Will we see improvements/new tech regarding speaker cabinets?

DLC86 said:
But maybe someone has already done this kind of tests or maybe my knowledge is too limited to talk about these things and my argument is just "bovine stools" :)
Click to expand...

This is the same way I fear my whole post is interpreted, but with all the new threads coming up about the Axe III and having just recently read the comment "the MFC is garbage", I think it can't be all that bad lol.
 
JoeyBTL said:
This is the same way I fear my whole post is interpreted, but with all the new threads coming up about the Axe III and having just recently read the comment "the MFC is garbage", I think it can't be all that bad lol.
Click to expand...
Sure, it's quality stool at least :D
 
FractalAudio said:
Old knowledge. This is why guitar speakers have all those peaks and troughs in the frequency response. And it's all captured by the IR.
Click to expand...
Ok, so that's still a linear behaviour, I see.. Thanks for the reply!
What about my other question? Does it make sense at all or is it basically the same thing?
DLC86 said:
Really interesting discussion, but a question arises: could the method to capture IRs hide some phenomena that occurs only on some circumstances?

I mean, an IR is almost always captured with a sine sweep which is just a single frequency being reproduced by the speaker at a time, but this would not detect for example some irregular motion of the cone that might occur when the speaker tries to reproduce more complex sounds.
Could be interesting to compare IRs of the same cab+mic configuration captured using different test tones (white noise, pink noise, double sine sweep, music program) to see if the frequency response remains the same across all of them.

But maybe someone has already done this kind of tests or maybe my knowledge is too limited to talk about these things and my argument is just "bovine stools" :)
Click to expand...
 
DLC86 said:
Could be interesting to compare IRs of the same cab+mic configuration captured using different test tones (white noise, pink noise, double sine sweep, music program) to see if the frequency response remains the same across all of them.
Click to expand...
Different test tones get the same IR. Sine sweeps are just more practical because a lot better signal-to-noise ratio.
 
Thanks for the clarifications guys, always a pleasure to learn something from Masters.
 
Great thread with lots of “new“ information for me.

Really appreciate those in the know sharing the amount of analysis, effort, testing and validation of the current technology (IR).

The other thing that caught my attention in the UA ox device demo was the comment about how the headphone experience is very different than what is being re-sent back to the (amplifier) cabinet for audio reproduction. (Meaning the sound coming back to the cabinet that is either processed or unprocessed, or even partially processed? )

Thanks all!
 
What I would love to see is some way to capture the sound of the speaker across its whole surface as opposed to just one fixed mic position. You could then maybe have the ability to move the mic position and angle around the speaker cone virtually instead of changing IR's for each fixed position. That would be really freaking cool for tweaking out exactly the cab sound you want.

Maybe something like taking a series of IR shots from a bunch of measured positions around the speaker and then interpolating some kind of master "image" of the whole speaker's sound?
 
Last edited:
my guess would be these are things modelers have been working on for over a decade already. The webpage says:

Featuring Universal Audio’s breakthrough Dynamic Speaker Modeling, OX is the first system to accurately emulate speaker drive, breakup, and cone cry — making it the world’s finest speaker attenuator and guitar amp recording solution

I know speaker drive and breakup is nothing new. Not sure about cone cry.
 
mr_fender said:
What I would love to see is some way to capture the sound of the speaker across its whole surface as opposed to just one fixed mic position. You could then maybe have the ability to move the mic position and angle around the speaker cone virtually instead of changing IR's for each fixed position. That would be really freaking cool for tweaking out exactly the cab sound you want.

Maybe something like taking a series of IR shots from a bunch of measured positions around the speaker and then interpolating some kind of master "image" of the whole speaker's sound?
Click to expand...
You can effectively do this with Cab Lab already, mix IRs of a speaker measured across its surface. Grab an IR pack from your favorite vendor and mix bunch of different position IRs. And with the Axe-Fx III, it's possible to do it on the device now.
What doesn't exist I guess is an automated way where the manufacturer has done the work for you. But that would limit the Axe-Fx to its own cabs, like UA OX is limited to 17(?) of their own cabs. We all love our third-party IRs, so this isn't desirable.
 
JoeyBTL said:
Click to expand...


Just a note regarding your link to the YouTube video. Unless you intend to put up the clip starting at a specific time (you had it starting at 5:45 in), you probably want to simply copy the address from the address bar at the top of the browser. That URL doesn't have any time skip additions in it. When you use the "share" feature in YouTube, it might automatically check the Start at: with a box to enter the time into (which automatically counts up as the video is playing).

If it was intended, disregard, but in this case it was kinda weird. A more logical start point would have been 1:39. Not a big deal, just thought you might like to know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom