TC MIMIQ?

sprint said:
I assume the "mesa IRs" u r referring to above are 2 amp blocks panned hard L/R then into one stereo cab center panned?
Click to expand...

Yes that's correct.

I finally found the source of the L/R imbalance problem - it was within the cab blocks. The imbalance was fixed after I reset the cab blocks. (This was after I upgraded the Mimiq firmware, removed the centre channel, tested without hardware compressors, and replaced the stereo cab block with two separate cab blocks panned L/R. Thanks for your helpful suggestions!)

The next problem I have with the Mimiq is what most people seem to complain about: comb-filtering. I tried using the Mimiq with: (a) mono-in + stereo-out, and then (b) replacing one of the stereo-out channels with the original signal unaffected by the Mimiq (just like how Sprint recommended). IMO, both methods sound somewhat thin and echoey with stereo distorted guitars panned L/R using the same source signal.

Moreover, when blending the post-Mimiq stereo signal into mono, the comb filtering is even more evident. In other words, blending the two Mimiq channels into mono, after each channel is separately processed within the AFX3, makes the sound even thinner.

However, without using a Mimiq, it looks like blending two parallel amp and cab blocks within the AFX3 does not cause comb filtering. Leon Todd gives a good demonstration of this in the following video, where he creates a rich tone by summing two parallel signals into mono within the AFX3:


Does anyone know why my stereo setup with Mimiq would cause comb filtering, while Leon's setup involving no Mimiq and mixed parallel amps does not cause comb filtering?
 
Last edited:
Governator said:
Does anyone know why my stereo setup with Mimiq would cause comb filtering
Click to expand...

Do you mean the last example of summing to mono?

I checked out a 1-dub stereo demo and the wet signal didn't seem to have any pitch change applied. According to the manual the "tightness" control affects detune, so you might want to try increasing that.
 
I use the HASS delay that Danny Danzi had posted a how-to video on (Post 57 in this thread). I purchased a Mimiq last year and compared against the HASS delay - but wasn't able to hear much difference, certainly not enough to keep the pedal. Most of my presets use the HASS delay effect...better than the enhancer block IMO.
 
SteveW said:
I use the HASS delay that Danny Danzi had posted a how-to video on (Post 57 in this thread). I purchased a Mimiq last year and compared against the HASS delay - but wasn't able to hear much difference, certainly not enough to keep the pedal. Most of my presets use the HASS delay effect...better than the enhancer block IMO.
Click to expand...
I thought the enhancer in classic mode was a haas delay
 
Last edited:
My understanding of summing any two signals that originated from the same source is that there is always a possibility of phase cancellation, depending on what effects are used in each of the two chains. Even a simple EQ shifts phase, by nature.

I could be wrong, but here’s how I think about it:

  • Identical signals: no cancellation, just makes it louder
  • Slightly different signals: More likelihood of phase cancellation
  • Very different signals: less likelihood of phase cancellation
I would put stereo enhancer type effects in that middle category, and two different models of guitar amps and cabs in the last category.
 
I would put amp and cab differences in the first category. The stereo effect is minimal, since there is no timing differences.
 
I was thinking about replicating the double tracking effect... I'm wondering if the key might be in having HAAS delay timing changes that are triggered by the amplitude envelope / ADSR at a certain threshold, and then held at that delay time until the next time the envelope is triggered.

With two real recorded parts, you would have some notes/chords be closer in timing, and others would not be as well timed. My instinct is that probably on major downbeats / emphasis notes, the timing would be closer matched (minimum HAAS delay), but on other beats the timing might be more sloppy (larger delay). Maybe a combination of Randomness with Order based on the emphasis/amplitude of the beat.

(ie: when threshold is crossed, select a random value between 10ms and 35ms. Then subtract 1-10ms from that based on the amplitude above the threshold? ) So for a really strong chord / high amplitude, it might select 21ms randomly, but since its very high above the threhold, might subtract 9ms for a total of 12ms HAAS delay for that segment... until the next threhold crossing and delay time change.

I was trying to figure out if there's a way to accomplish this using the envelope follower / ADSR and LFO Random, but I haven't been able to figure out appropriate settings to have the Random LFO hold a new rand value until the threshold is crossed again.

Here's an image attempting to explain what I'm trying to accomplish/test. Maybe someone with more expertise in the LFO/ADSR setup could figure out how to accomplish this... it would require a Sample/Hold (random) where the delay time change on the beats, and are held without drifting until the next major beat / threshold crossing.

fractal-random-env-trigger-mimiq-delay.jpg

If there's not a way to currently do this, maybe a feature request would be to add a Sample/Hold random modifier that can do this type of number selection/hold based on the envelope/adsr. Or maybe this could just be integrated as a new Block type in the Enhancer?

Also, was thinking that occasionally running the HAAS delay on the "other channel" would be realistic... Sometimes on the right, sometimes on the left... if it was integrated in a single stereo block... to emulate both "players" sometimes being the one that is slightly behind.
 
creativespiral said:
I was thinking about replicating the double tracking effect... I'm wondering if the key might be in having HAAS delay timing changes that are triggered by the amplitude envelope / ADSR at a certain threshold, and then held at that delay time until the next time the envelope is triggered.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, that's one part of how the Mimiq works (probably the most important part). There was a discussion earlier in this thread about trying to do that on the AxeFX.
 
GlennO said:
Well, yes, that's one part of how the Mimiq works (probably the most important part). There was a discussion earlier in this thread about trying to do that on the AxeFX.
Click to expand...

I added a topic in the Wish List Section for a RNG (Random Number Generator) controller. I think implementing a RNG controller might be able to bridge the gap to Mimiq performance, as well as be a useful controller for other unique effects. Wish List Item here:
https://forum.fractalaudio.com/threads/new-controller-type-random-number-generator.163148/
 
That's a nice idea, but Bakerman's AxeFX II preset already does this without a random number generator. The idea is you trigger an appropriately scaled LFO to move briefly. It works surprisingly well as a random number generator.

However, the problem in the AxeFX is not the delay time. The problems when trying to do this in the AxeFX are:

1) Reliably detecting the onset.
2) Smoothly applying that change to the delay without introducing artifacts. Too smooth and you'll get pitch swoops or noticeable cross fades. Too abrupt and you'll get clicks. As I mentioned earlier, some kind of minblep approach is probably what's needed. Presumably that's what the Mimiq does.
 
GlennO said:
That's a nice idea, but Bakerman's AxeFX II preset already does this without a random number generator. The idea is you trigger an appropriately scaled LFO to move briefly. It works surprisingly well as a random number generator.

However, the problem in the AxeFX is not the delay time. The problems when trying to do this in the AxeFX are:

1) Reliably detecting the onset.
2) Smoothly applying that change to the delay without introducing artifacts. Too smooth and you'll get pitch swoops or noticeable cross fades. Too abrupt and you'll get clicks. As I mentioned earlier, some kind of minblep approach is probably what's needed. Presumably that's what the Mimiq does.
Click to expand...

It'd be interesting if this was something Cliff had planned for a future update. Certainly gives him something to get his teeth into
 
So what is the consensus for emulating the Mimiq at the moment;
Classic Enhancer or Delay Block with Haas ?
thx
 
Cooper Carter early this threads mentions that he would post a Block that he and Admin had made for this.
Was this ever posted ? Link anyone or a patch ,Cheers.
 
because of this thread I learned that the Enhancer was a kind of mimic somehow, I always thought it was a high end enhancer.
I use it on all of my patches now.
 
Late to the thread here as I"m a legacy user and don't often come to the nice part of town (III). My attention was turned on to the Mimiq pedal with a post of Ken Andrews of Failure going over his preset /incorporation of the pedal. I have since bought one and am still messing about with it on my Axe II. I have it in the fx loop in full stereo I/O but going to try mono and moving my fx loop around in chain to see where it sounds best. I'm not sure i'm sold on it as its very close the haas effect on detune block/enhancer etc but i've seen vids where its doing something really sweet and huge. I think i'm just not using it properly yet. I have a week or so to play with it before deciding if i return or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom