What is the difference between dyna cab and Standard Ir?

Automated IC assignment. Other secret sauce?, who knows? (well, I suspect I know who knows but I know I don't know).
 
A standard IR is a single shot of a cab with one specific mic with a specific position in front of a specific speaker and cabinet (edit: or a specific mix of two or more such single shots).

A dyna cab aims to simulate many possible mic choices, cab + speaker choices and choices of positioning the mic in front of the speaker. So it's a bit as if you had a real cab and a real mic and could place it the way you like.

It doesn't support micing the cab 360° (e.g. you cannot try the upper left corner or the lower right corner, there's just one outer position) and you cannot rotate the microphone.

Advantage of dyna cabs: You are a lot more flexible compared to when you use standard IRs.

Advantage of standard IRs: They could have been shot with a very specific positioning that dyna cabs don't support.

To clarify this: These two things are two ways of simulating a miced cab. Both have their place, none is "better" or "worse", they are just different approaches. It's good to have them both in the units!!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
axifist said:
A standard IR is a single shot of a cab with one specific mic with a specific position in front of a specific speaker and cabinet.

A dyna cab aims to simulate many possible mic choices, cab + speaker choices and choices of positioning the mic in front of the speaker. So it's a bit as if you had a real cab and a real mic and could place it the way you like.

It doesn't support micing the cab 360° (e.g. you cannot try the upper left corner or the lower right corner, there's just one outer position) and you cannot rotate the microphone.

Advantage of dyna cabs: You are a lot more flexible compared to when you use standard IRs.

Advantage of standard IRs: They could have been shot with a very specific positioning that dyna cabs don't support.
Click to expand...
Afaik graphical mic placement mechanisms are an IR delivery mechanism (a very appreciated feature in this case) but not necesserily a difference in how the underlying specific individual IRs are shot.

Whatever they've done it sounds much better to my ear than other IRs I've been using whether delivered via graphical "move
the mic around" selection or good ole "pick a file n listen".

Edit: Part of it may be just that cab micing is an artform of sorts that Fractal may be particularly adept at as evidenced in the IR presented in the new beta.
 
Last edited:
sprint said:
Afaik graphical mic placement mechanisms are an IR delivery mechanism (a very appreciated feature in this case) but not necesserily a difference in how the underlying specific individual IRs are shot.

Whatever they've done it sounds much better to my ear than other IRs I've been using whether delivered via graphical "move
the mic around" selection or
good ole "pick a file n listen".
Click to expand...
I left that out on purpose aiming at the knowledge base I guess @Omri Bazelet has (didactic reduction). Yes, the technology is still IR, of course.
 
There’s nothing magical about the tech. It’s more about the interface you use to select the IR you want.

The DynaCab IR’s might give you the option of making them longer than older IR’s I guess(apparently this is not the case), but aside from that, each “DynaCab” is actually just a huge list of individual IR’s, but instead of selecting one IR from a list like the previous interface design, you select the cab type, mic type, and then you have like a thousand unique IR’s in that group of the same cab and mic, each taken with the mic in a slightly different place. From there, you pick the individual IR you want by using the Position and Distance knobs.

Oh, and there’s also the inclusion of Cliff’s new method of exactly aligning the phase of all the IR’s within the DynaCab environment, which definitely makes a difference when blending multiple DynaCab IR’s.

edit: This post might sound negative, but it's not. I love the new workflow, and I've been having a great time finding new sounds and mic blends, and I don't ever plan on going back to the old way of working unless there's some specific IR I already know I want. I'm just saying the underlying IR tech doesn't seem to be inherently different than previous IR tech.
 
Last edited:
GreatGreen said:
There’s nothing magical about the tech. It’s more about the interface you use to select the IR you want.

The DynaCab IR’s might give you the option of making them longer than older IR’s I guess, but aside from that, each “DynaCab” is actually just a huge list of individual IR’s, but instead of selecting one IR from a list like previous IR’s, you select the cab type, mic type, and then you have like a thousand unique IR’s in that group of the same cab and mic, each taken with the mic in a slightly different place. From there, you pick the individual IR you want by using the Position and Distance knobs.
Click to expand...


And yet see plenty of people thinking, and thus “hearing” these night and day differences in realism, “in the room” et al., for the cutting edge, one of a kind, “new” dynamic cab simulation technology that blows using IR files out of the water lol.


Not to say it’s not a huge step up in usability and friendly UI, but at its core it’s not a unique ground up concept.

I think there was a product from a number of years ago, called Nebula perhaps, that actually did have something like true dynamic cab emulation, maybe more like a convolution based approach, but it never seemed to take off. I think it was really CPU hungry and software based only.

But like most things guitar related, at the end of the day it’s as better as you think it is, and if that makes you play better or with mite enjoyment then, then it’s all good
 
lqdsnddist said:
And yet see plenty of people thinking, and thus “hearing” these night and day differences in realism, “in the room” et al., for the cutting edge, one of a kind, “new” dynamic cab simulation technology that blows using IR files out of the water lol.


Not to say it’s not a huge step up in usability and friendly UI, but at its core it’s not a unique ground up concept.

I think there was a product from a number of years ago, called Nebula perhaps, that actually did have something like true dynamic cab emulation, maybe more like a convolution based approach, but it never seemed to take off. I think it was really CPU hungry and software based only.

But like most things guitar related, at the end of the day it’s as better as you think it is, and if that makes you play better or with mite enjoyment then, then it’s all good
Click to expand...
The sound improvement is probably the result of microphone quality choice and careful placement, PLUS his improved processing code and differences in the capture process itself. It’s not the same as what other attempts tried.

Cliff released a sample of one slice of a Dyna-Cab a while ago, and, even by itself, it is a very impressive sounding IR. I’m using it in several presets with different amounts of low-end roll-off to imitate 1x12 and 2x12 cabs, along with the actual 4x12 it was captured from. So, yes, the IRs are an improvement on their own, it’s not imaginary.

Are they better than the very best of other vendor’s IRs? I have a big collection of 3rd-party IRs and use a handful, and suspect that I’ll keep those for the presets I use them in because they work on all three units currently, and unless I can run Dyna-Cab on all three I probably won’t switch to it directly. But, I will switch to mixing and exporting them as an IR to the units to take advantage of the sound quality. So, are they better? I think they are at least on par with the best, and are much better than many of the factory IRs.

The interface changes are necessary to make the most sense of the cabs and mic positioning, and while they are new to Fractal, some of the ideas have been around.

Don’t be too quick to dismiss the new technology. Sound-wise I think it’s as important as the release of Cygnus and its sequel.
 
Greg Ferguson said:
The sound improvement is probably the result of microphone quality choice and careful placement, PLUS his improved processing code and differences in the capture process itself. It’s not the same as what other attempts tried.

Cliff released a sample of one slice of a Dyna-Cab a while ago, and, even by itself, it is a very impressive sounding IR. I’m using it in several presets with different amounts of low-end roll-off to imitate 1x12 and 2x12 cabs, along with the actual 4x12 it was captured from. So, yes, the IRs are an improvement on their own, it’s not imaginary.

Are they better than the very best of other vendor’s IRs? I have a big collection of 3rd-party IRs and use a handful, and suspect that I’ll keep those for the presets I use them in because they work on all three units currently, and unless I can run Dyna-Cab on all three I probably won’t switch to it directly. But, I will switch to mixing and exporting them as an IR to the units to take advantage of the sound quality. So, are they better? I think they are at least on par with the best, and are much better than many of the factory IRs.

The interface changes are necessary to make the most sense of the cabs and mic positioning, and while they are new to Fractal, some of the ideas have been around.

Don’t be too quick to dismiss the new technology. Sound-wise I think it’s as important as the release of Cygnus and its sequel.
Click to expand...
Greg do you think having a correct IC assignment accounts for some of the difference people are hearing? With typical 3rd pty IRs we don't have any resonance info so just pick an approximate IC which may not be the best or correct IC for that IR and so we possibly miss the potential of 3rd party IRs. I kindv can't get past why 3rd pty IR makers have not rushed to measure the rez of the cabs they shoot and provide that data to assist users in selecting the correct IC.
 
sprint said:
Greg do you think having a correct IC assignment accounts for some of the difference people are hearing?
Click to expand...
Correct or incorrect, it'll affect the sound. I think the problem is much bigger than that though: their monitoring isn't set up right, they EQ at the wrong volume for their final use, and they conditioned their brain to accept poor EQ….

sprint said:
With typical 3rd pty IRs we don't have any resonance info so just pick an approximate IC which may not be the best or correct IC for that IR and so we possibly miss the potential of 3rd party IRs.
Click to expand...
The SIC is important and using the wrong one can make a big difference, so that could be a contributing factor, along with the other things. Having the curves would probably really help, but we don't have a way to add them. Perhaps the sound would improve if there was a way for the 3rd parties to specify which of the factory SIC values should be used; That'd be something for Fractal to define. If the IR (.wav) file format was extended and the SIC embedded then that might be a good workaround.

sprint said:
I kindv can't get past why 3rd pty IR makers have not rushed to measure the rez of the cabs they shoot and provide that data to assist users in selecting the correct IC.
Click to expand...
I think it's because there's no way to get the Amp block to recognize external SIC information.

Dyna-Cabs have a tie-in to the SIC, so maybe we're going to see a mechanism to allow the 3rd party IRs to also specify what to use - maybe a next-generation FX3 will have the ability to capture the IR and the SIC in the same session, that'd be cool. The current Dyna-Cab feature in the beta is just the beginning. I think we should sit back and watch for a little while and see where Cliff wants to take it; So far he made an impressive start, and he has a track record of building upon his ideas in ways we didn't think of. He's kinda smart that way.
 
I think the biggest difference comes down to workflow. With traditional IRs, you tweak your amp settings for the mic-up. With DynaCabs, you tweak your mic placement for your amp settings. It’s all personal preference in how you like to dial things in. You can get great results with both… it just depends on how you want to get there.
 
York Audio said:
I think the biggest difference comes down to workflow. With traditional IRs, you tweak your amp settings for the mic-up. With DynaCabs, you tweak your mic placement for your amp settings. It’s all personal preference in how you like to dial things in. You can get great results with both… it just depends on how you want to get there.
Click to expand...
I hope to see some dynacabs from you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom