OwnHammer Speaker Cabinets Public Beta (free stuff inside)

guitarzpt said:
What? No API used :)
Click to expand...

I shot out around a dozen mic amps, these were what made the top four for what I liked and was going for as a sound. I like the API pre's on drum skins the most. There's an API EQ in there though! :)

VegaBaby said:
thanks so much for the detailed update, Kevin !
one more question... is the Modern voicing still similar/same to the betas (IIRC that's the voicing being used there, right ?) or have you tweaked it further ?
Click to expand...

Same as the beta files. I changed one tiny thing but I doubt it will have significant impact on the sound for that voicing.

Richard_G said:
What is this "PRO series" that you speak of?
Click to expand...

Nebula only. Free/continuous range of mic placement anywhere across the face of the speaker, up to a foot back, any measurement in between, as well as up to 45 degrees off axis mic position. All four voicings, none of the modes though. Completely virtualizes near field cabinet micing. I have a couple PRO libraries in my store now, but they're old methods and features compared to what I'm doing next.
 
Super quick and dirty comparison of the voicings from what I sampled today. The mic (stock FatHead II) isn't my #1 favorite, but it's certainly not bad, just a little tubby:

* edit - removed file; see post 520 for info *

The files are 24 bit 44.1 kHz .wav, the differences are subtle enough that I am not sure a 128 kbps crush to soundcloud was going to be as helpful for most playback systems.

It's position 3 (of 9), so a little on the brighter side for that particular mic and it is in normal mode, so no Fat/Warm. This also means it should be the mode with the least variation between voicings as it has the least amount of EQ on it. Old website demo track using a free VST amp sim, bla bla bla.

Hope this helps give sonic context to my prior descriptions. :)
 
Last edited:
I hit like but this deserves two so....Like Like!

This is going to be a BLAST! Thanks Kevin
 
Last edited:
ownhammer said:
Super quick and dirty comparison of the voicings from what I sampled today. The mic (stock FatHead II) isn't my #1 favorite, but it's certainly not bad, just a little tubby:

Quick Voicing Comparison

The files are 24 bit 44.1 kHz .wav, the differences are subtle enough that I am not sure a 128 kbps crush to soundcloud was going to be as helpful for most playback systems.

It's position 3 (of 9), so a little on the brighter side for that particular mic and it is in normal mode, so no Fat/Warm. This also means it should be the mode with the least variation between voicings as it has the least amount of EQ on it. Old website demo track using a free VST amp sim, bla bla bla.

Hope this helps give sonic context to my prior descriptions. :)
Click to expand...
the differences between the voicings are just perfect ! not too much, not too little. comparing to Modern, which we kinda knew already, I really love Balanced and Classic. such detail, clarity and openess in them. can't wait for the release !
 
I actually found the differences very subtle. I couldn't hear the difference between balanced and classic actually. I have to hear it through other systems though.
 
Very very very hip. Through repeated listening through headphones and my studio setup; the differences are indeed nuanced - as they should be; but at the same time... undeniable. Goes to show you - without question - how much the mic pre and the EQ chosen have on adding to the musical timbre we know as guitar tone. This is - IMHO - the last ingredient in a very wonderful tone soup.

I am very excited moving forward.
 
A couple things to keep in mind:

- The more gain, and thus compression, the greater the audible differences will be.
- The louder you play these back, until the point where it's just too loud and/or your ears are fatigued and everything sounds the same, the easier it will be to notice the variations also.

Given the first factor, I've updated that zip file using the source tracks from the 'Metal' website demo. I neglected to do that the first time because a) I'm not overly fond of the way the source track sounds in general and I don't want people to think that it's the IR's that sound that way and b) the source track has excessive highs and lows, the latter of which are really exaggerated with this microphone. Keeping that in mind, the differences in the metal track should be readily apparent over the Classic Rock guitars. There is so much bass on the source file for the metal guitars that in the second half, the palm mutes peak/fart out the limiter on the 2-bus. Again another reason I'm not overly fond of putting it out there...

Choice in voicing, as is choice in mic preamp in studio sessions, is a decision I'd throw into the "fine tuning" category. With over 2000 files per library, you can fine tune your brains out. :lol
 
Last edited:
guitarnerd said:
I actually found the differences very subtle. I couldn't hear the difference between balanced and classic actually. I have to hear it through other systems though.
Click to expand...
I listened through headphones, through my studio setup and the differences where very apparent. especially if you read through Kevin's description and know what to listen for...
 
VegaBaby said:
I listened through headphones, through my studio setup and the differences where very apparent. especially if you read through Kevin's description and know what to listen for...
Click to expand...
Suggestion at its best...! :p
Me thinks Kevin is doing some "copy & rename" tests on his files... Seems to work for now ;) :D





j/k
 
I am a bit late to this discussion and i missed some stuff so pardon my silly questions.

I don't know is this the right place to ask this, but when creating a patch to audition IRs, is it better leave the amp flat and then look for the right IR?
I have bought Axe-o-matic DSP and BUNDLE - All WAV Libraries (2012-04-20) - its so much choices i am getting lost..

What would be the basic goto position if you would need to pick just one or two from every cab? I would like to just load those positions to the axe and then tweak the amp. Browsing through hundreds of IRs with subtle differences is crazy exhausting for me.

Edit :
I just noticed this bundle i bought is quite old, i think its not the one everyone here talks about?
 
Last edited:
Haha, very funny guys. :) Oh, and if I did as suggested it would be 1/16th the work (copy/paste the 4 voicings x script the 4 modes). ;) I just like fiddling with knobs on analog gear too much, I suppose. :lol

Fun fact, out of the 4 voicings, every time I change the outboard gear, and 3 times I also have to re-set up the cabinet, mic, and the room. PITA but I feel it's worth it.

pauliusmm said:
I am a bit late to this discussion and i missed some stuff so pardon my silly questions.

I don't know is this the right place to ask this, but when creating a patch to audition IRs, is it better leave the amp flat and then look for the right IR?
I have bought Axe-o-matic DSP and BUNDLE - All WAV Libraries (2012-04-20) - its so much choices i am getting lost..

What would be the basic goto position if you would need to pick just one or two from every cab? I would like to just load those positions to the axe and then tweak the amp. Browsing through hundreds of IRs with subtle differences is crazy exhausting for me.

Edit :
I just noticed this bundle i bought is quite old, i think its not the one everyone here talks about?
Click to expand...

With the V1 stuff (which by the way, isn't bad, V2 is just clearer sounding and more diverse tonally, which could be even more maddening for some), a popular thing to do was to combine one of the SM57 IR's with one of the TC30 IR's, either the TC30 near fields or something from the Far Field folder (where applicable, only 3 libraries have it). I'm not currently an Axe-Fx user nor do I play loud/live these days, but this is the trend I saw most among those that do. If you load, say, SM57 4 and TC30 3 into a stereo cab, you can play with the balance between them while tweaking the tone stack on a blank slate amp. OR, more preferable and easier to do, you can audition blends with aomDSP like in this video (staring at 2:11):



That way you can play with more than two IR's and in the end mix them into one so you get full tail length/resolution in a mono hi-res cab.
 
Man, do I need to get a copy of Axe-o-Matic! I DLed the beta and am already impressed by what you can do with combining the 57 and the TC30 in a stereo cab. A mono hi-res cab mix should sound amazing.
 
I'm stoked, Kevin... STOKED!

After continued tweaking with just the beta SM-57's, I'm freaking out. I can only imagine how great the R121, PR30, and the MD421 are going to sound mixed in. I'm telling you though. I'd sell my future firstborn if you'd shoot some bass cab IRs... Hell, I'd turn him/her into your studio assistant (slave) so that you could work faster. This is really great stuff!
 
Speculum Speculorum said:
I'd sell my future firstborn if you'd shoot some bass cab IRs... Hell, I'd turn him/her into your studio assistant (slave) so that you could work faster. This is really great stuff!
Click to expand...

Lol, you say that now, but if/when you have one you'll find you'd march through Hell to do anything to protect them. :)

When I started doing this a few years ago I had borrowed my buddy's Ampeg BSE-410-HLF and I also bought Celestion BL10-200X and BN10-200S speakers but I never got around to using them. I gave him his cab back a long time ago but I still have the Celestions. I may ask to borrow it from him again or I may look for an SVT 410 on Craigslist whenever I have the time/money.
 
+1 on V2 quality bass cabs!

Another missing piece that folks keep mentioning is a V2 quality 60's Fender Super Reverb cab.

Richard
 
Kevin,

While you're probably right, at my current pay rate I'd have no choice but to eat them! ;)

At any rate, I'll snatch them up as soon as you ever get around to making them. The other IR's are working for me, but I'm sure with your current method they would sound simply stunning!
 
In the middle of sampling just now I had another idea. Since convolution reverb makes things less apparent to differentiate between gear changes, I'm going to throw another variable in the mix - mic axis angle. Probably not going to disclose what is what, but after some brief testing and confirmation/affirmation, there will be 3 different mic angles amongst the 4 voicings. This is going to make things even more time consuming, but ultimately even more worthwhile. The comparison zip above is now not-applicable, so I'm going to yank it.

Also, I am at this point going to go backward on the PRO stuff and instead of an all inclusive pack stick with how I have it now and release at the microphone level. This way I can stick to the few standards/favorites and cut back on development time drastically, making things if/where there is demand or (admittedly) personal interest.

Spec, please don't eat your babies. :lol I got a kick out of that comment though, lol!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom