New DynaCab Pack! 1x12 Freed Man "Red Back"

Dave Merrill said:
I guess it wasn't clear what I meant, I'll have another go...

POSSIBILITY 1
Choosing a SIC just presets the values of the numeric parameters. You can edit those parameters, which means the settings in effect don't correspond to the displayed SIC any more. The SIC setting itself has no effect except as a "preset" for those params.

POSSIBILITY 2
Choosing a SIC sets the underlying "mode" for this aspect of the modeling. You can edit the numeric parameters, but nothing you do will turn one SIC into another one, because the underlying operating "mode" is different. It's similar to amps and their settings. Copying the visible settings from a Deluxe to a Splawn won't make them the same, because a different amp model is in effect.

Is that clearer?

I'd love to know which of those possibilities is actually how it works. @FractalAudio?
Click to expand...
That helps me understand.

While I don’t have enough information to make that call, I’ve noticed that some SICs have multiple peaks and valleys that aren’t accounted for by the available parameters, and some don’t. That would suggest that there’s something additional going on.
 
Dave Merrill said:
I guess it wasn't clear what I meant, I'll have another go...

POSSIBILITY 1
Choosing a SIC just presets the values of the numeric parameters. You can edit those parameters, which means the settings in effect don't correspond to the displayed SIC any more. The SIC setting itself has no effect except as a "preset" for those params.

POSSIBILITY 2
Choosing a SIC sets the underlying "mode" for this aspect of the modeling. You can edit the numeric parameters, but nothing you do will turn one SIC into another one, because the underlying operating "mode" is different. It's similar to amps and their settings. Copying the visible settings from a Deluxe to a Splawn won't make them the same, because a different amp model is in effect.

Is that clearer?

I'd love to know which of those possibilities is actually how it works. @FractalAudio?
Click to expand...
Another way to say it is that the choice of SIC could itself be a parameter, separate from the visible numeric params.

It might not be something as fundamental or as sophisticated as the choice of an amp model, but it could still be an important component of the final curve that's in effect.
 
I kinda get the idea sometimes that Fractal may chime in to "adjust" Axfx related discussions that are light years from correct reality, but may also hang back while forum chuckleheads are flailing, yet nonetheless circling around in the correct ballpark of the answer they seek lol.

I delved further into the question (are there unexposed SiC related parms?) today and found that:

The Cab Res knob affected portion of the overall curve (typically seen as the ripples in the middle) does not seem defineable with the exposed parameters (not that I can find anyway). These ripples (which vary in shape from one stock SiC selection to another) can be reduced or removed by turning the Cab Res knob to values below 100% and down to 0%, or can be accentuated by turning the Cab Res knob to values greater than 100%, but the shape of these "Cab Resonances" look to be defined internally. If correct, this is interesting in that:
  • It means the "cab resonance" aspect of a measured personal cab or IR provided by an IR maker can't be defined manually into the speaker page curve representation using the exposed parameters. Much of the overall curve's cab influence can be entered manually using the HF Reso + LF Reso controls, but not the "cab res" part - hmmm.
  • The magnitude of the "cab res" portion of the overall curve is often small in relation to the effect of HF Reso / LF Reso controls, but there's some exceptions. I see we can isolate the "cab res" portion by turning HF Reso, LF Reso, LF Xformer all the way down and HF Xformer all the way up + Cab Res set @ 100%. Do this for various SiC selections and you'll see many where "cab res" makes small / moderate impacts and a couple that are significantly large (ie check 412 Rumble whose "cab res" influence is huge).
So is it still worth obtaining SiC related measurements for IR packs and real personal cabs? - I think so because the LF+HF Reso parameters seem to make up most of the cab side influence most of the time (turn those down to 0 and the overall curve goes pretty flat for many stock SiC selections with LF Xfrmer minimized and HF Xfrmer max'd), but there are exceptions like 412 Rumble where it looks like significantly influencing "cab res" measurements for an external cab or IR pack could not be manually entered.

Still doesn't answer the question completely as there could still be other hidden factors at play - pretty clear though that there's a strong relationship between stock SiC selection and the exposed parms (almost certainly not completely separate - rather mostly one and the same (as one would logically expect) with "cab res" seeming to be the only difference found so far) since we can see the numbers spinnng and the overall curve changing as the stock SiC selection changes, and we can hear that setting the parms manually (with resistive load as the base) to match a stock SiC selection affects the tone quite similarly with exception of those few stock SiCs (ie Rumble412) that have big cab res bumps.

In summary, compared to previous conclusion, stock defined SiC curves have a bit more definition included (the Cab resonances) that is not reflected in the exposed parameters (thinking about what it would take to make cab resonances user definable (multiple sets of freq/q/gain controls (one set for each little bump)), imo - not practical to have in the UI - so, ideally, would be great to have stock measured SiCs added to match any CL4 packs released, even those with no on board DC counterpart - slightly less ideal but still worthwhile imo, provide the SiC specs in pack description).
 
Last edited:
One more interesting observation about stock SiC selection and possible unexposed SiC parms (then I'm done 🤣). I notice the following which is odd (maybe a bug?):

If I copy amp1 block to amp2 block and make the following changes in amp2 (see screenshots below):
  • Select a different amp model.
  • Set the SiC curve to the same selection as amp1.
  • Set the Lo and Hi Xformer values to the same selection as amp1.
Based on how I understand the SiC related modelling works (the defined overall speaker page curve (SiC + Xformer influences), and other speaker page parms (compliance ...), is digested by the p.a. modelling engine to produce the unique tonal influence of the amp/cab interaction (more pronounced with lesser neg fdbk) - described by Fractal here), I don't understand why the 2 curves depicted below are slightly different (more lo bump in the JP2C) - logically, even when 2 different amps are selected, if the same SiC + Xformer values are present for both blocks, I would have thought that the equally defined curves presented to the p.a. modelling in both cases should be identical visually (the impact on what ultimately comes out of the amp blocks would not be the same, but the speaker curve presented should be the same based on my understanding so far). Tho, like the cab res observation above, the difference is small, it is consistently there more or less (this is the largest variation I could find) with any pair of amps set up to be equal wrt to SiC + Xformer values on the speaker page. I tried also matching all the amp2 advanced p.a. parms to amp1 but that did not remove the difference. I can't think of a way to test if this is just a graphic anomoly or if the difference is generating a sonic impact from the power amps' reaction to 2 slightly different curves.

1713796325796.png
1713796351522.png
 
Last edited:
sprint said:
One more interesting observation about stock SiC selection and possible unexposed SiC parms (then I'm done 🤣). I notice the following which is odd (maybe a bug?):

If I copy amp1 block to amp2 block and make the following changes in amp2 (see screenshots below):
  • Select a different amp model.
  • Set the SiC curve to the same selection as amp1.
  • Set the Lo and Hi Xformer values to the same selection as amp1.
Based on how I understand the SiC related modelling works (the defined overall speaker page curve (SiC + Xformer influences), and other speaker page parms (compliance ...), is digested by the p.a. modelling engine to produce the unique tonal influence of the amp/cab interaction (more pronounced with lesser neg fdbk) - described by Fractal here), I don't understand why the 2 curves depicted below are slightly different (more lo bump in the JP2C) - logically, even when 2 different amps are selected, if the same SiC + Xformer values are present for both blocks, I would have thought that the equally defined curves presented to the p.a. modelling in both cases should be identical visually (the impact on what ultimately comes out of the amp blocks would not be the same, but the speaker curve presented should be the same based on my understanding so far). Tho, like the cab res observation above, the difference is small, it is consistently there more or less (this is the largest variation I could find) with any pair of amps set up to be equal wrt to SiC + Xformer values on the speaker page. I tried also matching all the amp2 advanced p.a. parms to amp1 but that did not remove the difference. I can't think of a way to test if this is just a graphic anomoly or if the difference is generating a sonic impact from the power amps' reaction to 2 slightly different curves.

View attachment 139247
View attachment 139248
Click to expand...
If it's a "SIC in isolation", then they should be the same modulo a plotting scale factor ("graphic anomoly"). However there does appear to be an HF rolloff on the second one that looks more than the first.

However, the displayed curve could be the "effective in-context impedance", as the virtual speaker would be coupled to a different specific output transformer+tap in each amp model (associated measurements) thus interacting slightly differently with the same virtual speaker.

But this is guessing entirely out of my ars. :rolleyes:
 
yyz67 said:
However, the displayed curve could be the "effective in-context impedance"
Click to expand...
could be, but I got the impression that the curve displayed is before its digestion and interpretation by power amp modelling (ie: like here where it's mentioned that the curve is ultimately effected by the neg feedback setting - if I change the negative feedback setting wildly the speaker curve representation does not change at all which seems to confirm that the displayed curve is only a representation of what is input to the power amp modelling (SiC+Xfrmer+CabRes) and does not graphically reflect any result of what tonal changes the curve ultimately triggered within the power amp modelling. Agreed tho, hard to say for sure - interesting stuff tho eh!
 
yyz67 said:
However, the displayed curve could be the "effective in-context impedance", as the virtual speaker would be coupled to a different specific output transformer+tap in each amp model (associated measurements) thus interacting slightly differently with the same virtual speaker.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that the speaker impedance curve represents the impedance of the speaker itself.

Things like output transformer taps — or any other characteristic of the amp model — can change how the amp reacts to that impedance, but they don't change the speaker's impedance.
 
Did someone record some sound samples of this pack? Would love to hear it in action before buying. Preferably modern or punk rock style tones?
 
DropDee said:
Did someone record some sound samples of this pack? Would love to hear it in action before buying. Preferably modern or punk rock style tones?
Click to expand...
Post a DI clip + associated preset and I'll create / post some reamped demo samples. Let me know what typical mic(s) / mic position(s) you typically like.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom