy. Plop them in, turn a few knobs and you have it. IRs are such a rabbit hole, that I just want to find 1 or 2 IRs and roll with them for everything. It’s just too daunting to tackle a list of 1000s of files.

Ideally - a two notes kind of interface to mic the cab which comes preloaded with its impedance curve. So much more easier to dial in a sound that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom