Hogwash.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
I just have…Whatever. I bet you haven't a/b'd it vs normal res.
that's interesting.. because I wasn't hearing that at all..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.
Very well put.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
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.I would love to hear Cliff's view on this and his impression of the audible difference.
This, word for word is what I was thinking. Isn't it obvious.......?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).
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).I vastly prefer UltraRes and only use UltraRes IRs in my personal patches (aside from the TV Mix, which is just a magical IR).