While we wait for Fractal new IRs... Here's something for ya IR junkies :)

fremen said:
Nopes, sharing his stuff is not allowed But I was not sharing his stuff. I made an IR using a tweaked part of his stuff, to be used by people which would never buy his profiles, so it has no effect on his sales. Not the same thing at all, as he said himself. So I'll share some files again, soon, although not all of them
Click to expand...

Ah, okay. I missed that part of Andy's comment. It sounds like maybe he isn't concerned about it because he is fairly sure the quality will be worse than what he is producing?

FWIW, Fremen, I had no intent to single you out for what you did. I simply wanted to suggest that it would be better to have our eyes open going into this kind of thing than to take too much for granted, or to be unaware of potential consequences. One of those consequences might be that people with real skill, talent and equipment may stop making IRs to sell, because they might have a prospective market in the single digits if their user base feels that it is ethical and legal to copy them and share them with anyone who wants them. And if they can't make it work financially, there's a good chance that they will turn their professional attention elsewhere and stop making IRs altogether.

As those of you who try to make a living at music know, somebody copying your music and giving it away takes money from your wallet. Perhaps it isn't identical, and perhaps sharing IRs isn't illegal. But just because something is legal doesn't mean it is ethical.

Personally, I find the photography analogy a good one. And digital copies of a photographer's work are protected under the law. I thought computer code was, too. It may just be that this is one area that has some legal catchup to do. Meanwhile, I will actively support OwnHammer, RedWirez, Jay Mitchell et al with money if they have good stuff to sell. And I won't share it or sell it even in modified form.

Again, I wonder why it wouldn't be better just to ask the originator (in this case was it Kemper? Or Andy? I must not understand the connection between Andy's company and Kemper) if it was okay with them to share the stuff. Wth email being so easy to use, that seems like a small effort. If they say yes, then go for it. Why not err on the side of caution and professional courtesy? Or did you do that before you published, and I managed to miss that part, too?

The main reason I felt squeamish was that you originally said it was Kemper IRs you were making available for AFX users. It seems to me that actually might take away Kemper sales if they somehow have the magic dust that AFX can't recreate, and which might make a person sell their AxeFX and buy a Kemper instead. Or Kemper may recognize a market and try to sell IRs themselves if they choose.
 
Last edited:
greiswig said:
I thought computer code was covered?
Click to expand...

It is. I guess the question then is whether an IR would be considered original code or just a copy of something else that already exists (which technically is what an IR is...). I would defer that determination to a legal expert.
 
greiswig said:
But just because something is legal doesn't mean it is ethical.
Click to expand...

This is interesting! It'd be better (rather than misrepresenting myself) if I first stated that I buy any album I like in physical format, and have bought all of Redwirez IRs for the Ultra (when I owned one) and have since bought more from them for the Axe 2.

Given that the Axe basically copies how other amplifiers channels function, does this mean that the Axe is unethical?

Now we know that amp modeling isn't the Axe's only function, and that it adds a great deal of features that just don't exist in the amps that it models, but the argument remains, do the majority of FAS customers buy it as an effects only device, or as a modeling preamp? Do Marshall, Diezel et al. get a cut of FAS R&D budget? I doubt it.

Modeling is like taking a digital photograph of an amp, to me. IRs are photographs of cabs. If someone is producing great photographs, better than I can, then I will pay for it, and am happy to. Does the end user need to be concerned if the photographer was ethical? Now that's a conundrum.

Edit: This is in no way meant to cast aspersions on FAS, digital amp modeling, or any individual.... this is purely a mental exercise to me.
 
I saw and still see no problem with the original posting of these IR's.

The debate that followed brought up some interesting points though.

The photograph analogy falls short for me. A photograph of a speaker cannot be used to recreate the sound of a speaker.

IR's on the other hand are used for the same purpose as the speaker; i.e an IR is mean as a substitute for the speaker.
 
BigD1977 said:
This is interesting! It'd be better (rather than misrepresenting myself) if I first stated that I buy any album I like in physical format, and have bought all of Redwirez IRs for the Ultra (when I owned one) and have since bought more from them for the Axe 2.

Given that the Axe basically copies how other amplifiers channels function, does this mean that the Axe is unethical?

Now we know that amp modeling isn't the Axe's only function, and that it adds a great deal of features that just don't exist in the amps that it models, but the argument remains, do the majority of FAS customers buy it as an effects only device, or as a modeling preamp? Do Marshall, Diezel et al. get a cut of FAS R&D budget? I doubt it.

Modeling is like taking a digital photograph of an amp, to me. IRs are photographs of cabs. If someone is producing great photographs, better than I can, then I will pay for it, and am happy to. Does the end user need to be concerned if the photographer was ethical? Now that's a conundrum.

Edit: This is in no way meant to cast aspersions on FAS, digital amp modeling, or any individual.... this is purely a mental exercise to me.
Click to expand...

This is somewhat a mental exercise for me, too, but one that hopefully benefits the community as a whole as we try to reason our way through the mire.

Good point above, BigD. Not sure I can defend this one, but let me give it a go:

To use AFX models, you have to buy a unit which costs as much as many amps. That device is not share-able via the Internet. And arguably it is still an approximation of the amps that it models. This lack of portability and barrier to entry makes it more difficult to do anything analogous with the models that FAS has come up with.

To use or convert IRs, you need only some software, possibly in a device or in a DAW. You can spread those across the planet virtually instantly.

But I think there is merit in the idea that I might be hypocritical to say IRs are off limits but amp models aren't. Good food of thought.

I also wasn't trying to argue that capturing a cab IR to sell it is unethical; rather that sharing them without consent is. Their creation involves skill, talent, creativity and equipment that isn't available to most. Even with the ability to capture my own IRs in the AFX, I would rather buy something from someone who knows what they are doing and has the equipment.
 
greiswig said:
Ah, okay. I missed that part of Andy's comment. It sounds like maybe he isn't concerned about it because he is fairly sure the quality will be worse than what he is producing?
Click to expand...
it's the exact opposite. His only source of concern was be that the quality wouldn't be representative of what his profiles sounds like, because the technology is very different and, simply said, there aren't such things as Kemper IRs, that doesn't exist. From what I understand, Kemper uses another format and the amp/cab interaction/difference in a profile is not the same as the difference between an amp and a cab in the Axe (which are completely distinct ; it's not the case in the KPA). KPA users don't make IRs ; the only way to clone a KPA profile would be with tone matching. I did some tone matches of profiles but I didn't share them ; the files I shared, which I called "IRs", are of an hybrid nature - I left only the CAB and EQ part of the stack and a Kemper isn't meant to be used that way because of the interactions between the different parts of the stack - but as I found that (some of) the resulting IRs worked anyway (but many users also pointed out that they are overly bass heavy, and that's true), I decided to share them. I didn't share IRs made by other people at all (what I did is converting using a part of tweaked profiles and "captured" them with the Axe II utility and save the result as IRs), again, Kemper doesn't use IRs, if I used the term "Kemper IR" that was for convenience, technically it's incorrect, it's what we would call in French a "raccourci". That's why, to me, the photography analogy, or using the word "code", is not relevant, and so I didn't feel the need to contact anyone. It was not a "theft" of a creative/artistic work, it was a conversion of a technical work. It must also be said that with "cab maker", IRs can be converted to be used in a Kemper, but many KPA users pointed out that they were not as good as the KPA original cabs, because of the different technology from which KPA cabs are made. But as some users asked for such an utility anyway, C. Kemper provided it.
I must add that English is not my main language (in fact, I barely speak English, I just read/write it ; that's why I never talk in my videos, to save me the embarrassment, lol) as I'm a guy of French origin living in a small east-African island, and sometimes I may express myself incorrectly/approximately. I don't even know the word "squeamish", which you used many times, all I have is a very vague idea of what it means, given the context :)
 
Last edited:
Yo freman. Just let them go at it.
I say thanks for all you have done for the users of the axe fx. And keep up the good work.

It`s just a tool.. and i love it..
+ we get moore free cabs soon.

btw,if you got some TM og the "k" share them if you would. Just for fun :)
2013 is a grate time to be a axe fx user
 
fremen said:
... I don't even know the word "squeamish", which you used many times, all I have is a very vague idea of what it means, given the context :)
Click to expand...

fremen! FYI (just in case)...

Adjective
(of a person) Easily made to feel sick, faint, or disgusted.
(of a person) Having strong moral views; scrupulous.
Synonyms
fastidious - queasy

Definition of SQUEAMISH

1
a : easily nauseated : queasy
b : affected with nausea
2
a : excessively fastidious or scrupulous in conduct or belief
b : easily offended or disgusted

Thanks for your work. I agree and appreciate it.
 
seedoftheday said:
btw,if you got some TM og the "k" share them if you would. Just for fun :)
2013 is a grate time to be a axe fx user
Click to expand...
From the start I decided not to share them, and considering what happened... no :) I enjoy my own presets much more anyway
Swass : thanks ! The very vague idea I had of what it may mean was completely different, lol
 
Thanks for the definition. All I meant by squeamish was uncertain and hesitant, like it might be unethical. I see I used the word incorrectly.
 
greiswig said:
This is somewhat a mental exercise for me, too, but one that hopefully benefits the community as a whole as we try to reason our way through the mire.

Good point above, BigD. Not sure I can defend this one, but let me give it a go:

To use AFX models, you have to buy a unit which costs as much as many amps. That device is not share-able via the Internet. And arguably it is still an approximation of the amps that it models. This lack of portability and barrier to entry makes it more difficult to do anything analogous with the models that FAS has come up with.

To use or convert IRs, you need only some software, possibly in a device or in a DAW. You can spread those across the planet virtually instantly.

But I think there is merit in the idea that I might be hypocritical to say IRs are off limits but amp models aren't. Good food of thought.

I also wasn't trying to argue that capturing a cab IR to sell it is unethical; rather that sharing them without consent is. Their creation involves skill, talent, creativity and equipment that isn't available to most. Even with the ability to capture my own IRs in the AFX, I would rather buy something from someone who knows what they are doing and has the equipment.
Click to expand...

Ok, but to use IRs, you also need the device to run the software. The device isn't specifically created to JUST run the IRs, though. There is a hefty financial outlay needed from the start, and it's also arguable that with mp3s, there is also a financial outlay...... which doesn't necessarily justify downloading without consent. (The consent factor is moot, because the IR creator said consent wasn't his concern, but that quality was.)

As for sharing amps, the firmware updates are free and spread planet-wide the minute they go up for download. The only difference I can see is that Cliff is the only one who can make them.

FWIW, I'd also rather buy from someone who knows what they're at.

I'm just trying to play devils advocate here, because it's a road my mind has taken tentative steps down. In reality, we all have double standards, and it's just the way we need to be to function in the world. While we may be idealogical in our outlook, having a single standard is unattainable in certain circumstances.
 
agreed - they offer something different to the current IRs and for me allow me to create different tones - well done fremen!
 
IR capture + amp matching by ear (the trickiest part, you need good tweaking skills for that) followed by tonematching in live mode. If well done the preset is so close to the profiles that the differences doesn't matter. In fact in most cases I like the Axe preset more as it can be tweaked like the real amp. I've done almost 30 presets like that and will do some more soon. Not sharing them though, or at least not those from commercial profiles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom