Recabinet 3 - Opinions so far?

[Kazrog]

Hi

Im using the current version of Recabinet in Ableton Live8.
Im only able to hear the unaffected sound. Going through the presets makes no change to the sound. The only knobs that have any effect on the sound are the Output controls.

ta

Strange, definitely can't recreate that one. Make sure your samples/buffer setting is a power of 2 (64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, or 2048) or you will have audio dropouts, but I've never heard of the sound passing through unaffected.

What operating system are you running, and are you using the VST or AU version of Recabinet 3 in Ableton Live 8?

[chj]

Needs panning, I'm upset I didn't notice it didn't provide it before buying it.

[Kazrog]

Needs panning, I'm upset I didn't notice it didn't provide it before buying it.

I'm very sorry to hear about your disappointment...

A couple of users have requested this feature, but I'm still not sure why or how it would help. If anything, I could see it creating more problems (mostly confusion) than it would solve. It would also necessitate having separate mono, stereo, and mono->stereo versions of the plugin installed (rather than one that can adapt to mono or stereo tracks, as it is currently.)

Why not just pan the tracks in your DAW? I'm not saying that we won't add panning in a future update (it could happen if there is enough of an outpouring for it) but I haven't heard anyone make a good case for it yet. I'm ready to be convinced - I hate for anyone to be disappointed - but I have yet to hear a really compelling argument in favor of panning inside the plugin.

[chj]

Thanks for the reply. Yes, I can do this in my DAW. But I already had Recabinet 2.1, I was hoping Recabinet 3 would make the routing in my DAW unnecessary. My fault for not noticing. Overall it is easier to use than individual impulse .wav's, so it's not a wasted purchase. But panning separate cabs is the easiest way to spread a guitar sound for those too lazy to double track, re-route, etc.

[Kazrog]

But panning separate cabs is the easiest way to spread a guitar sound for those too lazy to double track, re-route, etc.

Here's the key point - in every case so far, this is the argument people have made in favor of having a pan feature inside Recabinet.

As you may already know, doubling the same performance and panning it is exactly the same thing as center panning the same track and messing with the volume. When you do this and process both sides differently, you don't really achieve a fuller sound, you just create an asymmetrical stereo image using differently EQ'd versions of that same performance, which ends up sounding lopsided unless you go with a really narrow pan spread.

If you want a wider or fuller sound, the best way is to multitrack the parts by recording unique performances. I understand that in haste, for demoing, that some guitarists will just cut a single track. The best way I've found, as an engineer, to thicken these parts is to use a doubler plugin, which creates more sophisticated variations in both sides than simply doubling and messing with the EQ. The best one I've found is Waves Doubler, which is fantastic and is on sale right now for only $49 for the native version. There are also freebie and/or DAW included plugins that can do similar types of effects.

[khanyz]

Needs panning, I'm upset I didn't notice it didn't provide it before buying it.

Save your breadth, it's never going to happen.

Personally, I wanted panning because I like to process 2 different cabs in different spatial places. This I do in either L/R or M/S modes.

For example, I like to have a large/bassier cab in the center and the have a smaller/treblier cab out wide to give the sound space. This is with a single take, there's no doubling either by performance or plugin.

It's a simple method to get a good/fuller sound and I use Kuassa Creme or Reverberate to get it, at the moment.

It would be nice if Recabinet had this feature but since I don't really use it anymore, it's no great loss to me. I would use it a lot more if it did.

As for the statement that it would require multiple versions. Why can other developers do this and yet there's contant technical reasons for it not being done with Recabinet?

IMO, all you really need to do is have Left and Right Mutes instead of a single one. The rest can be done in DAW without all the double instance, routing hassle. Is that so difficult?

Cheers,
Nigel

[Kazrog]

Save your breadth, it's never going to happen.

Really? I guess you have some inside knowledge that I don't, even though I'm the sole developer of this plugin. It's been considered a few times and may still make it in, if I'm convinced that there's a legitimate use case for it.

Personally, I wanted panning because I like to process 2 different cabs in different spatial places. This I do in either L/R or M/S modes.

For example, I like to have a large/bassier cab in the center and the have a smaller/treblier cab out wide to give the sound space. This is with a single take, there's no doubling either by performance or plugin.

Center and wide are exactly the same thing when we're talking about "no doubling" of any kind.

As for the statement that it would require multiple versions. Why can other developers do this and yet there's contant technical reasons for it not being done with Recabinet?

There may be a way to do this without multiple plugin versions, but it would require further investigation. The biggest hurdle is supporting this universally across all the platforms supported by the plugin. In any case, this single feature, while very simple in concept, requires a lot more engineering and planning than you might think. Furthermore, if this feature is of no benefit to anyone (other than those who are cutting corners with their mixes) then it doesn't really jump to the forefront of the priority list.

IMO, all you really need to do is have Left and Right Mutes instead of a single one. The rest can be done in DAW without all the double instance, routing hassle. Is that so difficult?

Whether the plugin offers this or pan pots entirely irrelevant to the issue (and functionally the same) under the hood.

As I stated before, I'm not against the idea of adding this feature, but there has to be a good reason for it beyond "because I can." This is how apps and plugins end up with feature bloat. I'm still not convinced that there's a legitimate use case for it, but as I said before, I'm ready to be convinced.

[khanyz]

Center and wide are exactly the same thing when we're talking about "no doubling" of any kind.

NO, because you are effectively doubling because different cabs have different frequency responses.

So, if I have Cab 1 in the center and Cab 2 our wide then

Left Channel would be Cab 1 + Cab 2
Right Channel would be Cab 1 - Cab 2

If I have Cab 1 left and Cab 2 right, then I have

Mid Channel would be Cab 1 + Cab 2
Side Channel would be Cab 1 - Cab 2

You can then tune this effect with an EQ, like dialling in a sweet spot. They are only the same if Cab 1 and Cab 2 are the same and if that's the case, what with all the different impulses.

And it's not about cutting corners, it's about getting a good sound. It's just a technique, just like the many others.

Also, trust me, getting into what I think is never a good idea. That doesn't mean to say I don't know my stuff. And there is such a thing as over thinking.

[Kazrog]

I guess I'd have to hear an example of the technique. Perhaps, if done well, it could sound good. At any rate, you've gotten me curious enough about all of this to want to try a few things. Maybe it's not a big deal after all and if I can do this in an elegant, unobtrusive way (and if it's a way to achieve a cool sound) then it's worth adding as a feature. I will explore this further.

I appreciate your input, and again, I'd love to hear any recordings you might have online that employ the technique you're describing.

[khanyz]

I guess I'd have to hear an example of the technique. Perhaps, if done well, it could sound good. At any rate, you've gotten me curious enough about all of this to want to try a few things. Maybe it's not a big deal after all and if I can do this in an elegant, unobtrusive way (and if it's a way to achieve a cool sound) then it's worth adding as a feature. I will explore this further.

I appreciate your input, and again, I'd love to hear any recordings you might have online that employ the technique you're describing.

I've done it for others, but I can do some samples. Give me the weekend and I'll get back to you.

[Kazrog]

I've done it for others, but I can do some samples. Give me the weekend and I'll get back to you.

Awesome, thanks!

[Amon1973]

I have songs online which I used a similar technique on, if I got what Nigel says. I made those with 2 guitar lines double tracked (for a total of 4 tracks), then the duplicates have been processed through different IRs - inverse panned and slightly more inwards. Of course, this setup is not meant to substitute double tracking like in Nigel's example, but just to bring in spectral and spatial clues missing from the basic 4 tracks.

It's not the biggest, nicest tone ever (nor was it intended to be, actually ), but I can PM you the link if interested.

[khanyz]

@Kazrog - Do you have Reaper 3 or 4? I've just recorded some parts (more rough than right, so forgive me) but I can send you the Reaper Project.

Basically, it has Recabinet on the Guitar track and on 2 sends. If you mute the sends you get the straight version. If you bypass the insert, then 1 send is for mid and the other is for side. I'm using Redopter as an insert for the amp, but I can use something else (POD Farm, Boogex, Anvil etc).

Cheers,
Nigel

[Amon1973]

Apparently I didn't get it... reading problems today... had too much yesterday (beer, that is).

[khanyz]

Apparently I didn't get it... reading problems today... had too much yesterday (beer, that is).

No worries, I'll just post some mixdowns so you can hear what I mean.