Sold on 1024 IRs now

javajunkie said:
benjam said:
Hey Java, I downloaded your 1024 template and noticed a few things. I don't think the amp was panned hard left, delay hard right, cabs panned center as described by Jay in his post. Was this intentional? Doesn't seem like it would work right without the panning (delayed signal only goes to Cab IR Right).

Thanks,
Ben

It was on my patch. Some how that did get saved right when it transferred over to axechange via the editor. I'll upload it manually instead of thru the editor.

It also comes down as a stereo delay when mine was mono. And the mix was at default as well.
 
benjam said:
Hey Java, I downloaded your 1024 template and noticed a few things. I don't think the amp was panned hard left, delay hard right, cabs panned center as described by Jay in his post. Was this intentional? Doesn't seem like it would work right without the panning (delayed signal only goes to Cab IR Right).

Thanks,
Ben

Try it now.
 
SCHWEET- thanks for posting this thread. Got back in and set up some of Jay's 1 x12 1024's as well as his 2x12's, I'd forgotten how good they sound.
I LOVE MY AXEFX :D :D :D :D :D :D
 
Mike Snider said:
SCHWEET- thanks for posting this thread. Got back in and set up some of Jay's 1 x12 1024's as well as his 2x12's, I'd forgotten how good they sound.
I set up a test suite and did some comparisons using 3 key patches, configured both with Jay's 512 and 1024 IR's. If I was stuck and needed two delay blocks I would be comfortable using the smaller IR. However, to me the improvement with the 1024 sample IR was quite worthwhile.

Terry.
 
Tone Seeker said:
[quote="Mike Snider":2c6gpvyu]SCHWEET- thanks for posting this thread. Got back in and set up some of Jay's 1 x12 1024's as well as his 2x12's, I'd forgotten how good they sound.
I set up a test suite and did some comparisons using 3 key patches, configured both with Jay's 512 and 1024 IR's. If I was stuck and needed two delay blocks I would be comfortable using the smaller IR. However, to me the improvement with the 1024 sample IR was quite worthwhile.

Terry.[/quote:2c6gpvyu]

That was my experience as well.
 
If 6.0 has 1024 IRs by Thanksgiving (USA), I'll be cool. If not for Thanksgiving, then I'll start doing it the manual way ....
Just too many other things going on in life right now .....
 
javajunkie said:
Tone Seeker said:
[quote="Mike Snider":ly53nk7z]SCHWEET- thanks for posting this thread. Got back in and set up some of Jay's 1 x12 1024's as well as his 2x12's, I'd forgotten how good they sound.
I set up a test suite and did some comparisons using 3 key patches, configured both with Jay's 512 and 1024 IR's. If I was stuck and needed two delay blocks I would be comfortable using the smaller IR. However, to me the improvement with the 1024 sample IR was quite worthwhile.

Terry.

That was my experience as well.[/quote:ly53nk7z]

Hey Java- just to clarify my understanding...I've loaded one of Jay's Split ir's one into User 9 the second half into User 10 - if I roll off the volume on the left side of the cab block, what should the percieved volume be in relation to rolling the volume down on on the right side of the user block?
I'll assume the right side should have little output since the amp block is panned hard left.
 
Mike Snider said:
[quote="Tone Seeker":1o7kzot8][quote="Mike Snider":1o7kzot8]SCHWEET- thanks for posting this thread. Got back in and set up some of Jay's 1 x12 1024's as well as his 2x12's, I'd forgotten how good they sound.
I set up a test suite and did some comparisons using 3 key patches, configured both with Jay's 512 and 1024 IR's. If I was stuck and needed two delay blocks I would be comfortable using the smaller IR. However, to me the improvement with the 1024 sample IR was quite worthwhile.

Terry.[/quote:1o7kzot8]

]

Hey Java- just to clarify my understanding...I've loaded one of Jay's Split ir's one into User 9 the second half into User 10 - if I roll off the volume on the left side of the cab block, what should the percieved volume be in relation to rolling the volume down on on the right side of the user block?
I'll assume the right side should have little output since the amp block is panned hard left.[/quote:1o7kzot8]

Well if you have the left side set up for the non-delayed signal, it should have most of the impulse energy and therefore most of the volume.The right side would be the tail end and have less. So if I get you right, you should be correct in your assumption.
 
Mike Snider said:
I've loaded one of Jay's Split ir's one into User 9 the second half into User 10 - if I roll off the volume on the left side of the cab block, what should the percieved volume be in relation to rolling the volume down on on the right side of the user block? I'll assume the right side should have little output since the amp block is panned hard left.
If you set it up as I describe in the sticky at the top of the forum, the signal at the end of the parallel chain (i.e., the output of the cab block) will be mono, panned center. The amp is panned left so that the cab block only sees the dry amp signal on its left side. The delay block operating in mono mixes its left and right inputs, so panning the amp has no effect on what it sees. Its output is then panned right so the right cab (the second half of the IR) only sees signal that has been delayed by 10ms.

The second half of the IR will always have less energy in it than the first, so if you listen to it by itself, it will be much lower in level. This is how it should be. Don't try to match the two levels, as you will then be grossly exaggerating the second half of the IR.
 
Jay Mitchell said:
[quote="Mike Snider":2jle4bio]I've loaded one of Jay's Split ir's one into User 9 the second half into User 10 - if I roll off the volume on the left side of the cab block, what should the percieved volume be in relation to rolling the volume down on on the right side of the user block? I'll assume the right side should have little output since the amp block is panned hard left.
If you set it up as I describe in the sticky at the top of the forum, the signal at the end of the parallel chain (i.e., the output of the cab block) will be mono, panned center. The amp is panned left so that the cab block only sees the dry amp signal on its left side. The delay block operating in mono mixes its left and right inputs, so panning the amp has no effect on what it sees. Its output is then panned right so the right cab (the second half of the IR) only sees signal that has been delayed by 10ms.

The second half of the IR will always have less energy in it than the first, so if you listen to it by itself, it will be much lower in level. This is how it should be. Don't try to match the two levels, as you will then be grossly exaggerating the second half of the IR.[/quote:2jle4bio]

This is what I was trying to say :lol:
 
javajunkie said:
Jay Mitchell said:
[quote="Mike Snider":lkgirpzk]I've loaded one of Jay's Split ir's one into User 9 the second half into User 10 - if I roll off the volume on the left side of the cab block, what should the percieved volume be in relation to rolling the volume down on on the right side of the user block? I'll assume the right side should have little output since the amp block is panned hard left.
If you set it up as I describe in the sticky at the top of the forum, the signal at the end of the parallel chain (i.e., the output of the cab block) will be mono, panned center. The amp is panned left so that the cab block only sees the dry amp signal on its left side. The delay block operating in mono mixes its left and right inputs, so panning the amp has no effect on what it sees. Its output is then panned right so the right cab (the second half of the IR) only sees signal that has been delayed by 10ms.

The second half of the IR will always have less energy in it than the first, so if you listen to it by itself, it will be much lower in level. This is how it should be. Don't try to match the two levels, as you will then be grossly exaggerating the second half of the IR.

This is what I was trying to say :lol:[/quote:lkgirpzk]

Thank you both. It's funny...another case of the head and ears perceiving different results. The quality of the result of the split ir led me to think that when I listened to each individually I woud be hearing it fairly evenly on each side....the result is much different as noted.
Makes sense Jay. I'm not one to use it and not try to understand how it functions- so I appreciate both your quick responses.
I am getting amazing results from implementing this method.
Now back to playing!
 
WOW! :shock:
i hope this 1024 thing will work without all this
weird converting++ stuff i just don't check! :mrgreen:
 
Back
Top Bottom