Just some thoughts after trying to figure out the best approach to take with my IRs and the Axe-FX to get a) a sound l like and b) a sound that cuts through. I'm curious on your take. For the majority of recordings ever put to tape or disk, and particularly the majority of gigs in large stage environments, the sound going out the audience or listener has been a close mic'd guitar cab. And, in a lot of those cases, a close mic'd SM57 guitar cab. It's been stated many times that this sound is not necessarily natural and it's "hyped" as compared to playing an amp and cab in a room. Please...I know there are a ton of exceptions to these concepts but can we agree that a big chunk of rock music from 1970 on was either recorded with a close mic'd 57 to the grill of a 4x12 or was reinforced live through the same method on the big stages? So here comes digital modeling with the ability to virtually recreate that environment. However, now we have tools in the new modelers that allow you to shoot for a natural cab in the room effect (far field, etc.) to make it sound like you hear it in your space, or, you can still do a virtual cab and mic and try to reproduce the classic close mic'd approach to the audience. The challenge I've seen is that many a player using these techniques would prefer to hear what they hear when playing through a traditional amp but that has been a harder sound to capture to many peoples' standards. I guess the question is, why then did most recordings and live shows utilize a close mic'd technique which hypes the frequencies? Was it available technology and tradition? Could the engineers of the day not directly reproduce the cab sound as it was to the player or did this result from needing to get that person to cut through the mix i.e. hyping frequencies with mics? I was pondering this as I took on Scott P's thread again around how he's dialing in his AxeFX patches particularly with the PEQ elements of the speaker tab in the amp block. It had me realizing that after a number of years playing the AxeFX, I've forgotten what a real amp sounds like so I have no comparison or reference point anymore. I think my ear has become accustomed now to the close mic'd cab sound like you hear on a recording. I don't know whether that's good or bad. I do know using Scott's technique, those patches definitely sound different. Not as much presence to them as just using Ownhammer mix of SM57 and TC30 close mic'd and that's after dialing up the treble presence and mids...and the speaker tab adjustments. They definitely sound fuller but I have no idea how they'll fit in the mix of my band. I don't know if the frequencies will fit the right way or not. I'm going to try Scott's approach for my next gig though and see if I can keep my EQ flat at the board and still cut with the new approach. So what's my net here? I guess why do many real Marshalls into a 4x12 cut pretty much no matter how they're dialed and yet we have to go through so many gymnastics and dialing in the virtual world to attempt to achieve the same thing? I once had a Marshall 2061x that when opened up, there was no doubt I was in the mix. It only had tone and volume. Dead nuts simple. Guaranteed cutting rock tone. Now, it was way too loud even at 20W and that's a huge reason I gave up real amps, but there was nothing to do other than plug in to the high input of the lead channel, turn the volume and tone up to around 70%, and enjoy a tone that dropped it in and didn't disappear. How do we get to that place with the world of modelers?