IR Properties

Discussion in 'Digital & Modeling Gear' started by Jay Mitchell, May 17, 2019.

  1. cliffc8488

    cliffc8488 Member

    Messages:
    1,059
    Joined:
    May 13, 2006
    Ya know, thinking about this I think Jay should write a short instruction manual on how to do far-field IR captures. Perhaps some of the IR vendors out there will then be inclined to rent a space and do some. Maybe some of the IR guys have access to a large enough space.

    Could be, wait for it....




    ... a game changer.
     
  2. vtgearhead

    vtgearhead Silver Supporting Member

    Messages:
    978
    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2016
    Location:
    Burlington, VT
    Well, I've just finished about an hour of serious playing and have fallen head over heels for IR 'C'. The low end has a realism I've never heard from an IR or Helix speaker sim. I normally have to use a shelving EQ with corner frequency of 500Hz to lop off 2-3 dB of low end. With IR 'C', I just let it pass flat and it sounds perfectly balanced.
     
  3. Mark Al

    Mark Al Member

    Messages:
    598
    Joined:
    May 24, 2018
    Exactly my experience! For that IR, there is no need for any high cut or low cut, it sounds natural, rounded and balanced out of box. Even though it's not perfect, but it sounds fundamentally different than a near filed IR, and that's what got me quite excited! Imagine similar IRs are being made for different cabs with different mics.... I think it could well be a game changer :)

    Preamp modeling is likely approaching the end of "limited returns", and so are all the near field IRs. People should give a serious look at the Far Field IRs, seriously. (FYI: @Digital Igloo @Frank Ritchotte )
     
    MIJLOVER and Jay Mitchell like this.
  4. Chocol8

    Chocol8 Member

    Messages:
    162
    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2019
    IfI got a chance to briefly play with the IR’s but with the family in bed, it was headphones only for now. I used the 65 Clean (BF Twin Reverb) model with all EQ off and played a Strat with vintage output single coils (3 identical SD Antiquity II surfers). I played clean and also with a touch of delay and reverb. No dirt and the amp was below breakup for this first test.

    Initially, B was bad, A sounded good and C was good but a little thin.

    The more I played, the more I liked C and A lost some of its shine. B is still not good at all.

    The real test is going to be when I can play these through an open back 1x12 FRFR cab and see how they sound and feel.
     
    Jay Mitchell and Cool Hand Luke like this.
  5. Scott Simpson

    Scott Simpson Member

    Messages:
    50
    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2013
    Location:
    Garnett, Kansas
    Before I stopped playing professionally on a regular basis, I was running an AxeFX through a CLR and using two far-field IRs that Jay had given me and that he has since released publicly. With a little (okay a lot) of mentoring from Jay, I was getting amazing results from my rig to the point that the Fractal + CLR was indistinguishable from my personal amp collection even "in the room."
    I started a post on the Fractal website a long time ago about the game changing experience I had after playing through a coaxial Jay Mitchell / Frazier cabinet for the first time. The problems I was having in modeling land ended up having less to do with Cliff's earlier software and everything to do with the deficient speaker designs being used by most of the major speaker manufacturers (including pricey selections from Turbosound and Meyer). It turned out that I wasn't tweaking around deficiencies in the AxeFX at all. I was tweaking around deficiencies in the speaker systems and the IRs I was using. Jay was getting beautiful "amp in the room" results back in those days with his cabinet, his IRs, and a first generation AxeFX.
    I try to keep things simple. Maybe I'm just simple-minded. If I was driven enough to start my own company and pour my lifetime into my own signature product like Cliff has with the AxeFX, I would be driven beyond the limits of myself to make the finest product I could despite my strengths. I would hire Jay yesterday and join my mind with his to make a product better than either of us could create on our own. Think about how far Fractal has come to date. Imagine what Cliff could produce if he had Jay on board as a consultant (assuming they could both survive the endeavor!!!). Jay has been teaching me on a casual basis for years. He knows WAY more about all of this stuff than he shows in these forums about all aspects of this modeling thing.
    Again, maybe I'm just simple-minded. I do enjoy turning on the naive and idealistic part of my brain from time to time and engaging in flights of "what if" fantasy.
    What would the results be like if Cliff could get Jay to pour himself into Fractal Audio?

    Could be a... ...game changer.
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2019
  6. burningyen

    burningyen Member

    Messages:
    14,031
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
  7. Mark Al

    Mark Al Member

    Messages:
    598
    Joined:
    May 24, 2018
    FlyingsCool likes this.
  8. antcarrier

    antcarrier Member

    Messages:
    60
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2011
    Location:
    Sunshine Coast, Australia
    The far field sounds great, and to no surprise it pairs incredibly well with Fender type amp models. I just got lost playing this one for a while!

    Every time I use a new FF IR I like, it feels like I'm getting a new amp. Thanks! :)

    The NF IR & the other FF IR (with the reflections) aren't my cup of tea. Playing the NF gives me flashbacks to back before I discovered far fields... I find that FFs provide a more satisfying playing experience. This is an excellent comparison between the two. Plus a really nice FF IR!
     
    FlyingsCool and burningyen like this.
  9. theevilone

    theevilone Member

    Messages:
    28
    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    Location:
    Croatia
    Can we mere mortals try this new revolutionary IR?
     
  10. Dancing Fool

    Dancing Fool Member

    Messages:
    37
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2018
    So, why is it that 90% (or whatever) of all actual guitar recordings are still using close miking, even if the cabs are sitting in iso booths? Oh yes, I know, those studios probably don't have the iso rooms set up in a way to capture the actual cab sound the way you did with your FF IRs, but it might even be something undesirable.

    Fwiw, I quite like your Marshall FF IR (tried it with my Amplifirebox), just not too much for overdriven stuff but rather for mellow cleans. The Fender one is decent, too.
    I also played them at gig volume and what I found to be interesting was that I didn't need to apply any lowcuts, which I usually need to do with pretty much all other IRs in case I'm using them live (regardless of the monitoring used). And yes, it could be that they are sounding a liitle closer to a real cab listened to from a certain distance. So, sort of mission accomplished - but it's not for me. I got used to using a mix of closed miked IRs that I treat myself to accomodate a live situation (which is usually EQing and merging multiple ones into one).

    Btw, I perfectly understand how a welldone FF IR is possibly the best idea to deliver the sound of a cab through a FRFR wedge monitoring system, as the monitoring cab is adding all the "in the room" things on its own, so having that twice isn't exactly desirable - but personally, I'm getting away pretty well with that "record alike" sound. I also don't think I've ever been a big fan of "amp in the room" before modeling and IRs got popular, in fact I did pretty much a lot of things to get rid of the nasty things involved with real cabs, such as speaker beam.
    I should possibly note that I'm getting along with the same IRs for wedge and IEM monitoring just fine, so I'm not adding any ambience kinda reverbs to simulate whatever room feel when playing through IEMs. All I'm usually doing is to slightly adjust my monitoring EQs.
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2019
  11. antcarrier

    antcarrier Member

    Messages:
    60
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2011
    Location:
    Sunshine Coast, Australia
    Read page 2.
     
  12. Jay Mitchell

    Jay Mitchell Member

    Messages:
    5,449
    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    One thing to note here: any imperfections you detect in the IR are present in the sound of the cab. Whatever you might do to "improve" an IR like this will tend to make it less realistic. If the basic character is to your liking but the tonal balance is not exactly what you prefer, broadband equalization - e.g., tone controls, shelving filters, etc. - are the best tools for the job. TBH, the differences among some commercial IR groups - same cab, different mic positions - could be created with adjustments to EQ (maybe they were). One of the challenges in dealing with IRs is to recognize when you've found the basic character you want, stop auditioning, and start using other tools to dial in the sound you want.
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2019
  13. Jay Mitchell

    Jay Mitchell Member

    Messages:
    5,449
    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Asked and answered earlier in the thread: minimization of cross-bleed from other instruments. If you want a guitar track with only guitar on it, and there are other instruments playing at the time, you have little choice. Doesn't mean you get the "best" guitar sound that way, but there's usually no other viable choice in a studio.
    You can't get a reflection-free recording in an iso booth. I did some demo sessions with my amp in a voiceover room and the mic placed at ear level some distance away from the cab. Even with the nonideal acoustics, the producer liked the sound I got. That was in 1982. The fact that a practice has become widespread is not proof that it is either the only or necessarily the best practice.
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2019
    chumbucket likes this.
  14. Dancing Fool

    Dancing Fool Member

    Messages:
    37
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2018
    This is so true. Especially when you consider that, say, an EQ is giving you much better control over certain details than even the most elaborated IR collection with tons of mic positions. Plus, with EQs and such there's a predictability, whereas going from one IR to the next - even if it's the same cab and mic - there's still surprises lurking around the corner.
    Personally, I'm only spending a lot of time with a (whole) bunch of source IRs to come up with some base models, sort of like "one IR for one kind of amp sound type". I do then mix them down into a single IR.
    In addition: Should I find any shortcomings that can be adressed via EQing (and many of them can be adressed with EQs, IMO at least), I will take note and check things out in my DAW and then print the required EQing into the existing IR (which works a treat using a sequencer, an IR loader and a dirac impulse, same procedure I'm using to mix IRs). Note: One may argue that it's a better solution to do all the EQing in your modeler of choice, but when you read how people are constantly tweaking their EQs to make IRs suitable, I rather prefer having a bunch of read-to-go IRs that don't require any further tweaking but using the stock amp tone controls. Did admittedly take me quite a while to get there (create base IRs, check them out at gigs, take notes, modify base IRs, check them out at gigs, etc.), but at least for some of them I think I'm pretty much "there" by now.
     
  15. Jay Mitchell

    Jay Mitchell Member

    Messages:
    5,449
    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    I've been doing that all along. When a particular IR I've taken nails the character of a speaker - as verified by a direct A/B comparison - but has a different spectral tilt than I prefer, it is a trivial matter to filter the IR and save it.
     
    chumbucket, djd100 and Cool Hand Luke like this.
  16. Dancing Fool

    Dancing Fool Member

    Messages:
    37
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2018
    We could possibly argue about that all day long...
    I'm pretty much aware (and partially familiar) with studio miking techniques, and yes, I do agree with your last sentiment. I'm also aware that close miking isn't the only technique used.
    But then, whenever I try to do some research of how certain guitar sounds that I personally dig a lot were recorded, it usually turns out to be close miking. And not even some complicated stuff, very often it's just something like a good old 57, mixed with some 121 or whatever for a little more "open-ness". Have been in some tracking sessions myself, and all of a sudden your cabs are surrounded by a whole army of mics - and in the end, it's usually just the same old comrades which are actually finding their way onto the track.
     
  17. Dancing Fool

    Dancing Fool Member

    Messages:
    37
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2018
    Exactly. But when watching some threads in related forums, this seems to be a rather unknown or unwanted territory. I never get that. I mean, once you know how to do things, it's a piece of cake to modify an IR.
    Sidenote: Same goes for selecting IRs. I usually record a track (or have a loop playing) without the cab information and do the IR selection in my sequencer. I can scroll through my IRs (and that is *all* of them, not just the limited bunch you can store in your modeler of choice) with the up/down arrows of my keyboard, don't even need to use the mouse. Even a huge collection such as the Redwirez big pack (coming with a whooping 20+k of IRs) becomes kind of manageable that way, I just select a cab and press down-down-down... until I find something suitable. Stop there, duplicate track in DAW, mute first track, continue looking. Once I got 2-3 suitable ones I stop, mix and EQ.
    I never understood why you would do that straight in a modeler.
     
    Cool Hand Luke likes this.
  18. Jay Mitchell

    Jay Mitchell Member

    Messages:
    5,449
    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Your auditioning method is an excellent one when there's a need to compare numerous IRs.

    Since my interest is entirely in capturing the sound of a cab I have on hand, I never have occasion to audition IRs in large numbers. I narrow down candidate IRs to a handful in advance of auditioning and do direct A/B comparisons with the cab itself.
     
  19. Lele

    Lele Member

    Messages:
    1,175
    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2010
    Location:
    Italy
    This is also my method, too, even if I often find that the loudness difference (specially of perceived loudness caused by the different equalization of each IR) can make it more complicated to evaluate and judge an IR vs another and so on. Or at least I have to adjust the volume too, continuously, to get a fair comparison.

    As someone else said much earlier in this thread, it's easier (at least for me!) to find a good IR using mid- and high-gain tones instead of clean tones that are less picky about the IR (specially in the highs). On the contrary when I find a nice IR with mid/high-gain tones (no metal), generally I can use it also with clean tones without major changes of the amp sim equalization.

    This thread is great, and I hope to be able to try some ff IR with my Helix and to find another good one for my live sound.
    When I play live (or at loud performance level), I generally prefer to use just one IR for any tone and preset of mine, because it seems to me that it is easier for the FOH and the soundguy to get a consistent and balanced volume and tone.

    I'm very grateful to Jay and to everybody giving so many useful information. Learning is always a big pleasure.
     
  20. antcarrier

    antcarrier Member

    Messages:
    60
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2011
    Location:
    Sunshine Coast, Australia
    Here's a short clip of Jay's FF IR:

     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice