UltraRes vs NormalRes one last time!

[Tubehead]

I say #2.

 

[joegold]

What driver is in your cab?
C-90?
EV-12L?
V30?

Also...
Is it an open back or closed back cab?

 

[666was999]

Ok, how did you create that UR when your original wav file is some weeks old?
I prefer 2, I guess it would cut better in a full mix.

 

[Morphosis]

Ok, how did you create that UR when your original wav file is some weeks old?
I prefer 2, I guess it would cut better in a full mix.

Load the .wav in a IR Player in the DAW. Capture this with Axe-Fx twice: As Ultra Res and High Res (played as Normal res).

 

[Hansen]

I have a high gain preset with two cabs in one block, both panned center. In order to use ultra res I need to have to paralell blocks. When doing this the preset volume increased considereably. How should this be countered? Turning down cab level, level in the amp block, etc?

I am running stereo output.

 

[FractalAudio]

I have a high gain preset with two cabs in one block, both panned center. In order to use ultra res I need to have to paralell blocks. When doing this the preset volume increased considereably. How should this be countered? Turning down cab level, level in the amp block, etc?

I am running stereo output.

Any of those techniques will work. Personally I'd turn the level down equally in the cab blocks.

 

[Stringmanipulator]

I voted clip 2

 

[666was999]

Load the .wav in a IR Player in the DAW. Capture this with Axe-Fx twice: As Ultra Res and High Res (played as Normal res).

Could the latency influence the result then?

 

[Morphosis]

Could the latency influence the result then?

good question - don`t know.

 

[vinnieRice]

No. 1 I think. Bass hangs on longer like a loud 4 x 12".

 

[barhrecords]

Could the latency influence the result then?

I don't think it would. I suspect the IR capture code in the AxeFx would strip silence from the start of the capture?

 

[joegold]

Just wondering how you did this....

Did you shoot the non-UltraRes IR of the same cab at some earlier time in the past or is it derived from the same raw IR as the UltraRes IR but just processed as a regular IR?

If the former, are you really sure that your entire signal chain, mic placement, etc. is EXACTLY the same this time around?

Just ignore all that.
After rereading your OP and reading some of the more recent replies I think I understand how you did it.

I'd still like to know more about the cab though.

 

[bammbamm]

The second one sounds more defined to me.

 

[tomc3084]

I voted #2, and thanks for the IRs.

 

[ML SOUND LAB]

Yeah the method I'm making the UR seems to work perfectly. The latency is ~6ms which could easily be the delay you get from hardware too so shouldn't be an issue.

These are single SM57 IR's from my 1x12 Traditional Mesa cab. One sweetspot IR from both the left and right side of the speaker. I think I shared them in HiRes format back in the day.

 

[solo-act]

#2 sounds like Ultrarez

 

[timowens316]

I have no idea which is which, they are so close. But I do think that I like 2 better.

 

[FractalAudio]

I know for a fact that this IR was 6 seconds long before UltraRes so it's definitely long enough so we should hear a clear difference but do we?

It all depends on the IR. I can't really say a lot about the science behind UltraRes as we have applied for a patent. However the speaker, cab, mic, room, etc. all determine the degree of audibility of an UltraRes IR compared to a standard IR. The IR might be six seconds but 5.9 seconds could be silence. Or the speaker/cab/mic/etc. might simply not have any significant extra information beyond standard resolution. Some do, some don't.

If you send me the .wav I can run it through my UltraRes converter which plots the frequency response compared to normal res.

 

[EdgE]

I voted 2, as someone else said( sounds more defined),

 

[soheil]

#2 for me. but they both sound good