Axe-FX III Dyna-Cabs

[jay mitchell]

True but my point was hasn't this been around for a few months now?

Some time back, Cliff apparently implemented a cab impedance model based on directly-measured (as opposed to component-based modeled) data, but AFAIK he did not provide a means for a user to import impedance data from their measurements. I'm guessing that Dyna-Cabs provides a means for a third party - apparently someone who's willing to jump through the FAS-required hoops (including renting the robot) - to acquire impedance data and associate it with a collection of IRs. There are a number of challenges to making this kind of feature available, primary among them being that, to be useful in a modeler, impedance data will have to be calibrated to a defined absolute reference. Cab response data need not be calibrated in this manner to work in an IR.

 

[Mongillo19]

Some time back, Cliff apparently implemented a cab impedance model based on directly-measured (as opposed to component-based modeled) data, but AFAIK he did not provide a means for a user to import impedance data from their measurements. I'm guessing that Dyna-Cabs provides a means for a third party - apparently someone who's willing to jump through the FAS-required hoops (including renting the robot) - to acquire impedance data and associate it with a collection of IRs. There are a number of challenges to making this kind of feature available, primary among them being that, to be useful in a modeler, impedance data will have to be calibrated to an defined absolute reference. Cab response data need not be calibrated in this manner to work in an IR.

Ah ok, I thought it just matched to the static measurement but perhaps you are right!

 

[jay mitchell]

Ah ok, I thought it just matched to the static measurement

What do you mean by this?

 

[Mongillo19]

What do you mean by this?

What you described in your first sentence on how matching was model based on directly measured data vs what you seem to be saying is now component based?

 

[jay mitchell]

What you described in your first sentence on how matching was model based on directly measured data vs what you seem to be saying is now component based?

You got that exactly backwards.

 

[DLC86]

Some time back, Cliff apparently implemented a cab impedance model based on directly-measured (as opposed to component-based modeled) data, but AFAIK he did not provide a means for a user to import impedance data from their measurements. I'm guessing that Dyna-Cabs provides a means for a third party - apparently someone who's willing to jump through the FAS-required hoops (including renting the robot) - to acquire impedance data and associate it with a collection of IRs. There are a number of challenges to making this kind of feature available, primary among them being that, to be useful in a modeler, impedance data will have to be calibrated to a defined absolute reference. Cab response data need not be calibrated in this manner to work in an IR.

The ability to import speaker impedance measurements is still not available for users and I don't think this will change with dyna-cabs.
Despite that, some users (myself included) were able to have their own SICs loaded on the firmware by sending the measurements to Cliff.
Some time ago I also inquired him if the ability to import user SICs will ever be available and he basically replied "not any time soon" and that the utility to adapt the measurement data to the modeling is just a matalb (iirc) program on his PC at the moment.

 

[jay mitchell]

The ability to import speaker impedance measurements is still not available for users and I don't think this will change with dyna-cabs.

It appears likely, if it happens at all, that the only "users" who will be able to provide third-party data in dyna-cab format will be vendors who are willing to jump through the necessary hoops.

Despite that, some users (myself included) were able to have their own SICs loaded on the firmware by sending the measurements to Cliff.
Some time ago I also inquired him if the ability to import user SICs will ever be available and he basically replied "not any time soon" and that the utility to adapt the measurement data to the modeling is just a matalb (iirc) program on his PC at the moment.

All that makes perfect sense. Given Cliff's, umm, "focus" on authenticity and accuracy, it would have to be seen as important to associate the IR of a cab with the impedance behavior of the exact same cab. As I pointed out above, providing for third-party importation of that data would be immensely challenging and potentially error-prone.

 

[yeky83]

Some time back, Cliff apparently implemented a cab impedance model based on directly-measured (as opposed to component-based modeled) data, but AFAIK he did not provide a means for a user to import impedance data from their measurements. I'm guessing that Dyna-Cabs provides a means for a third party - apparently someone who's willing to jump through the FAS-required hoops (including renting the robot) - to acquire impedance data and associate it with a collection of IRs. There are a number of challenges to making this kind of feature available, primary among them being that, to be useful in a modeler, impedance data will have to be calibrated to a defined absolute reference. Cab response data need not be calibrated in this manner to work in an IR.

I'm guessing that FAS would rent out the equipment to acquire cab impedance data as well, and if so FAS can send out calibrated equipment. Or instructions and a resistor to calibrate the equipment before using I suppose... "hoops."

But yeah, wondering about the possible inaccuracies that might crop up by just handing people an impedance measurement equipment. I know you've given a tip some time ago to set the HF resonant frequency in the Axe-Fx to the highest possible value... care to share further on it and the possible cause of error that prompts your tip?

 

[fretworn]

If you have gone to the trouble of robot rental, you can assuredly call for support and validation during the process with FAS; a fair-minded person would reasonably think.

 

[jay mitchell]

It appears that I am being misunderstood. Please note my original post on this subject:

"All the above is fine - it essentially adds to user-accessible IR parameters - but, in five pages so far, not one person has mentioned what is arguably the biggest development."

It is a challenge to implement a system that combines IRs of a cab with impedance data on the same cab in a format that can be used in the modeler's amp block. It appears to me that Cliff has made great strides in meeting that challenge, a feat that none of his competitors have yet accomplished.

 

[DrewJD82]

It appears that I am being misunderstood. Please note my original post on this subject:

"All the above is fine - it essentially adds to user-accessible IR parameters - but, in five pages so far, not one person has mentioned what is arguably the biggest development."

It is a challenge to implement a system that combines IRs of a cab with impedance data on the same cab in a format that can be used in the modeler's amp block. It appears to me that Cliff has made great strides in meeting that challenge, a feat that none of his competitors have yet accomplished.

Hahahahah sometimes it’s hard to decipher your negative/positive posts, Jay.

 

[jay mitchell]

Hahahahah sometimes it’s hard to decipher your negative/positive posts, Jay.

It helps if you don't look for things that aren't there. Just sayin'....

 

[MirrorProfiles]

It is a challenge to implement a system that combines IRs of a cab with impedance data on the same cab in a format that can be used in the modeler's amp block. It appears to me that Cliff has made great strides in meeting that challenge, a feat that none of his competitors have yet accomplished.

have you tried STL's Amphub plugin?

I believe that changes impedance load on the amp model when you select between the included cabs.

 

[jay mitchell]

have you tried STL's Amphub plugin?

I don't consider plugin software to be competition for a hardware modeler. Different circus, different monkey.

I believe that changes impedance load on the amp model when you select between the included cabs.

Link? I can't find anything to that effect on their website.

 

[Orvillain]

I don't consider plugin software to be competition for a hardware modeler

A large part of the market does.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

Link? I can't find anything to that effect on their website.

from the manual:

Uhhh I dont like their advice to set it to a resistive load when using other IR's. I thought one of the Tonality plugins sounded garbage because I didn't realise I was removing the impedance curve.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

not sure competition is the word I'd use, as they have their own pro's and cons, but given the choice I wouldn't own any HW modellers. I have an FM3 because I was that keen to experience Fractal's product and there is (understandably) little indication of their policy changing. If there was a plugin version I'd sell the HW tomorrow.

 

[shaharbar]

@shaharbar is that you?!

I wish, the butthurt is strong with this one…

 

[jay mitchell]

A large part of the market does.

How large, in percentage terms, would you say that part is? How exactly would one go about discovering such information?

 

[Orvillain]

How large, in percentage terms, would you say that part is? How exactly would one go about discovering such information?

Music Trades sales figures, internal company sales figures versus other statistics we can source from elsewhere, qualitative analysis of marketing data, user surveys, and my own damn lying eyes.