So there's been quite a lot of talk about this new IR capture method and it is infact scientifically the most accurate method and I suggest anyone who's shooting IRs to try out.
I hope this thread manages to be as informative as I want it to be. People are already asking me and Kevin (OwnHammer) about if we're going to be changing our methods to MIC+DI. Before that question gets asked I want to make sure you guys understand what the differences between these methods are. The best way to describe this is to compare IR shooting to taking high quality photographs with a DSLR camera and these methods are like different lenses for your camera. So f.ex. MIC+DI would be the lense that makes a photograph look closest to seeing it with your own eyes. Using a power amp and not removing the color might not be scientifically accurate but it does not mean that a photograph is worse or better and in the end I believe it will be your own opinion which one you like the most. Just to be clear. Kevin uses a flat tube amp for his IRs. I remove the amp color with my own methods. Scientifically MIC+DI is a higher quality amp color removal than my methods but how big is the difference really?
I wanted to get the answer to that question so today I was shooting IRs of an old Marshall cab and did the test as I promised in some other threads. It's just an SM57 thrown in front of one of the speakers, literally a 5 second mic up. I did many tests but I will attach three IRs: MIC+DI IR, MIC ONLY IR (shot with a SS power amp) and CK METHOD IR. I'm not going to tell you which is which for very obvious reasons. It's not a good comparison if you guys to judge with your ears, feel etc.
So what do you think? Is there a clear difference in the quality of the IRs? Is there an IR that stands out?
I'd love to get as much feedback on this as possible.
Bonus question: What do all of these three men have in common?
I hope this thread manages to be as informative as I want it to be. People are already asking me and Kevin (OwnHammer) about if we're going to be changing our methods to MIC+DI. Before that question gets asked I want to make sure you guys understand what the differences between these methods are. The best way to describe this is to compare IR shooting to taking high quality photographs with a DSLR camera and these methods are like different lenses for your camera. So f.ex. MIC+DI would be the lense that makes a photograph look closest to seeing it with your own eyes. Using a power amp and not removing the color might not be scientifically accurate but it does not mean that a photograph is worse or better and in the end I believe it will be your own opinion which one you like the most. Just to be clear. Kevin uses a flat tube amp for his IRs. I remove the amp color with my own methods. Scientifically MIC+DI is a higher quality amp color removal than my methods but how big is the difference really?
I wanted to get the answer to that question so today I was shooting IRs of an old Marshall cab and did the test as I promised in some other threads. It's just an SM57 thrown in front of one of the speakers, literally a 5 second mic up. I did many tests but I will attach three IRs: MIC+DI IR, MIC ONLY IR (shot with a SS power amp) and CK METHOD IR. I'm not going to tell you which is which for very obvious reasons. It's not a good comparison if you guys to judge with your ears, feel etc.
So what do you think? Is there a clear difference in the quality of the IRs? Is there an IR that stands out?
I'd love to get as much feedback on this as possible.
Bonus question: What do all of these three men have in common?