The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Guitars for sale     Latest  Trending
Real Cabinet vs. Cab Impulse Response - Can you hear the difference?
Old 27th August 2019
  #1
Here for the gear
Real Cabinet vs. Cab Impulse Response - Can you hear the difference?

Guitar cabinet impulse responses are a great way to get an amazing guitar tone. But do they really sound like the original? I've recorded an example with a real cab and captured 3 IRs with different IR capturing techniques. Can you spot the real setup?
https://youtu.be/_tL5AtM_6CY
Old 27th August 2019
  #2

Poor source material for this test. The differences will be on double-stop bends and solos up the neck - where the non-linearities of the speaker play a bigger part of the sound.

For some genres of music, IR-based techniques are fine.



-tINY

Old 27th August 2019
  #3
It's not so much a matter of whether you can tell the difference once recorded. The real question is the effect on how you play and for that there is no way that an IR can get remotely close to using a real speaker and amp. It just can't - computers don't interact with the real world. You can't get sustain off an IR. You can't do effects like fading in by shaking a string like Hendrix did in "Foxy Lady" or do other, less obvious/severe tricks.

IRs are soulless.
Old 27th August 2019
  #4
Gear Maniac
Good grief you guys.

There are lots of really bad IRs out there... even ones that people pay for, but well-executed IRs at the tail-end of a great amp, a proper reactive load, and of course great playing... it's all there. Used improperly, they do nothing for you.

If you don't think it is, you are either techno-phobic or your feelings are jaded by expectation bias... or both.

This is absolutely one of those cases where this technology is an absolute game-changer.
Old 27th August 2019
  #5
Quote:
Originally Posted by dpsbb View Post
Good grief you guys.

There are lots of really bad IRs out there... even ones that people pay for, but well-executed IRs at the tail-end of a great amp, a proper reactive load, and of course great playing... it's all there. Used improperly, they do nothing for you.

If you don't think it is, you are either techno-phobic or your feelings are jaded by expectation bias... or both.

This is absolutely one of those cases where this technology is an absolute game-changer.


For some kinds of music, there is no practical difference. Certain guitar sounds (think blues and such) use "vintage style" speakers that have a lot of non-linearities which can't be captured with an IR because it only captures time-invariant linear effects on the signal.

In light of that, high-gain chunking like that won't really reveal the deficiencies of a modeling system that lacks the non-linear effects. Guys in that genre often use high-power speakers that don't have any cone break-up....



-tINY

Old 28th August 2019
  #6
GOR
Here for the gear
 

Is there any vendor that releases "multisample IRs" or IR plugins to reflect the non-linearities? If not, then maybe for the reason that this "problem" is just something in the peoples head or with highly negligible effect...

To me the examples sound very similar. I'd either say B or D is the real one. But more B than D.
Old 28th August 2019
  #7
Lives for gear
The test material was chosen to hide the software. Not a good test.

I liked "A" the best. I bet "B" was the real track.
Old 28th August 2019
  #8
Gear Head
 

I think it depends on the guitar work needed and how exposed the guitar is within a mix. For solo work I agree with John Eppstein that it is more about response when playing (rather than just sound) and subtleties. Nothing, in my opinion, can still replace the immediacy of a pure analog signal (and I include analog pedals in the equation). I always feel the attack of the guitar sound is not the same when ITB (even at very low latency like 4-5ms....it feels plasticky to me ITB) and same with regards with dynamic range and depth.
At the same time it really depends on the music genre....I don't think there is just one way of doing things.
When it comes to harmonic distortion I don't feel computer are still there....out of an amp feels (to me) still more organic both when playing rock, blues, metal or jazz (bare in mind I use a fender Princeton or Twin so that's where I came from) and definitely real amps and cones are more responsive to pedals.
But for writing or rhythm work sometime I prefer the ITB work flow and speed hence IRs
Trying to avoid self-promotion here on GS see if you can spot if this is a real miced amp or IR (the solo starts around 3:10)
https://open.spotify.com/track/0rRpw...QMurg4eEwWor8g
Old 28th August 2019
  #9
Here for the gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by dpsbb View Post
If you don't think it is, you are either techno-phobic or your feelings are jaded by expectation bias... or both.

This is absolutely one of those cases where this technology is an absolute game-changer.
I agree! But a great guitar tone and how to get it almost always feels like a religion with certain dogmas rather than pure scientific approach. Therefore, a strong bias is to be expected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GOR View Post
Is there any vendor that releases "multisample IRs" or IR plugins to reflect the non-linearities? If not, then maybe for the reason that this "problem" is just something in the peoples head or with highly negligible effect...
To me the examples sound very similar. I'd either say B or D is the real one. But more B than D.
So far, there are no plug-ins or what you call "multisample IRs" out there. There is of course much debate on the non-linearity of the system. We did several experiments regarding that matter and so far I would conclude the effect is indeed negligible. However, I'm repeatedly surprised that some people can tell an IR from a real recording even if they are pretty, pretty close sounding. They often can't even describe why, it's just something the subconscious recognizes I'd guess.
Old 28th August 2019
  #10
Gear Maniac
 
BCProject's Avatar
 

oh boy here we go.
Looking forward to a steady-stream of dogma, get-off-my-lawn / stuck-in-the-past isms, half right-half wrong technical information and the inevitable vociferous defense of whatever-it-is-you-currently-prefer.
Yay!
Old 28th August 2019
  #11
Lives for gear
 
Mikhael's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BCProject View Post
oh boy here we go.
Looking forward to a steady-stream of dogma, get-off-my-lawn / stuck-in-the-past isms, half right-half wrong technical information and the inevitable vociferous defense of whatever-it-is-you-currently-prefer.
Yay!
Well, I guess I'm in a weird minority. I don't care. As long as the tone is appropriate for whatever the music is, that extra 0.5% of tone chasing just doesn't matter.
Old 28th August 2019
  #12
Quote:
Originally Posted by dpsbb View Post
Good grief you guys.

There are lots of really bad IRs out there... even ones that people pay for, but well-executed IRs at the tail-end of a great amp, a proper reactive load, and of course great playing... it's all there. Used improperly, they do nothing for you.

If you don't think it is, you are either techno-phobic or your feelings are jaded by expectation bias... or both.

This is absolutely one of those cases where this technology is an absolute game-changer.
No, it's not. Not even close.

Everything that puts another dimension of separation between the player and the instrument contributes to a lack of musicality. In this case the speaker of a guitar amp is effectively the soundboard of the instrument. Removing the interaction between the player and the soundboard of his instrument provides another degree of separation between the player and the musical result.

It's the same problem as reamping, which also divorces the player from the final result.

The fact is, using a speaker IR breaks the interaction between the player and the instrument. That is never a good thing and is a large part of the diminishing emotional involvement that is becoming all too common in today's music.

EDIT: Or perhaps it really IS a "game changer". It changes the "game" in a destructive, negative way.

Not all "changes" are for the better. Many changes are detrimental. Burning down the rain forest is a "change".

As to "techno-phobic" you don't know what you're talking about. I've been involved deeply in pretty much all technical aspects of music longer that most of the "Tech heads" around here have been playing - which is why I have the viewpoint I do. I outgrew the "greatest thing since sliced bread" syndrome a long, long time ago.

As for "expectation bias" I'd say that's the problem of the people who think that IRs can replace real speakers.

Last edited by John Eppstein; 28th August 2019 at 10:12 PM..
Old 28th August 2019
  #13
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCProject View Post
oh boy here we go.
Looking forward to a steady-stream of dogma, get-off-my-lawn / stuck-in-the-past isms, half right-half wrong technical information and the inevitable vociferous defense of whatever-it-is-you-currently-prefer.
Yay!
There's nothing "get off my lawn/stuck-in-the-past" about it. Either you aspire to be a great musician (or the best you can be) or you aspire to be a hack. Anything that gets between you and the performance of the music gets in the way of being the best that you can be. That knows no, time, no generation.

If it gets between you and the music (even if you don't understand that it is), even though it may be much more "convenient" r3tards your musical development.


You're perfectly welcome to be on my lawn. Only thing is you gotta MOW.
Old 28th August 2019
  #14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikhael View Post
Well, I guess I'm in a weird minority. I don't care. As long as the tone is appropriate for whatever the music is, that extra 0.5% of tone chasing just doesn't matter.
You don't get it.

"Tone chasing" has little or nothing to do with it. "Tone chasing" is what you do when you're playing around with a zillion "choices" instead of playing music.

You could have a speaker IR that sounds EXACTLY like your speaker, even an IR taken from your own speaker, it still isn't going to interact with your playing like the real thing.

It's about HOW IT MAKES YOU PLAY/FACILITATES YOUR PLAYING that's the important thing. Tone is a different matter entirely.

Real speakers behave differently when driven with different amounts of signal. Real speakers react differently to playing dynamics. This in turn makes you play with more/different expression.

IRs can't do that because they're not responsive to your technique.
Old 28th August 2019
  #15
Gear Maniac
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
No, it's not. Not even close.

Everything that puts another dimension of separation between the player and the instrument contributes to a lack of musicality. In this case the speaker of a guitar amp is effectively the soundboard of the instrument. Removing the interaction between the player and the soundboard of his instrument provides another degree of separation between the player and the musical result.

It's the same problem as reamping, which also divorces the player from the final result.

The fact is, using a speaker IR breaks the interaction between the player and the instrument. That is never a good thing and is a large part of the diminishing emotional involvement that is becoming all too common in today's music.

EDIT: Or perhaps it really IS a "game changer". It changes the "game" in a destructive, negative way.

Not all "changes" are for the better. Many changes are detrimental. Burning down the rain forest is a "change".
There is more than one way to get amazing results in/on the studio/stage these days. If that doesn't float your boat, then so be it... go and do it the way that it works for you and like I told you in another thread, don't go telling people they are idiots because something different than what YOU want/like/need is what works for them.
Old 28th August 2019
  #16
Gear Maniac
 
BCProject's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
You don't get it.

"Tone chasing" has little or nothing to do with it. "Tone chasing" is what you do when you're playing around with a zillion "choices" instead of playing music.

You could have a speaker IR that sounds EXACTLY like your speaker, even an IR taken from your own speaker, it still isn't going to interact with your playing like the real thing.

It's about HOW IT MAKES YOU PLAY/FACILITATES YOUR PLAYING that's the important thing. Tone is a different matter entirely.

Real speakers behave differently when driven with different amounts of signal. Real speakers react differently to playing dynamics. This in turn makes you play with more/different expression.

IRs can't do that because they're not responsive to your technique.
Then you should play nothing but an acoustic guitar.

Once the string vibration has been converted to an electric signal via a transducer/pickup - amplified, distorted, filtered, amplified again - past thru another set of transducers etc. - you are adding "separation" from the act of playing and the sound hitting your eardrums. From there it's all arguing over degrees and semantics.

The Mighty Hand of God didn't create stone tablets describing The One True Way of producing electric guitar tone. Sounds like you are passionately committed to the way we stumbled upon in the 60s: using a PA to amplify the signal and by happy accident - it distorts in a pleasing way. Since then we've used science (Hey - it WORKS) to find ways of producing similar results using different means. If that doesn't work for you for whatever reason - fine. But don't act like it's blasphemy.
Old 28th August 2019
  #17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onemuso View Post
But for writing or rhythm work sometime I prefer the ITB work flow and speed hence IRs
For writing I agree that the convenience of an IR (and an amp sim) can be useful for the convenience of it. A great guitar performance probably isn't necessary.

As a rhythm guitarist I disagree strongly about rhythm parts, at least if your rhythm guitarist is any good. A good rhythm guitar part is a lot about inflections and accents, and speaker interaction can be very important in such cases.
Old 28th August 2019
  #18
Lives for gear
 
Mikhael's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
You don't get it.

"Tone chasing" has little or nothing to do with it. "Tone chasing" is what you do when you're playing around with a zillion "choices" instead of playing music.

You could have a speaker IR that sounds EXACTLY like your speaker, even an IR taken from your own speaker, it still isn't going to interact with your playing like the real thing.

It's about HOW IT MAKES YOU PLAY/FACILITATES YOUR PLAYING that's the important thing. Tone is a different matter entirely.

Real speakers behave differently when driven with different amounts of signal. Real speakers react differently to playing dynamics. This in turn makes you play with more/different expression.

IRs can't do that because they're not responsive to your technique.
No, YOU don't get it. When I'm listening to a piece of music, I don't give a flying @#$% if the guitarist used a cab emulating IR or not. I only care if the music moves me.

As to what I use when I'm playing, you'd double up in a fit of apoplexy if we went into that. But I don't use any IRs; I don't work "in the box". The box is just for recording.
Old 29th August 2019
  #19
Gear Maniac
 
telegramsam's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
No, it's not. Not even close.

Everything that puts another dimension of separation between the player and the instrument contributes to a lack of musicality. In this case the speaker of a guitar amp is effectively the soundboard of the instrument. Removing the interaction between the player and the soundboard of his instrument provides another degree of separation between the player and the musical result.

It's the same problem as reamping, which also divorces the player from the final result.

The fact is, using a speaker IR breaks the interaction between the player and the instrument. That is never a good thing and is a large part of the diminishing emotional involvement that is becoming all too common in today's music.

EDIT: Or perhaps it really IS a "game changer". It changes the "game" in a destructive, negative way.

Not all "changes" are for the better. Many changes are detrimental. Burning down the rain forest is a "change".

As to "techno-phobic" you don't know what you're talking about. I've been involved deeply in pretty much all technical aspects of music longer that most of the "Tech heads" around here have been playing - which is why I have the viewpoint I do. I outgrew the "greatest thing since sliced bread" syndrome a long, long time ago.

As for "expectation bias" I'd say that's the problem of the people who think that IRs can replace real speakers.
It's tough to argue that there isn't a difference. Whether or not is makes a significant difference in your playing is down to personal preference.

I would not accuse others that disagree of being 2nd rate musicians, however.

I also think there's a big difference between being a technophobe vs. just doing what has worked for you for many years. On the other hand, if using some emulated piece of gear helps someone get to their desired result faster, why would you try to convince them otherwise?
Old 29th August 2019
  #20
Lives for gear
 
bgood's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onemuso View Post
I think it depends on the guitar work needed and how exposed the guitar is within a mix. For solo work I agree with John Eppstein that it is more about response when playing (rather than just sound) and subtleties. Nothing, in my opinion, can still replace the immediacy of a pure analog signal (and I include analog pedals in the equation). I always feel the attack of the guitar sound is not the same when ITB (even at very low latency like 4-5ms....it feels plasticky to me ITB) and same with regards with dynamic range and depth.
At the same time it really depends on the music genre....I don't think there is just one way of doing things.
When it comes to harmonic distortion I don't feel computer are still there....out of an amp feels (to me) still more organic both when playing rock, blues, metal or jazz (bare in mind I use a fender Princeton or Twin so that's where I came from) and definitely real amps and cones are more responsive to pedals.
But for writing or rhythm work sometime I prefer the ITB work flow and speed hence IRs
Trying to avoid self-promotion here on GS see if you can spot if this is a real miced amp or IR (the solo starts around 3:10)
https://open.spotify.com/track/0rRpw...QMurg4eEwWor8g
I just split the signal from the pedalboard... one goes into a tube or modeling combo in the room with me, the other through whatever tube amp I want to record through, reactive load box, Celestion IRs...

I dig this the most because there’s no latency, I don’t ever have to change buffer settings on the RME, so I can leave them at 1024 or even higher if I want and it doesn’t matter... and I get air spanking me in the booty while I’m playing!
Old 29th August 2019
  #21
Lives for gear
 
bgood's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
There's nothing "get off my lawn/stuck-in-the-past" about it. Either you aspire to be a great musician (or the best you can be) or you aspire to be a hack. Anything that gets between you and the performance of the music gets in the way of being the best that you can be. That knows no, time, no generation.

If it gets between you and the music (even if you don't understand that it is), even though it may be much more "convenient" r3tards your musical development.


You're perfectly welcome to be on my lawn. Only thing is you gotta MOW.
John... your opinions on stuff like this are pretty well baked-in, but, I bet Robben Ford, SRV, Hendrix, or sky player who is used to playing in one room whilst his cab is far away mic’d in an iso room wouldn’t give a sh|t if you set him up with a great IR or real cabs. SRV recorded one of his huge records and the cabs were literally in a separate building...

Studio players used to working with their cabs hidden away in another room, hearing and playing the gtr through monitors or cans is about a common a workflow since multitrack tape came out that I can think of... You seem to be narrowing your fact-set to a very particular workflow to make your point: Rock god, play gtr in same room as cabs... ideally surrounded by the rest of the band, all tracking together live. Which is a cool workflow that just doesn’t happen that much anymore and artists that work this way probably aren’t interested in using IRs to begin with... so, I don’t understand your take on it.

So, I submit: playing through a mic’d cab in iso room that you can only hear through cans or monitors is essentially the same “experience” for the player as same setup but with quality IRs. Even the latency is similar...
Old 29th August 2019
  #22
What's the real cabinet? Open or closed back, ported or not? 10" or 12"? Which mic? Close mounted or pulled back? Centered or offset?
Old 29th August 2019
  #23
Lives for gear
 

I recorded 50 years using mics and amps and for the past 10 years I've included amp/cab modeling to my arsenal.
One of the biggest issues recording direct was emulating a speaker cab. You could buy some excellent guitar preamps and multi effect units but speaker emulation was not very good. Most of the time it used simple EQ filters to approximate how a speaker rolls off the highs and lows.

As far as using software amp/cab modeling to get your sounds, I'm not a huge fan. All the ones I've tried produce too much latency for tracking with them and adding them to a guitar part after they been tracked doesn't work very well. You need to have control over the tones while you're playing.

The solution is simple. Use a hardware version with amp and cab modeling. Many of the new ones are absolutely incredible. You have the ability to choose whatever head and cab combo you want plus add any of the normal effects you normally use and the results will impress even the biggest tone snobs.

Couple of caveats here however. You need to know your hardware. Amp modelers have only had digital cab emulation using actual IR's for a few years. Older multi effect amp modeling effects units will undoubtedly use EQ filtering to fake a cabs tone using different frequency bands and roll of frequencies. Its not so much these are bad (though some can be) Its the fact they don't use impulses and therefore lack the realism they produce.

Another important item is using monitors instead of headphones. Headphones color the sound and you have no distance between the instrument and sound source. With the right monitors you can get the same tones you get when playing through an amp including the kind of sympathetic string sustain you achieve with a loud amp. in my case I use 6 different sets of monitors including a 3500W PA system so there is no problem producing tones identical to a miced amp.

I also have no shortage of real amps in my studio. I currently have at least 15 different types from small 10W tube amps up to 100/200W heads and cabs from 8" combos up to 8X10 and 8X12 cabs. If I need miced tone I have just about anything I choose.

None of it compares to the versatility of a $40 Vox 1G pedal for recording. That one unit has 44 amp models and 12 different cabs. That doesn't even include the other dozens of effects and distortion types available.
I'm able to nail the exact same tones of my miced Marshall, Ampeg, Fender and Vox amps extremely well and I'll challenge anyone to a blind listening test when it comes to telling the the difference on a recording properly mixed and mastered.

Most important aspect of these modern tools is they give you flexibility in tone. Even if you do prefer a miced amp for your lead guitar parts do you really want to mask that tone with a rhythm guitar recorded through the same amp?

If you've recorded long enough and learned anything you'll know most guitar amps are a one or 2 trick pony when it comes to tone. If you're lucky you can get one range of tone from clean to driven or maybe get one that has a couple of different channels you can switch between. The basic tone is usually the same because you only have one cab and one head.

If you can combine a Vox AC30 and a Fender twin, or a Marshall and A Mesa, or an Ampeg and Rolland your tone pallet just got a hell of a lot bigger. Are they all going to be accurate? not likely. I own well over 2 dozen of the old school and new school units and what you typically find is each unit does some things better then others. For example If I want heavy metal with scooped lows or pristine clean tones, I'll use a Digitec unit because they excel with those tones.

If I wasn't old school rock tones like the Beatles, Stones, Hendrix, Clapton or clean jangle like the Byrds, The Vox is my ticket to the amp tones they had.

I can use these units with an amp just like any regular effects pedal too. I simply need to switch it from Line level out used for recording to amp level and use it like any other pedal.

Having a large variety of tones available including miced amps and using software and learning to do all equally well is the ticket to getting some really good recordings. In my opinion only a fool would limit himself to one method or another. If your goal is to make the best music possible you should embrace all the technology you can get your hands on, then let the results speak for themselves.

Chances are you'll always retain your favorite tools but you'll be less likely blow off other tools as being inferior. The only inferior tools are really the ones we know nothing about and choose not to explore. Its one thing to give them your best shot and then decide you like a different method better. At least you'll know how far you could go using those tools given enough time and effort and have some appreciation for what that can do and stop looking down that nose at others who use them.

I'm the first one to admit I'm not a fan of plugins for amp modeling, but that opinion doesn't come from ignorance. Its just the opposite. I spend countless hours using them and achieving acceptable results but based on that time it took to utilize them I can honestly say they still aren't ready for prime time and the people selling them know that. I still find a use for them touching up tracks already recorded however.

Last edited by wrgkmc; 29th August 2019 at 08:59 PM..
Old 30th August 2019
  #24
Lives for gear
 
grannis's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
It's not so much a matter of whether you can tell the difference once recorded. The real question is the effect on how you play and for that there is no way that an IR can get remotely close to using a real speaker and amp. It just can't - computers don't interact with the real world. You can't get sustain off an IR. You can't do effects like fading in by shaking a string like Hendrix did in "Foxy Lady" or do other, less obvious/severe tricks.

IRs are soulless.
book knowledge. You've obviously never used IRs.
Old 30th August 2019
  #25
Lives for gear
 
Yuri Kogan's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grannis View Post
book knowledge. You've obviously never used IRs.
I used (and occasionally still use IRs. I use 2Notes units. With all sort of loads(reactive, resistive...).
Does IR replace a properly mic'd speaker? Never. Will it work in a pinch, when you have no alternative, in a room with bad acoustics? Definitely. Only as its own thing.
I know that having different cabs (open/closed/ported...) with different speakers (sizes/magnets...) can get expensive and space consuming. That does not mean that IRs are a replacement. Speakers are capable of limitless variations due to their construction, mic'ing technique, usage of space, etc. IRs are only a solution of necessity. Irrespective what you use to listen to the results on. Studio monitors have a completely different response to guitar speakers, they do not distort in the same way and do not interact with your amp. They just reproduce the final recording.
Old 30th August 2019
  #26
Lives for gear
 
bgood's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri Kogan View Post
I used (and occasionally still use IRs. I use 2Notes units. With all sort of loads(reactive, resistive...).
Does IR replace a properly mic'd speaker? Never. Will it work in a pinch, when you have no alternative, in a room with bad acoustics? Definitely. Only as its own thing.
I know that having different cabs (open/closed/ported...) with different speakers (sizes/magnets...) can get expensive and space consuming. That does not mean that IRs are a replacement. Speakers are capable of limitless variations due to their construction, mic'ing technique, usage of space, etc. IRs are only a solution of necessity. Irrespective what you use to listen to the results on. Studio monitors have a completely different response to guitar speakers, they do not distort in the same way and do not interact with your amp. They just reproduce the final recording.
A last resort or solution out of necessity for you, perhaps... and that’s cool... but IRs give you something that I really dig which is predictability (my goto setups are basically snapshots of a certain cab loaded with certain speakers, certain mics, etc... and none of the mics or cabs ever get moved lol)... and it also gives me instant recall, which is delicious for me

At the end of the day, this is all about preference, not math or science... I have tons of tube combos and heads, cabs loaded up with cool arrays of speakers... I use the amps everyday! The cabs? Meh, not so much...
Old 30th August 2019
  #27
Lives for gear
 
Yuri Kogan's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bgood View Post
A last resort or solution out of necessity for you, perhaps... and that’s cool... but IRs give you something that I really dig which is predictability (my goto setups are basically snapshots of a certain cab loaded with certain speakers, certain mics, etc... and none of the mics or cabs ever get moved lol)... and it also gives me instant recall, which is delicious for me

At the end of the day, this is all about preference, not math or science... I have tons of tube combos and heads, cabs loaded up with cool arrays of speakers... I use the amps everyday! The cabs? Meh, not so much...
Well for me its important to have the most suitable sound for a song which evokes emotional responce. Cabs are an integral part of the equation, you cannot separate "amps" (in your case simplistic emulations of the real thing) from the speaker - its a part of one instrument
Old 30th August 2019
  #28
Quote:
Originally Posted by forwardaudio View Post
1.But do they really sound like the original? 2.Can you spot the real setup?
1.no

2.yes
Old 30th August 2019
  #29
Gear Head
 

A guitar amp creates a very complex audio field. Move around the room while playing and you will experience different tones and textures. This is an indisputable truth, all we have to do to acknowledge this is consider just how important mic model and mic placement is to a recorded guitar tone.

An IR is a capture of a very small location within that audio field. As such an IR is simply not able to recreate the full audio field of the amp the IR was captured from because the IR is missing too much information from the original audio field.

Most people listening to music are used to hearing recordings of instruments. In other words they are used to the sound of an IR. They may go to concerts and experience the “amp in the room”, but the majority of their listening is to recorded music.

Frankly, to post a recording of an amp and IRs for an AB test is meaningless. Once you have recorded the amp, you have done the same thing to the amp that the IR did to the amp it was captured from: you have a capture of a very small location within the original audio field. Any differences heard are not a matter real amp versus IR, it is indicative of the tone of the amp, mic used, and mic placement on the amp. The recording does not contain the full audio field... just like an IR.

In other words recordings of real amps are just like IRs to a listener. To a musician recording music, I can see how they might prefer a real amp. Once recorded the listener has the same experience whether the music was recorded from a real amp or IR.
Old 30th August 2019
  #30
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by pencilextremist View Post
1.no

2.yes
Sure...

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptNasty View Post
Frankly, to post a recording of an amp and IRs for an AB test is meaningless.
Yeah we should always only play live then Because IRs were made for live consumption XD

For me as someone who doesn't have the money to spent on dozens of good cabinets it's very interesting if I can achieve the same sound by using IRs. Though I think B or D is the real one, I couldn't tell them apart when there wasn't an A/B comparison. That said I obviously can use good captured IRs without worrying too much.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump