IR means impulse response, and the “response” part is what the microphone captures. It’s an actual “snapshot” of what comes out of that speaker at that moment, so something has to capture it, and that’s a mic.wouldn't it be possible to model an IR of a speaker (-cab) without the microphone?
And would that not accomplish the amp in the room sound when used with an FRFR?
Or am I forgetting something?
IR means impulse response, and the “response” part is what the microphone captures. It’s an actual “snapshot” of what comes out of that speaker at that moment, so something has to capture it, and that’s a mic.
I think you’re thinking about a frequency response chart - how it “should” perform.
Regardless, an IR sound is coming out of another speaker which has its own “output characteristics” in that room at that moment. It’s why you don’t run a cab sim into a real cab - the real cab can’t reproduce the full frequency spectrum of that IR/cab sim so it sounds strange as many frequencies are doubling up or getting phase cancelled.
“Amp in the room” is literally “a speaker loud enough to bounce off the room and back to your ears.” Volume is what creates the 3D effect because it IS 3D as it bounces all around you. You can’t simulate “sound coming from behind me” through a speaker in front of you at a low volume. It has to physically and literally come from behind you to feel like it’s coming from behind you.
Far-field IRs, taken using the ground plane measurement method with calibrated microphones. That's what you're asking for. Only a few FF-IRs exist online however, so you're going to have to make your own if you want results you like.well, I was thinking, readily available IRs seem to "not do it" for a few people. And it's the microphone part that they don't like. They seem to be after the sound of the cab as it sounds to their ears when they are experiencing it.
So if you could model or capture the cab but not the microphone, take it out of the equation, that could solve it. Maybe it needs to be done using ultra flat response microphones, maybe pressure zone microphones, maybe a combination of microphones, maybe manual tweaking by ear... I am aware that a speaker is not a point source and with a microphone you can basically only capture the sound at one point in space, but I think an approximation should be possible.
That’s exactly how IRs used to be captured and why the cab block used to have Mics. Flat mic to capture the cab, but it didn’t yield results as “real” as using the actual mics you want in the positions you want.well, I was thinking, readily available IRs seem to "not do it" for a few people. And it's the microphone part that they don't like. They seem to be after the sound of the cab as it sounds to their ears when they are experiencing it.
So if you could model or capture the cab but not the microphone, take it out of the equation, that could solve it. Maybe it needs to be done using ultra flat response microphones, maybe pressure zone microphones, maybe a combination of microphones, maybe manual tweaking by ear... I am aware that a speaker is not a point source and with a microphone you can basically only capture the sound at one point in space, but I think an approximation should be possible.
Again, you can’t capture “sound bouncing off the wall behind you” ... The sound actually has to bounce off the room you are in at that moment
Far-field IRs, taken using the ground plane measurement method with calibrated microphones. That's what you're asking for. Only a few FF-IRs exist online however, so you're going to have to make your own if you want results you like.
Eh? I'm not arguing either.I was not asking for anything, just wondering.
but hey, never mind. I'm happy with my monitors and headphones. Just kept thinking about this issue, not looking for an argument.
I’m sure it’s coming. The amps and effects are better than the real thing at this point, but everyone admits there can be huge improvements in the IR realm. Which is why I run both a real cab and IR’s concurrently. Do a lot of the IR’s sound GOOD? Yes, they do. Do they sound REAL? No, they don’t. They do approximate a mic’d cab fairly well, but we don’t really want to jam with a mic’d cab sound. The one dimensional nature of that is a big reason why we work around it when recording by stacking and blending multiple guitar tracks through different guitar, amp, cab, mic, and eq options to make the recorded guitar sound interesting and energetic like it does when your in a space with an amp. I know when I pull up a real world rig next to an “identical “ virtual rig in the axe side by side inthe teal world and play, they do NOT sound the same at all, and it’s the IR that is the bottleneck in that situation. With all the horsepower I hear is available in the III, and the damn near perfection squared we have with the amps and effects, getting the IR side of things to parity is the logical next step. I would be surprised and even a bit disappointed if Cliff wasn’t working on that in secrecy as we speak. I don’t know HOW to go about achieving that, but the first guy to crack that egg successfully will own the market for a long time coming.
Eh? I'm not arguing either.
With microphones.how do people measure frequency response curves for hifi speakers?
Wow.I’m sure it’s coming. The amps and effects are better than the real thing at this point, but everyone admits there can be huge improvements in the IR realm. Which is why I run both a real cab and IR’s concurrently. Do a lot of the IR’s sound GOOD? Yes, they do. Do they sound REAL? No, they don’t. They do approximate a mic’d cab fairly well, but we don’t really want to jam with a mic’d cab sound. The one dimensional nature of that is a big reason why we work around it when recording by stacking and blending multiple guitar tracks through different guitar, amp, cab, mic, and eq options to make the recorded guitar sound interesting and energetic like it does when your in a space with an amp. I know when I pull up a real world rig next to an “identical “ virtual rig in the axe side by side inthe teal world and play, they do NOT sound the same at all, and it’s the IR that is the bottleneck in that situation. With all the horsepower I hear is available in the III, and the damn near perfection squared we have with the amps and effects, getting the IR side of things to parity is the logical next step. I would be surprised and even a bit disappointed if Cliff wasn’t working on that in secrecy as we speak. I don’t know HOW to go about achieving that, but the first guy to crack that egg successfully will own the market for a long time coming.