cab sim development

[guitarzan]

nooo you guys, continue the conversation here. there, i've edited the topic title.

and sure, those betas would be nifty, i've be planning on experimenting with different software amps and impulses in order to improve the sound of the DI recorded guitars on my tracks anyway, so there you go. ;]

Thanks bpblog! I re-listed this thread with it's new title in The KVR Guitar Players Thread - links to great guitar posts sticky thread, hopefully we can attract all interested in the subject to this thread and maybe get some ideas flowing...maybe even some development!

[susiwong]

Hi all,
and thanks to guitarzan for the invitation !

Allow me to offer a completely different opinion, maybe not too popular, but hey ...

-- First let me express my thanks and admiration to all those folks working on these incredible tools for us, both commercial and free. You rock !

Not to downplay your achievements in any way, but seriously, I think we've ended up in a dead end, all of us, devs as well as users.

-- the problem could be summarized as "choice, options and unlimited tweaking instead of simplicity and pure tone" - AxeFX vs Dr.Z Stangray if you get my analogy.
Please bear with me if you have a different sonic ideal, this is not about blues vs metal or similar crap wars.

-- in hardware one main goal for developing a new amp head is simple :
It has to sound fine through a Marshall 1960 as this is the industry standard, arguably the most popular guitar cab in history.
This is the cab any new head is most likely to encounter in the wild, granted, a few variations in speakers, but still more or less a "known enemy".
Once that goal is met you can start developing a better, specialized cab for your new amp.
-- transferring that idea to the software world, imho our biggest problem right now is the complete lack of industry standards.
We're chasing moving targets to put it politely.
"Hey, it doesn't sound like the real thing ? Back to tweaking, you still haven't touched 347 of the great parameters we gave you."
A real Stangray, a Plexi, a Deluxe don't need those options to sound stellar, 2 to 6 knobs, two different inputs, that's it.
-- imho what would give our community the biggest possible creativity boost atm would be one brave developer resisting the cheap temptation of throwing in the kitchen sink but focusing all his / her efforts on a single, extremely authentic cab with maybe only one single control for room size.
This cab should aim to approximate what you hear when you play through a real one, no "we're aiming for a recorded, produced sound" snake oil.
No "optimization for headphones or laptop speakers" either, develop on seriously neutral studio monitors instead, using a high end DI / converter chain.
Use the most standard guitars for testing, too, a US Vintage Strat, an LP with PAF style PUs, an Ibanez RG with DiMarzios, you get the picture.

now, how would that help ?

-- this reference cab(s) would give users and devs a neutral base to compare various amps with, like in the real world.
-- Most folks owning several amps probably only own one or two cabs, and when they check out another amp that's what they use.
I know I do.
So this concept would feel kinda natural.
-- And before you stress the importance of cab tweaking and development - sure, no contradiction. Nobody says this "reference cab" is all people should use.
-- The user's workflow I'm thinking of is:
Route your favourite ampsim (sans cab) to that reference cab and dial in your amp of choice.
It will be a lot easier since there is one less dimension to worry about.
Now if you're happy, great.
If you're not quite there yet, nobody's gonna stop you from taking that amp sound and finetuning it by substituting other cabs, again having one less dimension to worry about.

That leaves a few final questions :
-- when will they come and lock me in ?
-- how can we get such a reference cab ?
A competition ?
Will a brave dev take up the challenge and resist the temptation of including tweaking options ?
Will a company step up and offer a "neutral" cab preset for an existing cab module ?
I sure mentioned the idea to IK after the AT3 launch.

Discuss and flame away, I can take it.

Ymmv, imho and all that,
susiwong

[guitarzan]

I don't really disagree with any of that per sa, the points about unlimited choice being a detriment, etc. I guess I would say, though, that the reason there is not an industry standard is that none of the current cab sims quite produce the results that a clear majority are looking for...in other words, the Marshall 1960 was never deemed the standard by proclamation, it became the standard through wide use and acceptance.

Maybe one design standard that might lead to a more universally useful cab sim (that would work well with software and hardware amps) would be for developers to pay more attention to the output of the amp sim portion, before the cab sim, and make sure it is the type of output that would really come out of a hardware amp - it's really quite awful on it's own - but that's one of the reasons you need a good cab sim .

Another point I think I agree on is simplification of selection and controls....start to actually design cab sims (and amp sims for that matter) instead of offering a giant tool kit to build your own like many are now. I mean, it's great to have an advanced section for experimenters and tweakaholics, but just offering a huge control panel that allows you to "roll your own" cab isn't really design IMO. So, go ahead and use IRs, multi-band compression. etc - but hide the complexity, maybe just use a bunch of super high quality integrated IRs for normal use, have each control on the GUI interactively tweak many related parameters - design the character of the cab sim!

So, all good points, susiwong, but just coming from a different place than mine. I think there is just simply stuff missing from current cab sims. Big stuff!! It seems like the fact that speakers and cabs compress and limit the amps output has been missed altogether in many cases. So, there are two seperate but inter-related major sources of compression in a complete guitar amp - the power amp (also not adequately represented in most sims) and the speaker cab.

The one guy in the world who I considered to know more than all others about speaker cab design and performance was the late great Ted Weber, and on his website ( http://www.webervst.com/sptalk.html , look for a question from Albert Tejera) he mentions that motional impedance is an important part of the complex tone of a guitar cab, and that it was key to realistically simulating a guitar cab. I'm pretty sure no one has given this much thought...but maybe the key isn't really to exactly emulate every electromechanical nuance, but rather just to create a pleasing response that has a complex dynamic tone.

Man, this post is getting huge - I'll save some for later!

[susiwong]

guitarzan,
for quite some time now I see the need for additional compression, too.
First I was mostly using the LA-3A, nowadays I prefer Bootsie's Density II and FerricTDS with internal sidechain enabled.
None of the big ampsims has anything comparable imho, partial exception being TH-1.

Another point I think I agree on is simplification of selection and controls....start to actually design cab sims (and amp sims for that matter) instead of offering a giant tool kit to build your own like many are now. I mean, it's great to have an advanced section for experimenters and tweakaholics, but just offering a huge control panel that allows you to "roll your own" cab isn't really design IMO. So, go ahead and use IRs, multi-band compression. etc - but hide the complexity, maybe just use a bunch of super high quality integrated IRs for normal use, have each control on the GUI interactively tweak many related parameters - design the character of the cab sim!

Couldn't have said it better.

The one guy in the world who I considered to know more than all others about speaker cab design and performance was the late great Ted Weber, and on his website ( http://www.webervst.com/sptalk.html , look for a question from Albert Tejera) he mentions that motional impedance is an important part of the complex tone of a guitar cab, and that it was key to realistically simulating a guitar cab. I'm pretty sure no one has given this much thought...

One of the reasons resistors don't work too well for powersoaks.
Not sure, but it might be close to impossible to model that interaction with the poweramp if you have to consider several cabs, don't even know if these phenomena have been completely and scientifically researched in hardware yet ...
It just happens and you try to make it work for you I guess.
One temporary way around this dilemma might be including a one-size-fits-all mechanism in the poweramp, ignoring your cab choice.
A similar concept works ok for transplanting ambience between HQ drum samples.
But now I'm only speculating ...
Ymmv,
susiwong

[metalifuxx]

Speaking of cabs, and a high quality single cab at that, this Russian dev RoxOlder just released a free high quality Marshall cab plugin possibly based on the voltera kerneling convolution method in a single plugin DLL.

http://mercuriall.iks.ru/ (in Russian)

the google English translated site
http://translate.google.com/translate?j ... auto&tl=en

And the download link
http://mercuriall.iks.ru/files/MercuriallCab.zip

He modeled a Marshall AVT50X

The thread about it
http://translate.google.com/translate?j ... auto&tl=en

I was just playing on it for a few hours, and trying a few different sims with it, other than the recommended settings/sims. Sounds really good.

[guitarzan]

Speaking of cabs, and a high quality single cab at that, this Russian dev RoxOlder just released a free high quality Marshall cab plugin possibly based on the voltera kerneling convolution method in a single plugin DLL.

Wow...how timely! Thanks metalifuxx!

"But on the other hand the software to simulate a guitar cabinet, that is, bundles of guitar speaker + microphone, still does not provide an acceptable quality of modeling." - developer of Mercuriall Cab

Truer words were never written . Weird...it's like a spontaneous realization everywhere at the same time! A eureka moment....amp sims don't suck, cab sims suck!

[susiwong]

Speaking of cabs, and a high quality single cab at that, this Russian dev RoxOlder just released a free high quality Marshall cab plugin possibly based on the voltera kerneling convolution method in a single plugin DLL.

http://mercuriall.iks.ru/ (in Russian)

the google English translated site
http://translate.google.com/translate?j ... auto&tl=en

And the download link
http://mercuriall.iks.ru/files/MercuriallCab.zip

He modeled a Marshall AVT50X

The thread about it
http://translate.google.com/translate?j ... auto&tl=en

I was just playing on it for a few hours, and trying a few different sims with it, other than the recommended settings/sims. Sounds really good.

metalifuxx,
thanks for that find !
This is coincidence ...
Not sure you linked the correct forum thread though :

... night after work I strip ...

wtf ?
(p.5 bottom)

Lol,
susiwong

[strangedogs]

metalifuxx - you actually liked the Russian's Cab? I tried it and thought it sounded "meh"... I even tried it with the TSE X30 and set it like it shows in the GUI but I wasn't too impressed. Maybe I wasn't doing something right. Sounded like a wet blanket on a bad cab to me.

[guitarzan]

The one guy in the world who I considered to know more than all others about speaker cab design and performance was the late great Ted Weber, and on his website ( http://www.webervst.com/sptalk.html , look for a question from Albert Tejera) he mentions that motional impedance is an important part of the complex tone of a guitar cab, and that it was key to realistically simulating a guitar cab. I'm pretty sure no one has given this much thought...

One of the reasons resistors don't work too well for powersoaks.
Not sure, but it might be close to impossible to model that interaction with the poweramp if you have to consider several cabs, don't even know if these phenomena have been completely and scientifically researched in hardware yet ...

The motional impedance of an electro-dynamic loudspeaker: a 1979 Acoustical Society of America abstract if anyone is interested.

[Ken McLaren]

+1 to all of it....Personally, I don't want to try and tackle this any further than what we have already tried to do...But I look forward to hearing what everyone else creates...

IMO no matter what you do with a CAB sim, it will never be right to all...I guess the same can be said about any development though. Its just the shear amount of time it takes to create these things. Having said that, thats why there is always tweak options. Even if the user does not like the plugin, then they at least have the option to change it to the way they want it. I agree though with what has been said about tweaking and being confusing to the user, thats always a challenge for interface design. On one hand you HAVE to allow tweaking and settings to be changed in order to appeal to a larger mass, on the other hand you have to make your interface easy to operate..So how do you have 6 gazillion controls, yet make it easy to operate and understand? Thats the challenge.

I don't believe there will ever be an ultra easy to use Cab sim that appeals to everyone, at least not without the ability to go under the hood. Going under the hood is paramount to giving users the sound they want, no 2 guitarist ever want the same exact tone...

Great thread, nice to see you susi!
KM

[susiwong]

+1 to all of it....Personally, I don't want to try and tackle this any further than what we have already tried to do...But I look forward to hearing what everyone else creates...

IMO no matter what you do with a CAB sim, it will never be right to all...I guess the same can be said about any development though. Its just the shear amount of time it takes to create these things. Having said that, thats why there is always tweak options. Even if the user does not like the plugin, then they at least have the option to change it to the way they want it. I agree though with what has been said about tweaking and being confusing to the user, thats always a challenge for interface design. On one hand you HAVE to allow tweaking and settings to be changed in order to appeal to a larger mass, on the other hand you have to make your interface easy to operate..So how do you have 6 gazillion controls, yet make it easy to operate and understand? Thats the challenge.

I don't believe there will ever be an ultra easy to use Cab sim that appeals to everyone, at least not without the ability to go under the hood. Going under the hood is paramount to giving users the sound they want, no 2 guitarist ever want the same exact tone...

Great thread, nice to see you susi!
KM

Hi Johnny,
I perfectly see your point, and I hope you don't get the impression I'm against tweaking - not at all, really.
My point is, in the long run guitar players will expect a product to make a proud statement, like it is in the real world.
"Here I am, that's what my dev thinks an XY should sound like ."
Most people will use the (amp, cab, whatever) like that, load it up when they want that special sound.
Then, and only then, there will be a button that opens an "expert page" that lets you fine tune the beast, for the 10% of control freaks out there .
Equally true for vintage inspired / emulation stuff, think Vox vs Matchless vs Bad Cat vs Hayseed vs JMI etc - all variations on a theme, all unique in their own right.
Hopefully (from a user's point of view) plugins will start to get a unique character that's designed on purpose, not as the sum of all shortcomings a company's emulation technology has (not wanting to sound , imho we're still in the pioneer phase where this is inevitable even for the big players).
If I may add, your amp line partially follows a similar idea already, for that.
What I think is still missing is the final step of making a decision, including a cab (optionally tweakable if you want) completely showing your vision of XY when loading up, all the user would have to do is adjust to taste with a few amp controls.
I know I'm asking much here.

Forgive me, my standards are unreasonable , I know, but in the real world I'm mostly using /working with colleagues who use vintage and boutique gear as well as some gems from the production line, so I'm spoilt ...
So don't take me too serious, it's always easier to criticize than to create, I know. But that's all I can contribute personally, not having a clue about the tech under the hood.

So please take this as what it is, a singular opinion, not taking anything away from my appreciation and respect for you who actually create.

Now, marketing is a different story, there are two or three marketing folks I really respect, the rest ... but that's OT for sure.
Douglas Adams, evacuation spaceship, phone booth sanitizers, 'nuff said.

Cheers,
susiwong

[susiwong]

metalifuxx - you actually liked the Russian's Cab? I tried it and thought it sounded "meh"... I even tried it with the TSE X30 and set it like it shows in the GUI but I wasn't too impressed. Maybe I wasn't doing something right. Sounded like a wet blanket on a bad cab to me.

I'm really looking forward to trying this, but it will have to wait till tomorrow I'm afraid. I'll post some impressions here.
Atm, 3x for the concept at least.
Cheers,
susiwong

[Silenceborn]

Well, I still did not read the whole thread but related to the title, I'm an old user of AT2 and new AT3, GR2,3, and 4 and almost all the other commercial or free amp sims, but I always had problems with the Cab section, I don't know how to describe it as I'm not a pro sound engineer, but the cab section in almost all the convolution based cab sims feels a bit flat and lifeless, whatever I did, I still can not get rid of that lifeless boxy feeling, it seems I have this problem with almost all amp sims as if I'm playing through a very thin box without that beef I usually can feel with real cabs, I even have this problem with Altiverb Reverb as well, the reverb it produce is great except it lacks that lifeless problem as well, so it seems the problem is with the convolution technology itself as it obviously can not capture "something" in the line. But after I discovered Vandal almost 2 months ago, I was shocked to be honest as it's cab section is not based on convolution, its completely simulated mathematically and the result is wonderful and very close to the real cabs I own with amazing low cpu use as well with too many options to tweak the cam section as well, I just wanted to share my feeling about it, I like to know your opinion about this as well if any of you been playing with Vandal.

Cheers

EDIT : sorry for my bad English as always

[susiwong]

silenceborn,
I hear you on convolution cabs, totally.

But to be fair, the bar has been raised considerably over the last year, Guitar Rig's CR and now AT3's greatly improved cab section - both big sonic improvements. Same for Recabinet and Redwire.
Like I said before, the technology just isn't quite there yet, but it'll come in a few years, I'm sure.

You made me curious about Vandal, have to finally test it.
Sascha is to be taken seriously.

Cheers,
susiwong

[susiwong]

The motional impedance of an electro-dynamic loudspeaker: a 1979 Acoustical Society of America abstract if anyone is interested.

Thanks, downloaded for reading in a quiet moment.
Cheers,
susiwong