Recabinet 2.0 Modern and Vintage - Out Now!

Kazrog

Kazrog

Member
Just want to let you guys know that Recabinet 2.0 Modern and Vintage are out now! The Recabinet Modern 2.0 upgrade is free for anyone who already has Recabinet 1.0, and the upgrade to Recabinet Complete 2.0 is $19.99 for registered users (which gives you the new Recabinet Vintage pack.)

Lots of new cabinets and mics in this version, higher audio quality, as well as FULL AxeFx support this time, complete with reference mic "far field" IRs of each cabinet. Check out our products page for a quick overview of what's included:

http://recabi.net/site/products/

Thanks to our customers, friends, and everyone else here at the Fractal Audio forum for the input that made this update possible! :cool:

PS - I'm subscribing to this thread, so feel free to post any questions you might have here.
 
Downloaded it as soon as i recieved the email, cheers Shane.

Really digging the new Greenback 4x12 IR`s with the R121, getting some nice results blending it with the axeFx`s Cali 4x12.

LOL, i need a day off to demo all these cabs :mrgreen:
 
Very cool !

Do I understand this correctly, that the DBX RTA reference mic'd IRs are pretty much null mic ? Are these only farfield or also nearfield ?

Thanks !
 
VegaBaby said:
Very cool !

Do I understand this correctly, that the DBX RTA reference mic'd IRs are pretty much null mic ? Are these only farfield or also nearfield ?

Thanks !
Click to expand...

The DBX RTA is a totally flat, reference, null, omnidirectional condenser mic. Far fields are included, as well as all of the mic positions that we did with the other mics. :cool:
 
If I may suggest some future models...A lot of users have been searching for (without any real luck) Roland JC120 JazzChorus IRs and good IRs of Fender Twins (also not too easy to find).
 
Kazrog said:
VegaBaby said:
Very cool !

Do I understand this correctly, that the DBX RTA reference mic'd IRs are pretty much null mic ? Are these only farfield or also nearfield ?

Thanks !
Click to expand...

The DBX RTA is a totally flat, reference, null, omnidirectional condenser mic. Far fields are included, as well as all of the mic positions that we did with the other mics. :cool:
Click to expand...
Wow, you are quick :D !

Thanks for the info ! Once I have my rack back in my studio I'll definitely give it a try !
 
Could be a dumb question - but I'll ask it anyway - am I correct in assuming that it is just the version 2.0 cabinets that are fully supported (compatible) with the AxeFX?

Thanks.
 
lexman said:
Could be a dumb question - but I'll ask it anyway - am I correct in assuming that it is just the version 2.0 cabinets that are fully supported (compatible) with the AxeFX?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

The 1.05 cabinets are also compatible with AxeFX, and fully supported - they just weren't sampled with a reference mic, so you won't get the same level of flexibility.
 
Kazrog said:
as well as FULL AxeFx support this time, complete with reference mic "far field" IRs of each cabinet.
Click to expand...
I'd be very interested in a description of all the conditions under which farfield IRs were acquired, including speaker and test mic locations relative to (and distances from) room boundaries, and the distance from test mic to the speaker.

FWIW, I would not characterize a $99 microphone sold for use with an inexpensive measurement system as a "reference mic."
 
Jay Mitchell said:
Kazrog said:
as well as FULL AxeFx support this time, complete with reference mic "far field" IRs of each cabinet.
Click to expand...
I'd be very interested in a description of all the conditions under which farfield IRs were acquired, including speaker and test mic locations relative to (and distances from) room boundaries, and the distance from test mic to the speaker.

FWIW, I would not characterize a $99 microphone sold for use with an inexpensive measurement system as a "reference mic."
Click to expand...

Admittedly, while we've been very careful, I'm sure that our "far field" IRs are simply NOT produced to the same level of scientific precision as your developments, and while the DBX RTA-M is most definitely a reference mic, it's obviously not in the same league as say, an Earthworks M30, etc.

Our goal at Recabinet is simply to produce great sounding IRs using high end equipment. The DBX RTA-M, with its flat response, still provides a reasonable measure of accuracy and SPL handling that is good enough for a "flat" IR, especially when run through the high quality signal path of the API 3124 into Apogee Rosetta converters.

At the end of the day, guitarists are going to individually decide what works best for them and their music, a decision that's out of both of our hands.
 
Have you updated the demo with samples of the reference mic cabs? If so, how can someone download it if already subscribed to your mailing list? Thanks.
 
ElectricPhase said:
Have you updated the demo with samples of the reference mic cabs? If so, how can someone download it if already subscribed to your mailing list? Thanks.
Click to expand...

The reference mic IRs aren't included in the demo. Here's a direct link to the demo zip if you need it:

http://recabi.net/demo/Recabinet_2.0_Demo.zip

Perhaps I will throw in a couple of reference mic IRs into the demo before the weekend. A totally silly oversight on my part, soon to be fixed, I will post again here as soon as that happens. :cool:
 
Kazrog said:
Admittedly, while we've been very careful, I'm sure that our "far field" IRs are simply NOT produced to the same level of scientific precision as your developments,
Click to expand...
"Scientific precision" is much less important than identifying and excluding all unwanted room reflections from the IR. This can be done in a decidedly "non-scientific" environment (in a garage, for example), as long as you have enough reflection-free space and make the appropriate choices in mic and speaker placement. I asked about your test conditions specifically to see if you had addressed this very important issue. Also, when taking farfield IRs, the choice of mic positioning relative to the speaker's axis has a huge effect on the sound of the resulting IR.

If you use a log sweep stimulus, the quality of the A/Ds is of secondary importance. With a log sweep, S/N will be very high and any distortion due to quantization nonlinearity extremely low, even with relatively mundane converters. OTOH, the response of the test mic will profoundly affect the sound of the IR.
 
I just downloaded the demo in order to take a look at some of your IRs. The first one I opened - a Top Boost 2x12 with 421 - has 7.5 milliseconds of leading silence. This has two negative effects: it adds 7.5ms to the latency that is already there - this is well into the threshold of potential audibility - and it wastes about a third (360 points) of the available resolution in a 1024-point IR. If this IR is used in lo-res mode, it will be "lo-res" indeed: it will have fewer than 160 points with valid data.

You need to remove leading silence before converting the IRs to .sysex form. It would also be a good idea to provide .wavs with no leading silence.
 
Jay Mitchell said:
I just downloaded the demo in order to take a look at some of your IRs. The first one I opened - a Top Boost 2x12 with 421 - has 7.5 milliseconds of leading silence. This has two negative effects: it adds 7.5ms to the latency that is already there - this is well into the threshold of potential audibility - and it wastes about a third (360 points) of the available resolution in a 1024-point IR. If this IR is used in lo-res mode, it will be "lo-res" indeed: it will have fewer than 160 points with valid data.

You need to remove leading silence before converting the IRs to .sysex form. It would also be a good idea to provide .wavs with no leading silence.
Click to expand...
Interesting...I guess I'll wait and see what's gonna happen here... ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom