Quote:
Originally Posted by Ermz  Cool. Does this use dynamic convolution technology to represent speaker distortion, power amp saturation and differences in cabinet voicing with level, or is it a collection of standard, static IRs?
I'm very interested in the next phase of this technology, but static IRs have already proven that they cannot compete on even grounds with real cabinets for professional productions.
Great for demoing and guide tracks though. |
Thanks for your interest. I'll try my best to answer your questions.
They are static IRs. So, the cabinet voicing is as it was sampled.
We used a Bryston 2B or 4B to power the cabs because we wanted as little distortion or coloration from the power amp as possible.
Any power amp saturation would come from using a real amp into a dummy load or attenuator, which is what I like to do, or simulated by an amp modeler. I find the Palmer PDI-03 or Sequis motherload to be quite transparent when used as a dummy load (no filters). The others I've used seem to roll off the lows (and not just due to the Fletcher-Munson curve) when not attached to a speaker.
As for speaker distortion, some people rely on it for their sound, some avoid it. We don't capture it, as we mention on the site, but you can dial in a similar vibe using the Distortion and Crunch controls in the Revalver convolution module, for instance. So, there are workable solutions for people who prefer to run silent.
We also had high hopes for the next-gen technology, as well. We played around with Nebula and Volterra kernels when we first started this project and the latency in real time use, the CPU hit and the time it takes to sample a single point ruled it out. Perhaps a few years from now, the technology will have advanced sufficiently, but we needed a solution today.
If you compare an IR to a cabinet recorded in a good live room, with a well-placed mic, using first-class preamps and converters, which would be the best case scenario, then yes, I would agree that an IR will not be the same, it will be missing some of the non-linear things not attributed to the guitar amp, like speaker distortion, which you mentioned, and transformer saturation at the preamp. Transformer saturation can be added in later by abusing a preamp's output transformer, though. Speaker distortion, I mentioned already.
We've found that despite some of the limitations, IRs, especially when paired with a real amp, can sound really great. I've heard killer sounds from "in the box" amp modelers, as well. Our job is to try and level the playing field as much as possible, and we've tried to do that by using only the best equipment to capture the IRs and by being as thorough as is possible for guys with ADHD (fortunately I have some OCD mixed in).
Man, I'm feeling long winded today.
As you so aptly pointed out, even people who have access to a nice studio space can still use IRs for demoing and laying down tracks that they can take into the studio later and reamp or polish up.
They can also come in handy salvaging tracks (where the directs were captured) that weren't recorded as well as they should have been, or for augmenting or doubling existing tracks in post.
And the folks who don't have access to a well-equipped studio, well, they have one more tool to help them get great sounding guitar tracks.
Hope this helps.