IRs are 90% of the sound

[Fab8040]

Hi guys after buying almost every ir on the market i realized that find the right one makes the 90% of the sound of a preset.. Anyway i also discovered that between two that sounds good one could let the feel different under the hands. For example i ve tried a Marshall 4x12 with g12m25 greenbacks and a Marshall with g12t75. I like the sound of both but with the 75 the strings seems to be heavier and stiffier under the fingers... Is it the normal interactions between amp and cab or it depends by irs? Which parameters can handle this type of acting? Speaker compression?
Thanks

 

[sprint]

Hi guys after buying almost every ir on the market i realized that find the right one makes the 90% of the sound of a preset.. Anyway i also discovered that between two that sounds good one could let the feel different under the hands. For example i ve tried a Marshall 4x12 with g12m25 greenbacks and a Marshall with g12t75. I like the sound of both but with the 75 the strings seems to be heavier and stiffier under the fingers... Is it the normal interactions between amp and cab or it depends by irs? Which parameters can handle this type of acting? Speaker compression?
Thanks

Good question! - I don't know, but have also wondered what adjustments most affect this type of
feel - hope lots will chime in on this one.

 

[RevDrucifer]

Well, different speakers are going to let different frequencies come out at different volumes, so it makes sense that some are going to deliver a “stiffer” vibe to the tone when you’re not hearing things in one speaker/IR that you are in another that gives you the impression it’s ‘easier’ to play. This is why this stuff starts getting so subjective because we all perceive sound differently.

Over time, if you put some focus on what you really dig, you can start associating areas in the EQ range with what works best for you. Reading interviews witch various guitarist, you’ll hear how some have found a specific cab that they love to use with multiple amps. I know Killswitch Engage has a preferred cab they use for a ton of stuff. Also why you have guys like Gilmour who end up using a couple different cabs to get what they’re going for.

As for the thread title itself, I completely agree, which is why I start my presets off with all the knobs at noon (except Mesas), find the IR that works best in that spot and then fine tune that last 10% with the amp knobs. This has kept me away from hours of tweaking and adding extra EQ’s after the amp block.

 

[Fab8040]

Well, different speakers are going to let different frequencies come out at different volumes, so it makes sense that some are going to deliver a “stiffer” vibe to the tone when you’re not hearing things in one speaker/IR that you are in another that gives you the impression it’s ‘easier’ to play. This is why this stuff starts getting so subjective because we all perceive sound differently.

Over time, if you put some focus on what you really dig, you can start associating areas in the EQ range with what works best for you. Reading interviews witch various guitarist, you’ll hear how some have found a specific cab that they love to use with multiple amps. I know Killswitch Engage has a preferred cab they use for a ton of stuff. Also why you have guys like Gilmour who end up using a couple different cabs to get what they’re going for.

As for the thread title itself, I completely agree, which is why I start my presets off with all the knobs at noon (except Mesas), find the IR that works best in that spot and then fine tune that last 10% with the amp knobs. This has kept me away from hours of tweaking and adding extra EQ’s after the amp block.

Well first of all thank you for the reply.. But as i said the stiff and that sense of mor heavyness of the strings comes under the fingers not in the tone which i agree usually..

 

[la szum]

90% nonsense, I say!

 

[sprint]

There's definitely something to the "feel" thing for me. Some presets feel much easier to play and lively than others of similar
tone - I seem to have more fluidity and it doesn't seem to be a tone thing but I dunno - I used to think this was totally latency related till I found some external tones that feel great with notsogood latency.

 

[mr_fender]

From a signal perspective, IR's are linear. They have zero impact on the dynamics of the signal. However, they do certainly affect the frequency response. How one perceives that change can play some tricks on your ears/brain. 90% is a pretty drastic exaggeration. They can be important for sure, but they're not going to change the overall gain/harmonic structure of your sound. If IRs determined that much of the final tone, you wouldn't need different amp models to get different tones. That is very much not the case. Try going from a clean tone to a high gain one with only IR selection.

 

[Postretro]

I don’t know which Greenback 25M was used in your IR. But, I would say the difference in stiffness is due to the difference in speakers. This is particularly true if the g12m’s used to make the IR were pre 1972 or so vintage. The older Celestion and other speaker manufacturers used Pulsonic cones which not only have a signature compression they have a signature expression. It as if the speaker adds some sort of slight vocal formant to the note. To some people it sounds more nasal than expressive. And that expression is tied to how the onset transient (pick attack, scratch, chirp) hits. After the factory burned down the process and recipe for making the speaker cones was lost. Many speaker manufacturers have to tried to recover this speaker effect. And some have gotten very close. But, the original pulsonic tone is still the best original sound. There is a lot to read on the internet if you search “pulsonic” and “celestion.” These days there are very few pulsonic cones left In the real world. Those old greenbacks blew pretty easily. EVH had a particular T model pulsonic G12H he preferred in the early days. There have been a number of attempts by many companies — including celestion themselves to recapture the pulsonic sound. Most of the remaining pulsonic coned Celestions are in private collections or studios. I don’t think anyone would gig with them today. They are just too rare and too vulnerable. I would be afraid to buy one without hearing it first. But, thanks to the magic of IR’s the best sonic anomalies of old-tech can be preserved and made widely and inexpensively available. Much like FAS makes so many of the old-tech amp tones available to people who could not afford it IRL. Pre-Rola is another way these pulsonic-coned speakers are described. But, that is just an identifiable coincidence that has been used. There is a lot out there on the web about this. If you are drawn to the sound, it is worth researching. The old pulsonic cones were just more beautifully, more interestingly, and more accidentally flawed than speaker cones today. Many have tried to reproduce that sound and fell short. Being able to have access to those sounds again, through IR’s, has made being old a lot more pleasant for me.

 

[secondwindow]

Well, different speakers are going to let different frequencies come out at different volumes, so it makes sense that some are going to deliver a “stiffer” vibe to the tone when you’re not hearing things in one speaker/IR that you are in another that gives you the impression it’s ‘easier’ to play. This is why this stuff starts getting so subjective because we all perceive sound differently.

Over time, if you put some focus on what you really dig, you can start associating areas in the EQ range with what works best for you. Reading interviews witch various guitarist, you’ll hear how some have found a specific cab that they love to use with multiple amps. I know Killswitch Engage has a preferred cab they use for a ton of stuff. Also why you have guys like Gilmour who end up using a couple different cabs to get what they’re going for.

As for the thread title itself, I completely agree, which is why I start my presets off with all the knobs at noon (except Mesas), find the IR that works best in that spot and then fine tune that last 10% with the amp knobs. This has kept me away from hours of tweaking and adding extra EQ’s after the amp block.

That’s a really good tip!

 

[Fab8040]

I don’t know which Greenback 25M was used in your IR. But, I would say the difference in stiffness is due to the difference in speakers. This is particularly true if the g12m’s used to make the IR were pre 1972 or so vintage. The older Celestion and other speaker manufacturers used Pulsonic cones which not only have a signature compression they have a signature expression. It as if the speaker adds some sort of slight vocal formant to the note. To some people it sounds more nasal than expressive. And that expression is tied to how the onset transient (pick attack, scratch, chirp) hits. After the factory burned down the process and recipe for making the speaker cones was lost. Many speaker manufacturers have to tried to recover this speaker effect. And some have gotten very close. But, the original pulsonic tone is still the best original sound. There is a lot to read on the internet if you search “pulsonic” and “celestion.” These days there are very few pulsonic cones left In the real world. Those old greenbacks blew pretty easily. EVH had a particular T model pulsonic G12H he preferred in the early days. There have been a number of attempts by many companies — including celestion themselves to recapture the pulsonic sound. Most of the remaining pulsonic coned Celestions are in private collections or studios. I don’t think anyone would gig with them today. They are just too rare and too vulnerable. I would be afraid to buy one without hearing it first. But, thanks to the magic of IR’s the best sonic anomalies of old-tech can be preserved and made widely and inexpensively available. Much like FAS makes so many of the old-tech amp tones available to people who could not afford it IRL. Pre-Rola is another way these pulsonic-coned speakers are described. But, that is just an identifiable coincidence that has been used. There is a lot out there on the web about this. If you are drawn to the sound, it is worth researching. The old pulsonic cones were just more beautifully, more interestingly, and more accidentally flawed than speaker cones today. Many have tried to reproduce that sound and fell short. Being able to have access to those sounds again, through IR’s, has made being old a lot more pleasant for me.

Yeah my ir is a valhallir with Marshall cab with pre rola greenbacks... It could be what you re saying.. In fact i was just wondering if there is a phisycal explanation for my feelings.

 

[Postretro]

Yeah my ir is a valhallir with Marshall cab with pre rola greenbacks... It could be what you re saying.. In fact i was just wondering if there is a phisycal explanation for my feelings.

I know that valhalla IR. I searched out all of the old pulsonic greenback IR’s in the FM3. I used that one for quite a while and then I switched to Mikko’s pulsonic greenback IR’s. I wish I could tell you about how the feelings work. Because I feel it too. FAS has a specific speaker compression algorithm to make up for what IR’s don’t have. But, the rest is beyond me. I do understand your feelings, though. You are right about the huge effect IR’s have on the sound. But, it is more because IR‘s are very specific. They do a lot to define the sound. It is because they are so specific that finding the right IR matters so much and can be difficult.

 

[marsonic]

So....IRs are basically EQs.

And in the "real world"(tm), there are a significant number of producers/engineers who would rather give up their amp collection than their cab collection (though "real" cabs also compress at least some).

It makes sense that they're responsible for quite a bit of the overall tonality of the sound.

 

[Fab8040]

So....IRs are basically EQs.

And in the "real world"(tm), there are a significant number of producers/engineers who would rather give up their amp collection than their cab collection (though "real" cabs also compress at least some).

It makes sense that they're responsible for quite a bit of the overall tonality of the sound.

I m not referring to tonality but at the different fingers response.. As a not professional players i was wondering if a speaker in the real Application so also in a ir can change also the strings and general feeling response due to different specs and amp interaction..

 

[marsonic]

I m not referring to tonality but at the different fingers response.. As a not professional players i was wondering if a speaker in the real Application so also in a ir can change also the strings and general feeling response due to different specs and amp interaction..

No, an IR shouldn't do that. At least, I don't think so. Feel under the fingers seems to be about compression to me, and IRs are linear.

Some of the speaker and impedance settings in the Amp block will affect compression. Some of the settings in the Cab block (relating to the emulated mic pre) will as well. If you're playing loud enough, the IR will affect what comes out of the speaker, which will affect the acoustic feedback loop between the speaker and the guitar...which will affect compression. But, the IR doesn't do it directly.

That being said....I'm still somewhat unclear what people actually mean when they say that things like that change the feel under the fingers. There is an interaction there between a real speaker and a guitar that could be related, specifically compression....and that seems to be what people are talking about...but....I can't honestly say I've ever felt it. I play a little differently based on the compression I hear, but I'd describe it as how long the note sustains and exactly how the note decays. Not feel.

But...a lot of the way people talk about sound doesn't make any sense to me.

I did a master not too long ago and got complimented specifically on the sense of depth that they thought was better in the master than in the mix. I get it in a mix context (depth is mostly about delay and reverb, maybe a bit about distortion to some people, probably because distortion implies compression/limiting, and consequently compression/limiting after the reverb/delay)....but short of compressing and limiting making the quiet reverb/delay tails louder and me adding (a tiny bit) more distortion (so, even more compression/limiting), I don't have a clue how one would even try to affect "depth" in mastering without going whole ham and adding a bunch of junk instead of suggesting a re-mix.

But, apparently, I'm doing it "right" and perhaps just describing it differently. So...whatever.

I'm all but convinced that the vast majority of people just plain don't grok compression, and I'm absolutely certain that there are people who understand it a LOT better than I do.

 

[Fab8040]

No, an IR shouldn't do that. At least, I don't think so. Feel under the fingers seems to be about compression to me, and IRs are linear.

Some of the speaker and impedance settings in the Amp block will affect compression. Some of the settings in the Cab block (relating to the emulated mic pre) will as well. If you're playing loud enough, the IR will affect what comes out of the speaker, which will affect the acoustic feedback loop between the speaker and the guitar...which will affect compression. But, the IR doesn't do it directly.

That being said....I'm still somewhat unclear what people actually mean when they say that things like that change the feel under the fingers. There is an interaction there between a real speaker and a guitar that could be related, specifically compression....and that seems to be what people are talking about...but....I can't honestly say I've ever felt it. I play a little differently based on the compression I hear, but I'd describe it as how long the note sustains and exactly how the note decays. Not feel.

But...a lot of the way people talk about sound doesn't make any sense to me.

I did a master not too long ago and got complimented specifically on the sense of depth that they thought was better in the master than in the mix. I get it in a mix context (depth is mostly about delay and reverb, maybe a bit about distortion to some people, probably because distortion implies compression/limiting, and consequently compression/limiting after the reverb/delay)....but short of compressing and limiting making the quiet reverb/delay tails louder and me adding (a tiny bit) more distortion (so, even more compression/limiting), I don't have a clue how one would even try to affect "depth" in mastering without going whole ham and adding a bunch of junk instead of suggesting a re-mix.

But, apparently, I'm doing it "right" and perhaps just describing it differently. So...whatever.

I'm all but convinced that the vast majority of people just plain don't grok compression, and I'm absolutely certain that there are people who understand it a LOT better than I do.

Thank you

 

[Postretro]

This is inaccurate. First, let's address terminology: both EQ and IRs are linear. There are many ways to define linearity. For purposes of this discussion, linearity can be explained best by saying that the response of a linear system does not change due to differing input signal levels.

The difference between an impulse response and a set of simple electrical (or virtual) filters is largely abstract. Any collection of filters will have its own impulse response, and one way of implementing that set of filters is via the same process that the Axe-Fx uses to implement cab sims, which is called convolution. In fact, all digital filtering processes involve some form of convolution.

With simple EQ-type filters, the total number of taps (points) required, and the associated processing burden, can be relatively small. This makes this type of filter easy to implement, but the price you pay is that the level of detail that can be introduced in the resulting frequency response is small. This makes it essentially impossible to successfully emulate the behavior of a guitar cab with simple EQ.

Using real-time convolution with an impulse response ("IR"), OTOH, has the possibility of duplicating all the response detail that your hearing is capable of recognizing. The price you pay for this is that, to achieve satisfactory results, the length of the IR must be sufficient. Adding more points creates a higher burden on the cpu. The 1024-point length of the Axe-Fx IRs is sufficient to capture the audible detail in the response of a guitar cab.

When you compare an IR-based cab sim to an EQ-based attempt to emulate the same cab, the IR - assuming it is long enough - will win every time. This is because much of the response of a guitar cab is due to multipath interference effects, which real-time convolution can duplicate and simple EQ cannot. Neither approach is "dynamic," however. Both processes are linear.

The above is an old quote from a very old thread.

While compression may not be a component of an IR. There is compression modeling built-in to FAS amp models (Amp block;Speaker page.) The common default value for "Speaker Compression" is "1.00."

While an IR may not bring any dynamic compression to the table, the way an IR reacts to speaker compression may sound different from one IR to another. My subjective sense is that I experience additional speaker compression on a JBLl E130 IR much differently than I experience additional speaker compression on an vintage Celestion G12M IR.. That is very provisional. But, it is worth taking a trip to the Amp block-Speaker page to experiment for yourself with your own ears.

Especially if you like Speaker Compression. It is a very tasty parameter. I find that EC's Crossroads distortion tone does very well with additional speaker compression.

@Fab8040, yes, I agree. People use the same words to describe many very different aspects of sound. It makes discussion difficult.

 

[HereToday]

This thread brings up an interesting topic that we were just discussing at rehearsal the other night: that is the perceived differences in amps and modeling systems.

Of course, anything that impacts the compression, dynamics, time or frequency response of the system is going to immediately cause our brains (or at least attempt) to register that difference in terms of all of our senses, not just hearing. Since a guitar player is primarily relying on two (hearing and touch), it's not surprising that our brains register a causal relationship between the two. Sounds different, therefore it must feel different. In reality, the magnetic field around our strings is unchanged and still vibrating the same and electrons are flowing exactly as they did just a moment ago.. IR's, presets and even amps, for that matter, can't alter physics after all.

The brain is fascinating, indeed. It's why I still keep some tube amps around, just so I can have a little fun with what's left of mine! Nothing can replicate the sag of a tube rectifier for messing with a person's brain, well...outside of narcotics, hallucinogens and alcohol that is.

Sorry for the tangent, I just find it a very interesting subject.

 

[la szum]

The brain is fascinating, indeed. It's why I still keep some tube amps around, just so I can have a little fun with what's left of mine! Nothing can replicate the sag of a tube rectifier for messing with a person's brain, well...outside of narcotics, hallucinogens and alcohol that is.

It's addictive for sure. When I first played a '68 Super Reverb I was lucky enough to
fall into I was so smitten with that sag that I got lost in the simplest of playing and
sounds.

Stiffer amps seem more immediate and less forgiving as a result. Because the
recovery time is longer on a tube rectified amp I am guessing that is why we
see more expressive players utilizing a softer and squishier amp, and more technical
players seem to like the faster recovery times of amps with a more immediate feel.
I know that is a gross generalization, but it has a ring of truth to it, in my experience.

 

[Fab8040]

The above is an old quote from a very old thread.

While compression may not be a component of an IR. There is compression modeling built-in to FAS amp models (Amp block;Speaker page.) The common default value for "Speaker Compression" is "1.00."

While an IR may not bring any dynamic compression to the table, the way an IR reacts to speaker compression may sound different from one IR to another. My subjective sense is that I experience additional speaker compression on a JBLl E130 IR much differently than I experience additional speaker compression on an vintage Celestion G12M IR.. That is very provisional. But, it is worth taking a trip to the Amp block-Speaker page to experiment for yourself with your own ears.

Especially if you like Speaker Compression. It is a very tasty parameter. I find that EC's Crossroads distortion tone does very well with additional speaker compression.

@Fab8040, yes, I agree. People use the same words to describe many very different aspects of sound. It makes discussion difficult.

Thank you very much.. Actually speaker compression and impedance are parameters which i use.. So maybe changing ir i have to set up it properly to every cabinet..

 

[Fab8040]

It's addictive for sure. When I first played a '68 Super Reverb I was lucky enough to
fall into I was so smitten with that sag that I got lost in the simplest of playing and
sounds.

Stiffer amps seem more immediate and less forgiving as a result. Because the
recovery time is longer on a tube rectified amp I am guessing that is why we
see more expressive players utilizing a softer and squishier amp, and more technical
players seem to like the faster recovery times of amps with a more immediate feel.
I know that is a gross generalization, but it has a ring of truth to it, in my experience.

This is where i started.. I ve tried lot of amps and initially i started from the sound..but not every amp that sound good to me fit my type of playing..(satriani fast legato runs for example).. I remember i liked bogner amp first but as Cliff himself stated they are slow amps.. I ve tried the mesas which i owned but i found it perfect for the alternate picking more than legato.. I felt in love with soldano slo ( best sound) but miss 1% of something.. So at the end i realized that Marshall s ( not friedman atomica ecc) are the best for me.. Also the cornford.. And maybe is not a case that best legato players use them.. Dont know.. I ve tried to found a caractheristic in the amp construction which explain that.. Anyway found the amp, the same amp with same settings respond differently to different cab when i say respond i mean as i said stiffness or "weight" of the strings.. I think as stated parameters like compression could make difference..