• We would like to remind our members that this is a privately owned, run and supported forum. You are here at the invitation and discretion of the owners. As such, rules and standards of conduct will be applied that help keep this forum functioning as the owners desire. These include, but are not limited to, removing content and even access to the forum.

    Please give yourself a refresher on the forum rules you agreed to follow when you signed up.

Nothing beats the "TV mix" Cabs, not even UltraRes (Opinion)

Gamedojo

Power User
I would say Engl A is the TV cab and Marshall B is the TV cab
Engl B And Marshall A got much more clarity so i guess these are the one with your personal pairing.
cheers
A is the same for both and B is the same for both

B is the TV Cab
 

slinky005

Power User
My humble opinion is that UltraRes doesn't make an IR better. The difference between UltraRes, HiRes and NormalRes IR's is soooooooo small. I feel like it's all just Nokia-like "we need to sound better on paper than the competition" malarkey. Making people pay more to get the UltraRes versions cracks me up. Sure it's using a longer IR but when even trained ears (not talking about my own) can't really hear a difference I'm saying you're paying for audibly nothing sadly. But once again that's just me.

TV is pretty good for that Marshall thing! Check these out though: http://forum.fractalaudio.com/axe-fx-ii-user-cabs-irs/84096-clark-kents-zero-currency-ultrares-ir-collection.html
Hogwash.
I get a woody now when I'm playing with the UR cabs.
Can't argue with that.
 

clarky

Axe-Master
Whatever. :) I bet you haven't a/b'd it vs normal res.
I just have…
cab1 and cab2 set up exactly the same…
both cab1 and cab2 loaded with the Engl 4x12 new05
mic in both set to none
bypass in both = mute

just a 65 Bassman into these two cabs..
the two cabs in parallel
nothing else on the grid..

cab1 = hi / ultra
cab2 = normal

I repeatedly switched between the two…
and I couldn't hear any difference..

get out of jail free: I don't have the best ears on the planet.. that said.. nothing stood out to me..
 

clarky

Axe-Master
hmmmm I detect an up side….

I adore these new Engl's
to my ear they have similar 'stuff' to my beloved TV and AX mix cabs..
but they seem to have bigger spuds and better clarity…

and…
my current studio presets use a single stereo cab [TV left / AX right]
this is for a few reasons..
- I like the sound of running two different cabs simultaneously and panned wide
- a stereo cab is less CPU than a pair of mono's [and CPU is an issue with some of my presets]
- a stereo cab is less grid footprint
- I can't hear the difference between normal, high and now ultra, so for my practice presets it makes no difference to me
- in my opinion, the tonal gains of a pair of cabs panned wide vastly out performs a single hires cab in mono [and now I'm thinking URes too]

now.. I need to think about swapping out my TV and AX with these Engls in my studio presets
the New05 left, and either the New04 or New06 to the right.. or maybe the TAF vintage Marshall 4x12 [which is also gorgeous] to the right

I am about to become an even happier pixie with my new cabs..

EDIT: just cos I can't hear the difference, it don't mean it ain't there..
so I could essentially just be exploiting the limitations of my own hearing with my choices…
and live it makes no difference to me anyhow cos I still love [and prefer] to use the big ol' Marshalls..
I just wheel 'em in.. crank 'em up.. do my thing..
and with respect to studio reamping, and safe in the knowledge of my own limitations.. I'll reamp URes anyhow..
 
Last edited:

slinky005

Power User
I would love to hear Cliff's view on this and his impression of the audible difference.
 
Last edited:

clarky

Axe-Master
My unscientific comparison is listening to different cabs, one UR and other HR.
In general the non UR cabs sound thinner.
I mostly listen with headphones, just me playing no backing trks.
that's interesting.. because I wasn't hearing that at all..
maybe I should try my comparison with a wider selection of amps / tones to see if they are affected differently..
so far [as pointed out earlier] I've only tried the 65 Bassman - but that was simply because it was the reamping preset I had fired up at the time..

there was no science.. just playing and listening..
and of course trying to be honest with myself and what I think I heard

EDIT: so far, my only conclusion has been that I really like some of the newer URes cab IR's
I like them very much… but also, I like them in any resolution..
which ever way I tried them, they just sound wonderful to me
 

slinky005

Power User
that's interesting.. because I wasn't hearing that at all..
maybe I should try my comparison with a wider selection of amps / tones to see if they are affected differently..
so far [as pointed out earlier] I've only tried the 65 Bassman - but that was simply because it was the reamping preset I had fired up at the time..

there was no science.. just playing and listening..
and of course trying to be honest with myself and what I think I heard

EDIT: so far, my only conclusion has been that I really like some of the newer URes cab IR's
I like them very much… but also, I like them in any resolution..
which ever way I tried them, they just sound wonderful to me
Very well put.
I think that's the jist of what I'm getting at.
Since the UR have been introduced, it's doing something for ME.
I really don't give a crap about all the compare this and compare that.
 

FractalAudio

Administrator
Fractal Audio Systems
Moderator
I would love to hear Cliff's view on this and his impression of the audible difference.
It depends on the IR. UltraRes improves low-frequency resolution. It is very apparent with some IRs and virtually inaudible with others. It all depends on the low-frequency formants in the original IR. If there are significant, high-Q formants UltraRes will preserve those whereas conventional, short IRs will not.

Audibility also varies with the amp being used. The difference is more audible with high gain as this will excite the formants more.

Low-frequency formants vary with the type of cabinet and speaker. Some cabinets have a smooth low frequency response. Others have prominent formants. The mic also has an impact. Some mics will accentuate the formants. The room also contributes if it has strong LF modes. Furthermore some people like to capture an IR using a tube power amp. In this case you WILL get a significant formant at the low-frequency resonance of the speaker. A conventional IR will not capture that as the Q of the formant will exceed the resolution of the IR. UltraRes will capture that formant as UltraRes has 8 times the low-frequency resolution.

Those who claim they can't hear a difference are correct. They can't. It's nothing to be ashamed of. But because they can't doesn't mean others also cannot. I can clearly hear the difference but I've trained myself on what to listen for. I vastly prefer UltraRes and only use UltraRes IRs in my personal patches (aside from the TV Mix, which is just a magical IR).
 

slinky005

Power User
It depends on the IR. UltraRes improves low-frequency resolution. It is very apparent with some IRs and virtually inaudible with others. It all depends on the low-frequency formants in the original IR. If there are significant, high-Q formants UltraRes will preserve those whereas conventional, short IRs will not.

Audibility also varies with the amp being used. The difference is more audible with high gain as this will excite the formants more.

Low-frequency formants vary with the type of cabinet and speaker. Some cabinets have a smooth low frequency response. Others have prominent formants. The mic also has an impact. Some mics will accentuate the formants. The room also contributes if it has strong LF modes. Furthermore some people like to capture an IR using a tube power amp. In this case you WILL get a significant formant at the low-frequency resonance of the speaker. A conventional IR will not capture that as the Q of the formant will exceed the resolution of the IR. UltraRes will capture that formant as UltraRes has 8 times the low-frequency resolution.

Those who claim they can't hear a difference are correct. They can't. It's nothing to be ashamed of. But because they can't doesn't mean others also cannot. I can clearly hear the difference but I've trained myself on what to listen for. I vastly prefer UltraRes and only use UltraRes IRs in my personal patches (aside from the TV Mix, which is just a magical IR).
This, word for word is what I was thinking. Isn't it obvious.......?
 

rodzimguitar68

Fractal Fanatic
I vastly prefer UltraRes and only use UltraRes IRs in my personal patches (aside from the TV Mix, which is just a magical IR).
Too bad I don't know a guy that could clear out all non- Ultra-Res IR's from my Axe FX II mk I and fill those slots with UltraRes ones (aside from the TV Mix).

The future is now.
 
Does anyone know how the TV Mix was created - what mics, what distance and position, and what ratios? I would love to try that formula on other cabs.
 

clarky

Axe-Master
based on Cliff's comments… I'm thinking that my choice of amp / tone to make the comparison was most likely not the best one..
it just happened to be the amp that was there at the time…

I'm going to compare them again but with amps and tones I'm more familiar with.. 5153Red, Herbert Ch3, VH4ch4
 
Top Bottom