Will we see improvements/new tech regarding speaker cabinets?

It's not very long and has many images. But still, reading scientific papers is something else than e.g. reading forum posts (except it's e.g. Cliffs tech notes ;)).
 
I have great respect for UA and James Santiago.

I'm a big fan of the UAD hardware accelerators and plugins.

The demos of the UA OX I've watched seemed like a match made in heaven. A good reactive load coupled with UAD plugins. I'm seriously thinking of getting one and using it for this summer's shows.

Marketing is what it is. UltraRes, Quantum, MIMIC, etc. It doesn't take away from the product, IMO, if the product is good.
 
Maybe the definition of cone cry has changed since the 70's and 80's when we ran into this from time to time. Cone cry, according to our archaic beliefs, was thought to be a consequence of playing a 100watt amp into a speaker rated optimistically at 25watts or less. This overheated the voice coil enough to warp it. At that point it rubbed and squealed and eventually could no longer rock & roll. It might still scratch along at "wussy" volumes, but had to be discarded. You couldn't even give one away. It meant you'd wrecked the speaker and needed a new one. Back in the day, no one thought it sounded good. It would have been like bragging that your car's steering wobbled since the accident. But, times change, and I suppose one man's cone cry is another man's emotive authenticity, and who am I to argue? If a market could be created for pet rocks, you can sell anything. If cone cry does trend - like the ubiquity of aggressively auto-tuned vocals, I, at least; won't be doing it.

PS: My UAD Apollo interface and plugins do stellar service every day. And the OX may be a great product. But cone cry? sorry - wouldn't let that go.
 
Last edited:
skydog said:
How else could they make you even fathom owning a device to pull up your own socks?
Click to expand...
If you’ve ever had hip surgery, that device can be the difference between wearing socks and not wearing them.
 
artzeal said:
Maybe the definition of cone cry has changed since the 70's and 80's when we ran into this from time to time. Cone cry, according to our archaic beliefs, was thought to be a consequence of playing a 100watt amp into a speaker rated optimistically at 25watts or less. This overheated the voice coil enough to warp it. At that point it rubbed and squealed and eventually could no longer rock & roll.
Click to expand...
The dope on cone cry according to Ted Weber, who will have us believe that, while something to be avoided, it is more a matter of underdamped cones than of overheated voice coils:

If you are going to bend/sustain notes in the area above the 10th fret on the high E string and at high volumes with heavy distortion, then you need the doping to help prevent ghost notes and cone cry that could result from the extreme cone vibrations. Many players prefer the raw, undamped tone of the undoped speaker and they learn to modulate their finger pressure when noting in the area that causes cone cry.​
 
Rex said:
If you’ve ever had hip surgery, that device can be the difference between wearing socks and not wearing them.
Click to expand...
Ok, I’ve thought about this point. No disrespect. First and specifically, while convelescing hip surgery, does one need to actually wear socks? Playing guitar with the new III would be excellent PT, encompassing a wide range of movement - so staying indoors and sockless is a viable option. Second and generally, given longevity, everyone eventually needs hip surgery, just as every guitarist needs a Fractal, but not everyone needs socks. I knew a girl in Adelaide SA who was raised in Borneo, and she didnt wear socks nor shoes until she became teenager, and she was a lovely muso. Therefore, while a sock-raising device may be nice (requiring marketing), an Axe FX III is necessary (and these babies sell themselves)!
 
skydog said:
First and specifically, while convelescing hip surgery, does one need to actually wear socks?
Click to expand...
That depends on whether one chooses to regain mobility, attend doctor appointments, buy food, and partake in other such trivial activities. Hip replacement requires limited range of joint motion for many months.


skydog said:
I knew a girl in Adelaide SA who was raised in Borneo, and she didnt wear socks nor shoes until she became teenager, and she was a lovely muso.
Click to expand...
When she requires hip surgery, it won’t be done with a procedure developed in Borneo. :). In the 1980s, I knew two girls from Adelaide. Both wore socks.


skydog said:
Therefore, while a sock-raising device may be nice (requiring marketing), an Axe FX III is necessary (and these babies sell themselves)!
Click to expand...
If you’ve ever known anyone who had hip surgery, watch them the first time they see sock-pullers in the drug store. You will be walking out with one.
 
mr_fender said:
Cone cry is a bad thing. You can keep it. That's like creating a pedal that simulates fret buzz or adds authentic single coil hum. No thanks.
Click to expand...

Fret buzz is a key component of flamenco guitar.

For any technology aiming to model an existing object, my preference would always be to model as completely as possible, warts and all, by default with the option of switching off any aspects I don't want. Or maybe even of a master authentic/ideal switch.
 
Yeah, i don't get what "Modelling the whole cab" is either, and I didn't read the whole thread.
But here's how I see it: Most of speaker modelling stuff is in the amp block. The cab block is just for the IR. What is the Axe missing?
One big improvement, I think, would be to somehow load authentic speaker settings in the amp for that particular cab, when loading an IR.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FreeMind said:
Yeah, i don't get what "Modelling the whole cab" is either, and I didn't read the whole thread.
But here's how I see it: Most of speaker modelling stuff is in the amp block. The cab block is just for the IR. What is the Axe missing?
One big improvement, I think, would be to somehow load authentic speaker settings in the amp for that particular cab, when loading an IR.
Click to expand...

That's honestly the one thing I want most from the Axe. Currently switching amps or cabs is so much work to research and dial in the right settings that it really discourages exploring all the gear in the box.

I considered writing an app that automatically manages speaker resonance settings and speaker drive/compression (related to the amp wattage vs the cab power handling) but decided 1) the data doesn't seem to be out there in any accessible format and 2) from what I've seen Axe-FX users aren't prone to using third-party tools anyway, both because they want a first-party experience and because the community values infinite-tweakability over one-touch authenticity.

As far as speaker settings being in the amp block, Cliff has previously said that is for architectural reasons, but that's really because the UI is such a direct representation of the underlying processing and signal flow. I think that for the "typical guitarist", which seems not to be the target audience though I would guess is much (most?) of the actual customer base, a little more abstraction between the UI and the processing would be a huge benefit. And, honestly, would expand the market. Not that Fractal is exactly having any trouble getting these things off the shelves.
 
I think the real improvements we need are not in how speaker sims sound but how they are managed. What seems to be great in the UAD OX is that it presents you an easy to understand view of how your cabinet sim sound is formed. It looks a bit like a mixing desk view into the recording space where you can directly see a visual representation of how you are recording. Of course, for someone who is not familiar with recording techniques this is all just as mysterious as scrolling the massive lists of IRs found in the Axe-Fx devices.

I really like what Neunaber does with their Iconoclast speaker sim where the user interface is treated more like an EQ. I don't know how it works underneath, if it's just a set of filters or if it changes some IRs on the fly or what but the user interface to me seems more like something that a guitarist would like to operate.

We are already used to changing EQ settings on amps and effects so extending that to cabs where you adjust settings based on what you need more/less in the sound seems more natural instead of wondering which combination of speaker/cab/mic you should pick. Beneath the surface the feature could just select and blend different IRs for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom