Audioease Cabinet - Page 2

Tringboy · 1st July 2009, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elambo

If I was running AudioEase I'd offer the working demo, but NOT the audio demo, to help encourage this.

This demo will work for 30 days
Audio Ease - download Cabinet demo

elambo · 2nd July 2009, 02:24 AM

I split the signal from a Two Rock amp and sent it to "Cabinet" and to a Palmer PDI-03 and it's like night and day, the Palmer hands-down the superior emulator. I love everything AudioEase has produced but this doesn't do it for me. Plus it's RTAS, so the delay made it awkward. This doesn't entirely surprise me - the PDI-03 is tops for emulation.

KarmaPolice · 2nd July 2009, 03:10 AM

Haven´t tried any analog modelers yet, but talking about plugins this is by far the best I´ve heard. Finally someone got it right imo. Even the room
mic sounds sweet.
Been thinking about a Palmer PDI 9 before I saw this. Elambo, can you tell me a little bit more what you like better about the palmer stuff?

elambo · 2nd July 2009, 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KarmaPolice

Been thinking about a Palmer PDI 9 before I saw this. Elambo, can you tell me a little bit more what you like better about the palmer stuff?

Everything. It sounds like the amp through my favorite cab with the right mic pointing at the right place on the speaker, or has the adjustments to alter the sound if I need it. The plugin sounded like a copy of a copy of a VHS tape by comparison. The Palmer was more 3D, richer, ballsier, more transparent allowing the subtleties to come through (a TwoRock is a very complex amp).

Even though my signal path was simple, I'm wondering if something was wrong during the test. I didn't expect such a difference. The 03 has always sounded very legit so I was really expecting Cabinet to top it, but I expected more from this plug. On the other hand, I have SpeakerPhone2 and AltiVerb, so I already know these cab sims. "Cabinet" does sound similar to the cabs I remember from AudioEase.

KarmaPolice · 2nd July 2009, 09:33 AM

Gonna get a Palmer then and try for myself befor buying Cabinet. Thanks Elambo!

samsonic · 2nd July 2009, 09:53 AM

I think visualy, this plugin sounds good, I think they spent more hours in graphic design than in deconvolution process.

If you don't know this plugin, you should right now give a try to REVALVER HP edition, witch contains 75 speaker simulations and many other features for just 70 € (not the same price philosophy as audioease...)

elambo · 2nd July 2009, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samsonic

I think visualy, this plugin sounds good...

But sonically, it's hard to look at...

Aux13 · 2nd July 2009, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elambo

I split the signal from a Two Rock amp and sent it to "Cabinet" and to a Palmer PDI-03 and it's like night and day, the Palmer hands-down the superior emulator. I love everything AudioEase has produced but this doesn't do it for me. Plus it's RTAS, so the delay made it awkward. This doesn't entirely surprise me - the PDI-03 is tops for emulation.

.... but there is still 600$ vs. 60$

elambo · 3rd July 2009, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aux13

.... but there is still 600$ vs. 60$

It's not exactly $600 vs $60. The Palmer has a power soak and filtered AND direct out, all included. With Cabinet you'd need to buy a power soak with a direct out. The Palmer is still more expensive, but it's much better IMO.

Aux13 · 3rd July 2009, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elambo

The Palmer is still more expensive, but it's much better IMO.

KarmaPolice · 3rd July 2009, 08:58 AM

The Palmer pdi 9 has the speaker simulation but not the power soak and costs about 85 €.

Ermz · 3rd July 2009, 02:35 PM

How does this differ from Recabinet? Also, what is the incentive to purchase it with the plethora of good, free cabinet IRs out there? Are they doing dynamic convolution technology, using multiple impulse responses to model non-linear cab behavior? Is this product an improved technology, or is it just using existing methods to grab money?

I'm very interested in this area of technology at the moment, but I've yet to see anyone make any progress on using static, lifeless IRs to render what is in essence a very dynamic and non-linear source.

elambo · 3rd July 2009, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KarmaPolice

The Palmer pdi 9 has the speaker simulation but not the power soak and costs about 85 €.

It's $175 US, plus you'd need the power soak (I used a Hot Plate connected to the Thru, which was fine).

The 09 has Palmer speaker simulation, but it doesn't sound exactly like the 03. It's very, very good however.

grandaddy · 3rd July 2009, 09:21 PM

I tried it with revalver III and thought it sounded great.

KarmaPolice · 3rd July 2009, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ermz

Are they doing dynamic convolution technology, using multiple impulse responses to model non-linear cab behavior?

No afaik. Just plain IRs. Have to correct my initial enthusiasm. Playing through this for some time I never stopped adjusting settings.
Nothing that sounds just right for me. I liked the clearness and dryness of those IRs. But then it gets quite harsh pretty easily. Hoping
for the Palmer now...

Tarron_D · 4th July 2009, 02:43 AM

Something just doesn't sound right with these. They sound broken to my ears. I had the same thought when I heard the speakerphone demos. Maybe I need to spend more time with the demo.

elambo · 4th July 2009, 02:51 AM

Yes, I have to agree. Speakerphone is excellent. Altiverb is pretty much the standard for IRs. BarbaBatch is still the best audio conversion utility IMO. So AudioEase knows audio, but this seems uncharacteristic of their typical quality.

Broken · 4th July 2009, 03:52 AM

Ok i've got some good sounds with this. Running my Soldano X88R direct it's quite usable.

One question about the mic 1 mic 2 blend knob - is mic 1 a 421 and 2 a 57?

grandaddy · 4th July 2009, 08:41 AM

Actually I've just listened to the audio demos and thought they sounded dodgy....the product itself seems much better.

davey boy · 9th July 2009, 04:37 AM

I tried the demo today with Waves GTR3. Not good at all on first listen. It was very thin sounding. No where near as nice as recabinet irs or GTR3 for that matter. But, I've tried speaker phone cabs in the past and wasn't impressed. Too bad as I liked the gui and the concept and I love Audioease!

Kyle Ashley · 9th July 2009, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davey boy

I tried the demo today with Waves GTR3. Not good at all on first listen. It was very thin sounding. No where near as nice as recabinet irs or GTR3 for that matter. But, I've tried speaker phone cabs in the past and wasn't impressed. Too bad as I liked the gui and the concept and I love Audioease!

Hi Dave...hope all is well with you! After playing with this for awhile, I agree totally. I liked the layout and idea behind it, but won't be purchasing it.

joeydego · 26th July 2009, 03:46 PM

just found their page where the audible demos are. I think it sounds terrible! For 175 dollars, you'd probably be better off with a sm57 direct into an m box on a line 6 amp.

Tarron_D · 27th July 2009, 03:14 AM

Hollow is the word I'd use to describe the sound. Almost like comb filtering and a bad EQ.

joeydego · 27th July 2009, 09:19 AM

the IR's from Recab werent this bad. (I do not work for recab or sell plugins)

2nd July 2009, 09:53 AM	#36
samsonic Gear interested Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 16	a shame !!! I think visualy, this plugin sounds good, I think they spent more hours in graphic design than in deconvolution process. If you don't know this plugin, you should right now give a try to REVALVER HP edition, witch contains 75 speaker simulations and many other features for just 70 € (not the same price philosophy as audioease...)

3rd July 2009, 02:35 PM	#42
Ermz Gear addict Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 488	How does this differ from Recabinet? Also, what is the incentive to purchase it with the plethora of good, free cabinet IRs out there? Are they doing dynamic convolution technology, using multiple impulse responses to model non-linear cab behavior? Is this product an improved technology, or is it just using existing methods to grab money? I'm very interested in this area of technology at the moment, but I've yet to see anyone make any progress on using static, lifeless IRs to render what is in essence a very dynamic and non-linear source. __________________ www.myspace.com/ermin_h

9th July 2009, 04:37 AM	#50
davey boy Gear maniac Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 288	I tried the demo today with Waves GTR3. Not good at all on first listen. It was very thin sounding. No where near as nice as recabinet irs or GTR3 for that matter. But, I've tried speaker phone cabs in the past and wasn't impressed. Too bad as I liked the gui and the concept and I love Audioease! __________________ Dave www.dbwstudio.com www.myspace.com/dbwproductions

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Guitar cabinet Isolation cabinet	burke111	Studio building / acoustics	11	22nd October 2009 07:34 PM
Audioease Support is grimm	T_R_S	Music computers	26	2nd August 2007 07:06 PM
audioease: speakerphone	t_d	New Product Alert!	21	4th May 2007 05:21 PM

2nd July 2009, 02:24 AM	#32
elambo Lives for gear Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Up here Posts: 3,773	I split the signal from a Two Rock amp and sent it to "Cabinet" and to a Palmer PDI-03 and it's like night and day, the Palmer hands-down the superior emulator. I love everything AudioEase has produced but this doesn't do it for me. Plus it's RTAS, so the delay made it awkward. This doesn't entirely surprise me - the PDI-03 is tops for emulation.

2nd July 2009, 03:10 AM	#33
KarmaPolice Gear nut Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 83	Haven´t tried any analog modelers yet, but talking about plugins this is by far the best I´ve heard. Finally someone got it right imo. Even the room mic sounds sweet. Been thinking about a Palmer PDI 9 before I saw this. Elambo, can you tell me a little bit more what you like better about the palmer stuff?

2nd July 2009, 09:33 AM	#35
KarmaPolice Gear nut Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 83	Gonna get a Palmer then and try for myself befor buying Cabinet. Thanks Elambo!

3rd July 2009, 08:58 AM	#41
KarmaPolice Gear nut Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 83	The Palmer pdi 9 has the speaker simulation but not the power soak and costs about 85 €.

3rd July 2009, 09:21 PM	#44
grandaddy Gear nut Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 93	I tried it with revalver III and thought it sounded great.

4th July 2009, 02:43 AM	#46
Tarron_D Gear Head Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Bensenville, ILL Posts: 36	Something just doesn't sound right with these. They sound broken to my ears. I had the same thought when I heard the speakerphone demos. Maybe I need to spend more time with the demo.

4th July 2009, 02:51 AM	#47
elambo Lives for gear Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Up here Posts: 3,773	Yes, I have to agree. Speakerphone is excellent. Altiverb is pretty much the standard for IRs. BarbaBatch is still the best audio conversion utility IMO. So AudioEase knows audio, but this seems uncharacteristic of their typical quality.

4th July 2009, 03:52 AM	#48
Broken Gear maniac Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 259	Ok i've got some good sounds with this. Running my Soldano X88R direct it's quite usable. One question about the mic 1 mic 2 blend knob - is mic 1 a 421 and 2 a 57?

4th July 2009, 08:41 AM	#49
grandaddy Gear nut Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 93	Actually I've just listened to the audio demos and thought they sounded dodgy....the product itself seems much better.

27th July 2009, 03:14 AM	#53
Tarron_D Gear Head Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Bensenville, ILL Posts: 36	Hollow is the word I'd use to describe the sound. Almost like comb filtering and a bad EQ.