The Fractal Thread

FarleyUK

FW 22 for the AFX3 is released, including new DynaCab feature and the Rev120 amp.

https://forum.fractalaudio.com/threads/axe-fx-iii-firmware-22-00-release.195047/

Roland

I’ve been playing with DynaCabs this morning, trying to understand whether it improves the sound, or just makes it easier to play with mic positions.

DavusPG

Roland said:

I’ve been playing with DynaCabs this morning, trying to understand whether it improves the sound, or just makes it easier to play with mic positions.

And what's the verdict?

Jonathanthomas83

I love the new Dyna cabs, beautifully easy to use and choose from now and they sound superb.

My one hesitation when recommending any Fractal unit was always the fact that I always needed to trawl through (many, many) IR's to find a good sound. More recently, I've found that the stock presets seem to have chosen some good ones, so I've pinched those instead. But now...now, I'd have no hesitation to recommend the unit at all. I think it's so simple and intuitive and the results are way more immediate. (IF (big IF) you know what cab you want and what mic(s) you want.)

Roland

DavusPG said:  And what's the verdict?

So far I’ve played around with the 2x12 Twin. You can choose mic placement, but you don’t have the ability to do things like taking the treble edge off by angling the mic. It’s quicker and easier to get a good sound than auditioning IRs. In fact with v21 I gave up on the Twin IRs, and used Two Rock IRs instead. My gigging patches are EQd and set up for these IRs. There aren’t DynaCab equivalents so I can’t do a quick A:B comparison. 

Our next rehearsal isn’t for a few weeks, which gives me time to experiment before hearing the results in a band mix.

Jonathanthomas83

@Roland for my needs, I’ve had good results darkening things up with Dyna by pushing another mic further back from the speaker, a Condenser, in my case. 

I’m gonna dive in on the Twin Dyna’s over the next few days, too, see how I get on. Otherwise, I’ll be looking at the TN IRs, so thanks for that advice.

Roland

Something I hadn't realised until I re-read the release notes, is that with firmware 22.0 the speaker impedance curve in the Amp block defaults to the speaker impedance curve of the speaker in the first slot of the Cab block. So if I want the brightness of a 2x12 Twin and the grunt of a Bassman, each with its own impedance curve, then I need two Amp blocks and two Cab blocks. I suppose I could compromise on an intermediate impedance curve, but compromises are for later, when I've explored the options.

Doubling up on Amp and Cab blocks starts to push the CPU towards the magic 80%. Each Dyna-Cab speaker I add seems to add about 2% to CPU usage.

Having settled on the Twin/Bassman mix I now need to propagate it through all the songs in the set list, and test each one. Yes, I do want a separate patch for each song. It means that I don't have to think about FX settings whilst I'm playing. I also use Scene MIDI to trigger our lights.

Roland

Before anybody asks, these are my settings for one of the Cabs:

Nerine

Roland said:

Before anybody asks, these are my settings for one of the Cabs:

Christ.
That's an intense layout.

Couple of Q's...

1. Are you running the delays, chorus and flange in parallel just to help fit the blocks in the grid? or is there a tonal reason you're doing it that way? I usually run everything in a chain and use the mix knob to control how wet things get. 

2. Any reason for using the send and return rather than output and input?? Are you patching in external hardware? I do similar, but go out of output 3 on the FM9 and back into input 2 (I think - haven't got FM Edit in front of me at the min...) 
Wondering if using a send and return would be better or possibly be better way of achieving the same thing. I assume it's identical in terms of sound and latency etc, but y'know. Worth an ask. 

Nerine

For the first time in a while I used my Friedman at rehearsal last night rather than my FM9. 

Getting so I actually prefer the sound of the Fractal rig now... 

Thought the amp sounded a bit thin in the room, I couldn't hear it very well, I had less sounds at my disposal etc. 

Also, one of my bands has just started using IEMs with a semi silent stage, and hearing the FM9 coming back through them in stereo is an absolutely glorious thing. The guitar sound I have in my ears (and FOH) is unreal. HUUUUUUGE!! 

mrkb

Nerine said:

Roland said:

Before anybody asks, these are my settings for one of the Cabs:

2. Any reason for using the send and return rather than output and input?? Are you patching in external hardware? I do similar, but go out of output 3 on the FM9 and back into input 2 (I think - haven't got FM Edit in front of me at the min...) 
Wondering if using a send and return would be better or possibly be better way of achieving the same thing. I assume it's identical in terms of sound and latency etc, but y'know. Worth an ask. 

The Send / return blocks are a way to internally route the signal to another row without any DA/AD conversion and latency. Sending to output and back to an input converts to analogue and back again.

The wiki is a great source of knowledge -
Send and Return blocks - Fractal Audio Wiki

Along with the blocks guide -
Fractal Audio Systems Blocks Guide

Roland

Nerine said:

Christ.
That's an intense layout.

Couple of Q's...

1. Are you running the delays, chorus and flange in parallel just to help fit the blocks in the grid? or is there a tonal reason you're doing it that way? I usually run everything in a chain and use the mix knob to control how wet things get. 

2. Any reason for using the send and return rather than output and input?? Are you patching in external hardware? I do similar, but go out of output 3 on the FM9 and back into input 2 (I think - haven't got FM Edit in front of me at the min...) 
Wondering if using a send and return would be better or possibly be better way of achieving the same thing. I assume it's identical in terms of sound and latency etc, but y'know. Worth an ask. 

It’s a common format which I’ve developed since I started using Fractal in 2009. I use this format in all my patches. So there’s stuff in there which won’t get turned on in every patch. There are two Amp and Cab lines because I was experimenting with different Speaker Impedance settings as mentioned earlier. The PEQ between Amp and Cab is to increase or reduce pick attack (a Cooper Carter trick to make rhythm guitar more prominent without increasing volume, or remove attack for solos). The line parallel with the Amps is my acoustic simulation.

Why are FX in parallel? In the case of the Delays it’s so I can switch to a different delay sound, and leave the tail of the previous Delay to decay naturally. If I change to a different channel in the same block then I lose the tail. If I put two blocks in series then I get delayed delay. 

Both Flange and Chorus can have stereo effect. I run stereo to the PA, and use Enhance to provide a basic stereo field. I don’t want any of these three blocks to mess with the stereo field of the other, so they are in parallel. I run Chorus, Flange and Delay 100% wet, and set the block level to get the right mix. They’re additive, and increase the patch volume, which is often what I want to do with an effect. If I want a dominant Flange, without increasing the overall volume too far, then I drop a second Flange block in between the two Delays.

DavusPG

Both Flange and Chorus can have stereo effect. I run stereo to the PA, and use Enhance to provide a basic stereo field. I don’t want any of these three blocks to mess with the stereo field of the other, so they are in parallel. I run Chorus, Flange and Delay 100% wet, and set the block level to get the right mix. They’re additive, and increase the patch volume, which is often what I want to do with an effect. If I want a dominant Flange, without increasing the overall volume too far, then I drop a second Flange block in between the two Delays.

Interesting...I'd never considered trying that. Thanks for the insight, will give it a go

DavusPG

Anyone using any external pedals before or in the loop with their Fractal gear? If so which ones and where?

Jonathanthomas83

DavusPG said:

Both Flange and Chorus can have stereo effect. I run stereo to the PA, and use Enhance to provide a basic stereo field. I don’t want any of these three blocks to mess with the stereo field of the other, so they are in parallel. I run Chorus, Flange and Delay 100% wet, and set the block level to get the right mix. They’re additive, and increase the patch volume, which is often what I want to do with an effect. If I want a dominant Flange, without increasing the overall volume too far, then I drop a second Flange block in between the two Delays.

Interesting...I'd never considered trying that. Thanks for the insight, will give it a go

Can you explain more about this, Roland? What is the stereo field of each doing for you that you don’t want the different blocks to interfere with? 

DavusPG said:

Anyone using any external pedals before or in the loop with their Fractal gear? If so which ones and where?

Yes, I’m using a Nordvang Sig (Klone), 1981 DRV and a Cali 76 up front. And then a Line 6 DL4 MkII, Strymon Brig, DIG, El Cap and Deco (all v1) in a loop, in stereo. I’m yet to decide what to do with it all, but my plan is to utilise these more with a Kemper because realistically, the Fractal doesn’t need them as much as a Kemper does. I do struggle to get good analogue and tape delay sounds out of the Fractal (less so Tape, to be fair), and the Strymon’s sound just right for my needs.

Roland

@Jonathanthomas83 Stereo imaging can be done it two steps. Moving part of the signal left or right is what Robert Neve called panned mono. Delaying the part of the signal that is sent left or right is the other. If you set the delay to a certain value you can trick the ear/brain into thinking that the sound comes from further left than the left speaker, and vice versa. A good example of stereo imaging is Reverb. In real life parts of the signal are reflected back from walls, ceiling, and objects in the room. Simulated Reverbs try to do the same. Some sound quite realistic. It’s possible to simulate the listener’s position in the room by how much delay is added to reflections from front, back and side walls. Your brain works this all out. 

One of the things which annoys me is when members of a band apply different reverb types and values to their signals. We once had a singer who applied different, and overly large, reverbs to his voice and to his guitar. I’m sure each in isolation sounded good in his bedroom. At a venue, where we added a common reverb at the desk, and the room added its natural reverb, it sounded like a mess.

A similar thing is going to happen if several stereo field FX are used together. Each will apply its own rules about which parts of the signal are panned where, and by how much they are delayed. Put them in parallel, and you’ll have three virtual sound sources, one Chorused, one Flanged, and one straight through. Put them in series and each will re-process its predecessor. What was once going left might go right, and be double delayed. It will sound confusing.

monkey42

Not sure if anyone can assist me but….


https://www.thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/249748/fractal-fm3-programming-help#latest

firepaulmusic

Just spotted something about DynaCab firmware update for FM3, is this for FM9 also?

mrkb

firepaulmusic said:

Just spotted something about DynaCab firmware update for FM3, is this for FM9 also?

Will be, beta hasn’t been released yet for FM9

welshboyo

Personally, I'd wait - lots of reports of latency at the moment