OH MY GOD - CAB block, and the little things.....

S

Sten

Inspired
So I have this...erm....odd way of reading things. In this case, and I guess I didn't see it whilst perusing the manual, I thought 'Mono Lores' and 'Mono Hires' were kinds of....something. Lores. Hires....like rootbeer. NOT Lo-res and Hi-res.

I'd been running Lores....Lo-res. So I switch to Hires....Hi-res....

Oh, and I just finished the Axe Fest vid of Scott Peterson, and adjusted my levels somewhat according to his suggestion of Amp block level versus Output level on the face - mine's zero and 12 o'clock now....

And DAYUM. It sounds....and feels....like an amp. This is through my studio monitors. At low enough volume I can hear myself hum over it*. My main gain patch with a PEQ after the Amp block sounded good. Then I went to the basic Amp/Cab patch it's based on, and that sounded great, too. Like Scott said, and what I like to do, 'keep it simple!' I'm stoked!

So, here's a question: why lo-res on the Cab block, and when would you use it??


*It would actually be way louder, but I'm running into a USB mixer where the overall volume is set lower. So probably 10 o'clock on the Axe level would be similar if my monitors were connected to It.
 
Last edited:
On the AFXII, High Resolution is 2048 samples. Low resolution is 1024 samples; the "High" res on the Ultra was 1024 samples. Some people like to run stereo cabs with two IR's.... and to do that you need to run the cab in "Lo-Res" mode on the AFXII. So 1/2 of 2048 samples is 1024... so when you are in 'lo-res' on the AFXII, you are really still in high resolution on your cab block.

Glad the video helped out. :)
 
Scott Peterson said:
On the AFXII, High Resolution is 2048 samples. Low resolution is 1024 samples; the "High" res on the Ultra was 1024 samples. Some people like to run stereo cabs with two IR's.... and to do that you need to run the cab in "Lo-Res" mode on the AFXII. So 1/2 of 2048 samples is 1024... so when you are in 'lo-res' on the AFXII, you are really still in high resolution on your cab block.

Glad the video helped out. :)
Click to expand...

Oh, now I remember that - but had that Lores/Hires thing stuck in my mind. Also, the internal level I guess I didn't change, though I did change Output Level 1 to 12 o'clock. So I guess it was mostly the Cab block switch to Hi-res. (There really should be a hyphen in Axe Edit.) And that's with a stock IR. I was about ready to switch out my bridge pick-up, and have always been fighting the highs. They have not till now had that Rahnnn jangle-ness. I love it.
 
It's hard for me to detect a difference between lo-res and hi-res. I wonder if what you're hearing and feeling is caused by an overall change in level. Sometimes things really spring to life with just a little more room volume.
 
Rex said:
It's hard for me to detect a difference between lo-res and hi-res. I wonder if what you're hearing and feeling is caused by an overall change in level. Sometimes things really spring to life with just a little more room volume.
Click to expand...

Same for me. The difference is subtle for most of the IR's that I use.
 
I don't hear any difference between LoRes and HiRes at all. Really, no difference.
So in mono mode, I always use LoRes to save CPU.

Amp block level at 0 (with other blocks / output mixer at zero) would cause serious digital clipping in my Axe-Fx.
 
Rex said:
It's hard for me to detect a difference between lo-res and hi-res. I wonder if what you're hearing and feeling is caused by an overall change in level. Sometimes things really spring to life with just a little more room volume.
Click to expand...

barhrecords said:
Same for me. The difference is subtle for most of the IR's that I use.
Click to expand...

yek said:
I don't hear any difference between LoRes and HiRes at all. Really, no difference.
So in mono mode, I always use LoRes to save CPU.

Amp block level at 0 (with other blocks / output mixer at zero) would cause serious digital clipping in my Axe-Fx.
Click to expand...

I do not hear a difference at all between 1024 samples and 2048 samples for the cab block either - it's been explained *many* times in the past that 1024 samples are more than sufficient for high resolution professional level speaker emulation by folks far more into the science of it than I. Still, more is more, so if I can run in 2048 sample mode with a mono cab in the AFXII... then I just run in 2048 sample mode.

I totally agree with Yek as quoted too; I set the amp block to -10db on the output level as a rule of thumb for a starting point for most every preset I work on without exception. I will adjust from there; but that's my starting point universally.
 
Scott Peterson said:
I set the amp block to -10db on the output level as a rule of thumb for a starting point for most every preset I work on without exception. I will adjust from there; but that's my starting point universally.
Click to expand...

Yeah, good advice and well covered in your video!
 
Rex said:
It's hard for me to detect a difference between lo-res and hi-res. I wonder if what you're hearing and feeling is caused by an overall change in level. Sometimes things really spring to life with just a little more room volume.
Click to expand...

I wondered the same thing. If you had previously used something like an earlier Scott P recipe, a stereo cab with one FF cab mixed at -6db or so, and you switch to a mono cab at 0db, I think you'll have a net gain of +3db. That would probably sound "better."
 
I set the Output 'block' instead of at the Amp block. For the FAS6160, I have it around +2 and no clipping in sight. I have the input and channel gains on my mixer about 1 o'clock, recording in my DAW at about 2/3 bandwidth. Going in direct from the Axe, I have 2/3 headroom left. Dunno.

In any case, I here and feel a difference at any volume. I can hear it in my recordings, too. Lo-res sounds squelched, Hi-res I hear a cab in the space. I'm playin more because of it.
 
Hi-rez is only useful for eating CPU unless you are using it for acoustic or bass IRs, in which case the benefit is audible.
 
antcarrier said:
Hi-rez is only useful for eating CPU unless you are using it for acoustic or bass IRs, in which case the benefit is audible.
Click to expand...

I hear it in these recordings. (My first try at X/Y'ing.)








Hi-res has more body (in sound and feel), and the highs blend and yet sound more raging. Of course, I'm pretty happy with this tone here - drive, amp, cab - coming in at 53% usage.
 
Last edited:
I can hear a difference with my headphones, but not so much through my monitors. The biggest tonal difference seems to be lo-res/hi-res vs. stereo. With my old Axe standard, I thought the mono hi-res cabs were fuller and better sounding, but in the Axe II, I generally prefer the stereo cab option. It has a unique 3-D thing going on, which I like a lot.
 
sgplayer76 said:
With my old Axe standard, I thought the mono hi-res cabs were fuller and better sounding, but in the Axe II, I generally prefer the stereo cab option. It has a unique 3-D thing going on, which I like a lot.
Click to expand...

iirc, the standard/utltra "hires" cabs were 1024 bits, while the axe II "lores" (and therefore the stereo) ones are also 1024 bits vs the axe II "hires" ones being 2048
 
Any difference you hear beyond 1024 points is due to room artefacts, not the sound of the cab. However, 2048 points is not enough to capture a room's early reflections. For this sound it is better to use mono hires and use the room simulator in the cab block, or reverb.
 
flying_walrus said:
iirc, the standard/utltra "hires" cabs were 1024 bits, while the axe II "lores" (and therefore the stereo) ones are also 1024 bits vs the axe II "hires" ones being 2048
Click to expand...
You nailed it (except that it's 2048 samples, not bits). In the Axe II, "hi-res" was bumped up to 2048 so you could fit in two 1024 cabs.
 
Sten said:
I hear it in these recordings. (My first try at X/Y'ing.)








Hi-res has more body (in sound and feel), and the highs blend and yet sound more raging. Of course, I'm pretty happy with this tone here - drive, amp, cab - coming in at 53% usage.
Click to expand...


I'm not saying there aren't IR's that are different in low and high res, but be careful of the mp3 codec. It's hard to make apples to apples comparison on audio that is compressed.

Richard
 
barhrecords said:
I'm not saying there aren't IR's that are different in low and high res, but be careful of the mp3 codec. It's hard to make apples to apples comparison on audio that is compressed.

Richard
Click to expand...

Those were exported from my DAW as 16-bit wav files.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom