Why I won't be using the cab block for recording any more

I used the longest files with the highest sample rate I could find in the OH packs I've bought, and they rock. No science projects done over here to confirm/deny anything, just the satellites on the side of my head.
 
Speculum Speculorum said:
That's odd. I'm going to wait to hear back from Kevin because I'm pretty sure that's not the case. I'm absolutely of the impression they are 200 ms files.
Click to expand...

My bad, they are 200 ms. I just opened one up with my DAW. However there is no data beyond 50 ms. I still think you've got a highpass engaged somewhere.
 
Rotti said:
I used the longest files with the highest sample rate I could find in the OH packs I've bought, and they rock. No science projects done over here to confirm/deny anything, just the satellites on the side of my head.
Click to expand...

Well I know for a fact things were screwy. Because my buddy and I shared the .ir file of one we made in the exact same way in cab lab and they sounded totally different. When I switched over to the Axe-fx wav files for UR they sounded identical. Just my two cents.

FractalAudio said:
My bad, they are 200 ms. I just opened one up with my DAW. However there is no data beyond 50 ms. I still think you've got a highpass engaged somewhere.
Click to expand...

The flow is the exact same for each recording. There is high pass filtering, but it is at 80 Hz and it is the same on the UR recorded tracks.
 
Shoot an IR of just the Cab Block in the Fractal and then load both into the DAW for comparison?

With reamping you could see the difference in the frequency amplitude plot between the two.
 
Speculum Speculorum said:
I'm not in a position where I can shoot IRs, unfortunately. Would be a good experiment though!
Click to expand...

You still could use a "difference" eq display in the DAW to see what is different between the two tracks. I use BlueCat Audio Freq Analyst Multi, but Isotope Ozone has one and I think Voxnego has one too?
 
I hope the below is helpful, as there seems to be some confusion going on. :)

Here is the reverb tail of a .wav file in the Ultra-Res folder of the free OH V3 library. In this plot, the reverb tail in the loading medium is set to 170 ms for scale:

OH-170.png


The above is taken from a close mic'd IR, so there isn't a ton of room stuff going on therefor the level drops over time more so than would a distance capture with a lot of room reflections. Since this is from the Ultra-Res folder, it is not MPT'd, hence the little bit of offset in the beginning compared to the next plot images.

Here is the reverb tail of an Ultra-Res file in the Cab Block. In this plot, the reverb tail in the loading medium is set to 170 ms for scale:

UR-170.png


Here is that same one with the plot set to a scale of 45 ms so you can see what is going on a little better:

UR-45.png


What I can see from the above coincides with the description in THIS POST, and without any additional information is where I assumed UR is a 20 ms reverb tail followed by additional information that helps with frequency response accuracy to the full file. I genuinely apologize if I caused any confusion with my assumption based on this information that UR files are 20 ms in .syx format.

Hope this helps guys! :)
 
Speculum Speculorum said:
Also, are you sure I should be using 500 ms files for conversion to UR?
Click to expand...
erockomania said:
To clarify... because it will make life easier... I can throw any length IR into CabLab and it will not truncate? Or will it truncate to 170ms? Or is there a more advanced process going on?
Click to expand...

If i convert RAW 500ms .wav via Cab-Lab2/MPT or CL3 /MPT&RAW, they sound (at least if RAW converted) to my ears identical to me in comparison to the 500ms .wav files - as long, as content of the IR is not beyond the truncation time at 170ms...
 
Last edited:
Also, if it helps anyone, loading the .wav files in the DAW is not the proper way to check for decay tail information. Most DAW's are scaled in so that -48 dB shows 0. Anyone who has mixed IR's extensively knows that level below that is audible, and as you can see by my plots scaled to -80 dB that there is significant activity even beyond 170 ms. Therefor, loading the .wav IR files in a DAW is only a fruitful activity if checking to see the time of flight and polarity.
 
ownhammer said:
Also, if it helps anyone, loading the .wav files in the DAW is not the proper way to check for decay tail information. Most DAW's are scaled in so that -48 dB shows 0. Anyone who has mixed IR's extensively knows that level below that is audible, and as you can see by my plots scaled to -80 dB that there is significant activity even beyond 170 ms. Therefor, loading the .wav IR files in a DAW is only a fruitful activity if checking to see the time of flight and polarity.
Click to expand...

-48db is not T60, right?! ... i wonder myself, if looking just in Cubase to the same IR, i post the plot detail above...

24K samples /48kHz, first 8160 (Ultra-Res) marked...:

public.php


However... nobody said ever, Ultra-Res would be better then RAW .wav files with higher resolution and longer reverb tails ... in fact, it represent a proper technology to save CPU with better resolution than "FAS Hi-Res" and so it guarantee usability in 1) nearly realtime (!) and 2) it is mobile in a hardware box for live-gigging... this is, what the box is also made for, right?! To achieve those two targets on a .wav 500ms length or beyond basis ..... uhhh, you`ll need a LOT CPU power in a big boxed Computer .... and before i start using solutions based on High End PCs or something for live purposes ... well, UR is a really, really good alternative, no?!

If you want the best in studio environment, when MIXDOWN ( not record!) your track... well ... .wav is not outdated, imho ... ;)
 
Last edited:
Very popular among the Line6 and Eleven Rack users. $199 if I recall correctly.

Logidy EPSi

From the Manual:

"This leads to high computational requirements for long decay times. In the reverb version of the firmware we are able to reach windows of about 6 seconds in duration, which is long enough to simulate an acceptable variety of sounds found in nature or in devices trying to mimic it. Version C of the firmware is optimized for zero latency convolution and dual channel processing. This leads to a reduce time window of 1.5 second."

So, 1.5 second reverb tail possible at zero latency.

There is absolutely nothing "wrong" with Ultra-Res, especially for live sound. It is a blessing. :) Some people have bat ears and/or nice monitors, and only exist in the studio setting. For them, there are other options. Exploring them I believe was the point of the OP. :)
 
Nope, wav is not outdated at all. And if you're running a current system, IR loaders are really not that CPU intensive. Granted, I'm rocking a year old 27" iMac, so MixIR2 or Space Designer is a spit in the proverbial audio ocean. So I have no problem going this route for the future. In fact, I embrace it!

And for those of you who stated they are using the 500 ms files to convert to UR IRs and they sound exactly the same - I'd check those by doing a simple test like I did. If you don't hear a difference, that's great and you'll be on your happy way. But I just did another test where I did the same basic idea, only this time I used one of the 500 ms files to convert into an UR IR. This time I didn't note the hollow sucking sound like I did before (I'm guessing because it's coming from a raw .wav file instead of an MPT idealized file), but alas... the results were the same.

And no, there's no highpass thing going on. I have even done the test by using the exact same audio track I recorded the cab-equipped UR file on - back and forth, back and forth... If anything changed it was something within the Axe-fx II that changes when I disengage the cab block that has absolutely no tweaking - no motor drive, mic pre, room, etc. Everything was nullified. The only variable here is UR vs 500 ms. I was very careful.

I love this forum. And I love this piece of gear. I really do want to see it used for every tiny bit of quality people can squeeze out of it. And I want to share that with people so they can, too, get the best out of their investment. And it is becoming increasingly clear that one of the best ways to achieve a more even sound is by avoiding UR IRs for recording direct. And until someone gives me a solution that is better than just bypassing the whole cab block altogether, I think this method is working out in a stellar way! :D
 
ownhammer said:
Very popular among the Line6 and Eleven Rack users. $199 if I recall correctly.

Logidy EPSi

From the Manual:

"This leads to high computational requirements for long decay times. In the reverb version of the firmware we are able to reach windows of about 6 seconds in duration, which is long enough to simulate an acceptable variety of sounds found in nature or in devices trying to mimic it. Version C of the firmware is optimized for zero latency convolution and dual channel processing. This leads to a reduce time window of 1.5 second."

So, 1.5 second reverb tail possible at zero latency.

There is absolutely nothing "wrong" with Ultra-Res, especially for live sound. It is a blessing. :) Some people have bat ears and/or nice monitors, and only exist in the studio setting. For them, there are other options. Exploring them I believe was the point of the OP. :)
Click to expand...

Is this something that could be used in the Fx Loop of the Axe, after Amp block, to be able to use longer IR's live?
Or the Torpedo?
I'll have to do some reading, but is it possible to use the full length 500ms files live if the hardware was used in Fx Loop, or is a Computer still necessary to process file?


Sent from my iPhone
 
Bill Piersall said:
Is this something that could be used in the Fx Loop of the Axe, after Amp block, to be able to use longer IR's live?
Or the Torpedo?
I'll have to do some reading, but is it possible to use the full length 500ms files live if the hardware was used in Fx Loop, or is a Computer still necessary to process file?


Sent from my iPhone
Click to expand...

Torpedo uses a very short IR as well. It can function as a load box without using IRs though, so you can route it through to a computer with your IR loaded just like what I'm doing, but it's meant to take powered amplifiers. I have no idea if it would receive the signal of the Axe-fx II (I can't imagine why it wouldn't). As I recall, there were a couple threads about people using the Two Notes system and being very happy with it in conjunction with their Axe-fx II. But I have no idea if they were using a tube power amp in between it or not.

In fact, I've got a 5150 III mini 50w and a Torpedo Live on the way - should be here this next week. I'm going to do some tests to see how things measure up in this exact same setting - torpedo takes the load of the amp, directs it into the DAW which will house my 500 ms IRs. It is likely I'll keep steaming away with the Axe-fx II, because I really love it's flexibility and tone options. But this is an itch that I've needed to scratch for some time. It uh... should be interesting...
 
Bill Piersall said:
Is this something that could be used in the Fx Loop of the Axe, after Amp block, to be able to use longer IR's live?
Or the Torpedo?
I'll have to do some reading, but is it possible to use the full length 500ms files live if the hardware was used in Fx Loop, or is a Computer still necessary to process file?


Sent from my iPhone
Click to expand...

Sounds about right, no computer necessary. Think of the unit like a little mini DAW that has a convolution reverb plugin on the only track in the session, with a quarter inch jack into and out of it. You will only be able to use IR's from those who create them in .wav format, though. It would be most beneficial for those that do room captures for the smaller cabs, but overall a minimal compromise solution save for the additional DA/AD/DA/AD conversion. :)

You would also get 35% of your CPU overhead back for those of you who run low on that with crazy patches.

Torpedo Live truncates files to 18 ms, as does the C.A.B. pedal, I believe. The former device is most useful for those who use full amp heads.
 
Last edited:
Torpedo don`t support longer IRs than Axe-Fx, if i remember right. The EPSI looks cool, but i would like to know exactly, what they understand as "zero latency" and furthermore, the quality of the used AD/DA converters. I assume in those areas, advantages the Axe-Fx will have - i believe - get lost, but those will be much more important (at least to me), than the assumed (very) minimal advantage, higher .wav resolutions will bring on the table in comparison to Ultra-Res. And it would be also one more box, one more power supply, two more cables .... meh, ... not for me... and under not sciencific circumstances, but in rehearsal room or live ... i don`t believe longer .wav files will do me bring noticable something ... anything...
 
Speculum Speculorum said:
In fact, I've got a 5150 III mini 50w and a Torpedo Live on the way - should be here this next week. I'm going to do some tests to see how things measure up in this exact same setting - torpedo takes the load of the amp, directs it into the DAW which will house my 500 ms IRs. It is likely I'll keep steaming away with the Axe-fx II, because I really love it's flexibility and tone options. But this is an itch that I've needed to scratch for some time. It uh... should be interesting...
Click to expand...

Before I got my XL I had a thd hotplate for a load and ran my recto into mixir2 .I was never happy with tth results .tone was ok but it always felt a bit weird to me . the feel of the axe fx was way better off the bat

I also tried the wall of sound plug in and that was a little better but still wasnt happy

torpedo may function better than the hotplate did though
 
Morphosis said:
Torpedo don`t support longer IRs than Axe-Fx, if i remember right. The EPSI looks cool, but i would like to know exactly, what they understand as "zero latency" and furthermore, the quality of the used AD/DA converters. I assume in those areas, advantages the Axe-Fx will have - i believe - get lost, but those will be much more important (at least to me), than the assumed (very) minimal advantage, higher .wav resolutions will bring on the table in comparison to Ultra-Res. And it would be also one more box, one more power supply, two more cables .... meh, ... not for me... and under not sciencific circumstances, but in rehearsal room or live ... i don`t believe longer .wav files will do me bring noticable something ... anything...
Click to expand...

Maybe you missed it, but it's been stated numerous times at this point that we are specifically talking about using longer IRs for recording. UR is great for live guys. It gives them more routing flexibility as cab blocks use less CPU, it increases clarity over standard short IRs for fitting into the mix, etc. It just becomes a lot more noticeable under the fine-tooth comb of a studio production, which is specifically what I do. I don't go out and play at loud bars. I don't crank it and wail away with a live band. I record.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom