Palmer PDI-09 IR in UltraRes Format

Hello Fracto's,

Thanks for the goodies. It is interesting how an amp sim that is not very appealing at first glance becomes pleasing with a different choice of IR(s). I typically plunk around on the guitar to keep some skill level during the week between my list of honey-dos & cram as much playing/recording as I can on the weekends.

So far I have had a weekly flood of new info to try to digest in a sitting or two. I typically download presets & irs during the week & try them out during the weekend. Very fun... I can't imagine having one amp & one speaker setup/option... I know I loved the AxeFXII when I played two different guitars into the same preset & produced two good distinct tones.
 
In series or parallel? I've heard comments of people using this IR to reduce coloration in other IR's and not sure how it's being used?


Sent from my iPhone
Series wouldn't make much sense to me. Parallel is the way to go. Funny how there is so much love for an IR of a direct signal (no speaker or mic).
 
And I agree with Yek. I'm not sure how much the Palmer will benefit from UR, since it is free of complex amplitude irregularities in the low region.

I would guess that UR would not wreck that nice uniform response, so that would be a benefit for an IR like this.
 
I would guess that UR would not wreck that nice uniform response, so that would be a benefit for an IR like this.
I'm sure that the URIR follows the response more closely than the standard IR. But the Palmer has a fairly smooth amplitude response curve without sharp peaks and valleys (I've never graphed it myself, but others have). So the difference between UR and standard might not be as pronounced as it would be with other IRs with lots of variation in the low end. No reason not to use UR though. It will be more accurate to the actual Palmer response.
 
Just downloading all of these free UR IR's...how exactly do I use this one? Do I use a stereo cab block and just pair it with another cab???
 
I'm sure that the URIR follows the response more closely than the standard IR. But the Palmer has a fairly smooth amplitude response curve without sharp peaks and valleys (I've never graphed it myself, but others have). So the difference between UR and standard might not be as pronounced as it would be with other IRs with lots of variation in the low end. No reason not to use UR though. It will be more accurate to the actual Palmer response.

I agree, the added resolution shouldn't be a real factor in the capture. It really shouldn't be any more accurate. Sice there is no room, reflections, or peaky resonances, a short IR should be plenty to accurately represent it. That being said, the UltraRes will use substantially less DSP.
 
I agree, the added resolution shouldn't be a real factor in the capture. It really shouldn't be any more accurate. Sice there is no room, reflections, or peaky resonances, a short IR should be plenty to accurately represent it. That being said, the UltraRes will use substantially less DSP.

So the non-UR IR's are only inaccurate if the low end response of the device is peaky?

I thought in general the low end response was not as accurate independent of the IR source such that even something uniform like the Palmer might have inaccuracies in the low-end as compared to the midrange and highs.
 
So the non-UR IR's are only inaccurate if the low end response of the device is peaky?

I thought in general the low end response was not as accurate independent of the IR source such that even something uniform like the Palmer might have inaccuracies in the low-end as compared to the midrange and highs.

Higher resolution only matters if there is something more to resolve. The Palmer is a pretty simple filter.
 
Higher resolution only matters if there is something more to resolve. The Palmer is a pretty simple filter.

Oh okay.

I thought it was mainly the frequency response, i.e. total bandwidth, that counted.

I didn't realize it was complexity of the frequency response that we were talking about.

So an SM57 off axis would benefit huge but the same mic on axis not so much. With everything else being equal. That's cool.
 
Oh okay.

I thought it was mainly the frequency response, i.e. total bandwidth, that counted.

I didn't realize it was complexity of the frequency response that we were talking about.

So an SM57 off axis would benefit huge but the same mic on axis not so much. With everything else being equal. That's cool.

Its not that (when I mentioned peaks peaks, I was referring mainly to resonances). The same reason a short impulse capture does not benefit as much (or at all) from UltraRes is the same reason a simple cab emulator will not. HiRes is long enough to capture the entire frequency response accurately. Heck, Lo-Res is.
 
And I agree with Yek. I'm not sure how much the Palmer will benefit from UR, since it is free of complex amplitude irregularities in the low region. But I have yet to compare the normal and UR versions. In any event, it's good to have both, and thanks go out to the OP (who says the UR versions sound better than ever).

The benefit is about 8% less cpu.
 
Thank you for sharing this IRS!
I found that almost same thing can be done by using equalizer block :)
here is a quick try to manage it
first goes "Palmer Norm UltraRes" and then goes single block with parametric EQ
 
Back
Top Bottom