Where can I find an in-depth Cab block guide? (IRs)

MackieFX

Experienced
This for me is hands down the most difficult part of creating presets for me. I have no idea what mic arrangements and combinations are "Standard" in the studio and I feel like Im taking shots in the dark when Im trying to find a cab.

I watched Leon Todds video on setting up a tone using the looper (which was amazing). But I feel like the following would help:

  • List of what the cabs in Axe III actually represent
  • Guide on setting up different types of mic/cab combinations
  • What the knobs on the axe do to these cabs
 
For me, IR selection has always been shooting in the dark. IMO, the descriptions, speakers used, mics used, etc., are absolutely meaningless. I have to audition each and every IR. No way around it. Thousands of IRs must be auditioned, and re-auditioned if I mix them together. This is, by far, the most time-consuming part of developing a tone. When I say "by far", I mean by orders of magnitude over selecting/adjusting all other preset parameters combined. This is why I'd like a better system in Axe Edit than the color coding.
 
Is not even that simple. You have to try each amp with each IR, maybe each type of tone in each channel with each IR.

Or, you could try some classic and recommended combinations, and go by the seat of your pants from there :)
 
I think Auditioning cabs within a wide range of possibilities can often be a waste of time. To mitigate this I think one needs to develop an ear for:
  • overall cab types / sizes.
  • speaker characteristics.
  • mic characteristics.
Find some demos of how different mics, cabinet designs, or speakers sound to get a sense of that first, then go auditioning / mixing in a more specific fashion (ie: go auditioning for that 412 with V30s you think will fit the bill instead of randomly checking out any cab - you'll still have lot of work to do to find the best mic/mic position but at least you'll have a sense of which ballpark to start in). There are just too many choices not to narrow it down to some extent in advance - and even if you do narrow it down in advance, an intuitive and consistant file naming standard and folder structure is essential to honing in on a sound in a reasonable time.

The best way I have seen to deal with this is the Mikko plugin where you visually choose a cab / mic selection and then move them around graphically with the sound changing in real time while a loop plays. Once you hear the sound you like, hit the button and collect your IR file.
 
Intuition would tell me that certain speakers, mics, and general mic position would allow for an educated starting point based on the IR description. But I haven't found this to be the case. There is no substitute for auditioning each one. And some IRs are hidden gems until you eq them. It's a nightmare.
 
I look at the amp block guide in the wiki to see what type of cabs typically go with the amp I’m interested in using. From there I will usually do two IRs in the cab block: one shot with a SM57 for the brighter part of the sound and another shot with a 121 for the darker portion. I will audition the sm57 IR and find the one that sounds best to me then get a 121 that compliments it. From there I will tweak the amp block authentic tab to dial the rest of the way

someone correct me if I’m wrong but I believe the sm57/121 mic combo is a pretty common staple in the studio with real amps
 
I look at the amp block guide in the wiki to see what type of cabs typically go with the amp I’m interested in using. From there I will usually do two IRs in the cab block: one shot with a SM57 for the brighter part of the sound and another shot with a 121 for the darker portion. I will audition the sm57 IR and find the one that sounds best to me then get a 121 that compliments it. From there I will tweak the amp block authentic tab to dial the rest of the way

someone correct me if I’m wrong but I believe the sm57/121 mic combo is a pretty common staple in the studio with real amps
Yep, that works pretty well for me.
 
The Cab block rabbit hole has been a surprise to me. I wasn't expecting it.

The III is my first foray into REAL modelers, and my microphone knowledge was previously non existent.

Most of the stock IRs are pretty usable, and the narrowed-down selection makes it easier. The Wiki has all the specific details on what cab is what.

But I felt like I was missing out on something. Some possibilities only available for more $$$.

I've been going for 3rd-party packs, mostly from York Audio, which all sound amazing. Especially the FDMN412. Every shot is good, just different. Mics and general placement are named which helps the process.

Also, both Celestion and Eminence offer IRs for all of their speakers. The Eric Johnson Signature EJ1240 speaker IRs have been decent.

I just wish there was a standard for naming. Obviously the cab orientation (112, 212) is there, and the microphone, obviously. Some offer name systems for mic placement, but not always.

But that's where it ends. No naming system for the volume the IR was captured at, or the microphone distance. (Then there's the preamp and signal chain which is another rabbit hole itself.) Ultimately I suppose IRs would have a "name" that was 60 characters long and that doesn't help.

Yet if the placement isn't named, nor the volume, nor the distance, you really are going in blind. When looking at a list of 250 shots of the same cab, FOMO can kick in (for me, at least) and hours go by A/B'ing hundreds of IRs.

Personally I'm trying to stick with matching amps and cabs as much as possible.
 
I must admit, I think many people spend way too much time on IRs. It is just an EQ curve. Unless you pick one that for some reason is completely hopeless, a few basic EQ moves will most likely take you, where you need to go.

I've never seen a studio guy spend so much time on mic placement as we do on IRs. They usually only have one or two cabs and a few mics to throw up, and they will almost always start with a standard setup. Then they might need it slightly brighter, then they will move a mic or turn an EQ knob. Sure there are stories of people mic'ing a cab and indeed the entire room using more than ten mics, but Van Halen 1 was recorded with a single 57.
 
IMO, the descriptions, speakers used, mics used, etc., are absolutely meaningless.

That's just crazy talk. You can pick a cab knowing what it sounds like in the real world, and once this gets you in the ballpark, the different mics have distinctive characteristics, and the different positions represent practical variations on that theme.

(About your Axe-Edit comment about color, things are open to ideas within reason. I once had the idea of frequency plots on mouse-over, but found that this was not a useful way to judge sonic qualities)
 
That's just crazy talk. You can pick a cab knowing what it sounds like in the real world, and once this gets you in the ballpark, the different mics have distinctive characteristics, and the different positions represent practical variations on that theme.

(About your Axe-Edit comment about color, things are open to ideas within reason. I once had the idea of frequency plots on mouse-over, but found that this was not a useful way to judge sonic qualities)
Descriptions don't work for me. I need to hear an IR to have any hope of knowing what it sounds like. The same cab/speaker sounds radically different when you move the mic by a small amount. The colors are great for organizing, I just wish there were more; a lot more. Or named groups rather than colors.
 
If I understand it correctly, an IR is more than just an EQ curve, but I don't know the technical details.
IRs also hold time information, but IRs used for emulating guitar cabs are generally so short that we mostly hear them as an EQ curve. The longer the IR the higher the resolution of the EQ curve (especially important in the low end).

When an 8000 sample long (Ultra-Res) IR is applied to a guitar signal, it happens by multiplying each of the 8000 samples in the IR with the latest 8000 samples of the guitar signal and adding those 8000 numbers. That means that every sample in the guitar signal is multiplied with some sample in the IR 8000 times. I think of this as the signal interacting with itself through the IR - and to me, this provides dimensionality and depth to the sound - which is why I generally always prefer longer IRs.

But at the end of the day, if you have a healthy IR, and you just want to reduce the bottom end, it is just as effective to grab an EQ and pull out some of that low-end.
 
You can pick a cab knowing what it sounds like in the real world, and once this gets you in the ballpark, the different mics have distinctive characteristics, and the different positions represent practical variations on that theme.
I simply don't have, or expect to get, real-world experience with the vast majority of the cab and speaker combinations in the III, much less in the various third-party IR collections I've accumulated, or most of the amps in the III.

I also don't have direct experience with many of the mic offerings, but I'm somewhat more familiar with them from working with modelers and IRs. I also understand the basics of mic positioning, but not like an experienced studio engineer.

Upshot is that beyond overall frequency response (well a bit more detailed than that maybe), the interaction between the peaks and valleys of a cab and the overtones in a given distorted guitar tone isn't really predictable to me. I have to hear it and adjust from there.
 
For me, IR selection has always been shooting in the dark. IMO, the descriptions, speakers used, mics used, etc., are absolutely meaningless. I have to audition each and every IR. No way around it. Thousands of IRs must be auditioned, and re-auditioned if I mix them together. This is, by far, the most time-consuming part of developing a tone. When I say "by far", I mean by orders of magnitude over selecting/adjusting all other preset parameters combined. This is why I'd like a better system in Axe Edit than the color coding.

That's just crazy talk. You can pick a cab knowing what it sounds like in the real world, and once this gets you in the ballpark, the different mics have distinctive characteristics, and the different positions represent practical variations on that theme.

I agree with both statements to a degree. Over the years I've learned what types of speakers are customarily used with which amps and tone types. I've learned what flavors the basic mics are going to give the speaker types. I have handle on the effects of different mic positions.

But how did I learn this stuff? Not by playing through thousands of combinations of real amps, speakers, and mics. I learned it by auditioning the IRs and amps in both the Ultra and Axe III multiple times. And hundreds more OH, York and RW IRs. If you're not an amp and recording guru with real world knowledge, there's just no other way to learn it other than by auditioning hundreds, if not thousands of IRs, hearing what they sound like, and how they work with various amps and mixes.

But even when I'm just looking for a 4x12 with greenbacks for a bread and butter Marshall sound, it's still a process of scrolling through a lengthy list of 4x12 greenbacks, tweaking, and listening. There's just no other way to do it. It gets more tedious auditioning IRs for blends, because then you've got to deal with endless permutations. Eventually you'll probably cull it down to a few go-to IRs, but there's just no way to avoid some amount of auditioning if you want to be reasonably sure you've picked the best IR for whatever you're doing.

This is not in any way a problem with the Axe III, it's just the nature of IRs. I'm actually happy that the Axe III has room for thousands and the SW makes it reasonably easy to audition them.
 
I refuse to spend money on IRs if Ive just spent 2500e on an AxeFX. There should be no reason the built in IRs arent as good as the others surely..
There are more cabinets and speakers and mics (and the various permutations of those components) than what is available in the Axe Fx III.

It really isn't necessarily about "as good as" but just finding what works for you and/or what you need. That doesn't take away from what's in the box.

For example, I've discovered (thru trial and error) that my ears really like G12H30 speaker IRs. I have no experience with them in real life, but for whatever reason, they get what I want to hear. But... There are very few examples in the Axe Fx... So, I have purchased several packs that include them and found the IRs that I like best.
 
That's just crazy talk. You can pick a cab knowing what it sounds like in the real world, and once this gets you in the ballpark, the different mics have distinctive characteristics, and the different positions represent practical variations on that theme.

(About your Axe-Edit comment about color, things are open to ideas within reason. I once had the idea of frequency plots on mouse-over, but found that this was not a useful way to judge sonic qualities)
I would think a simple A, B, C, D mic placement logic would suffice where:
A = Center of the dustcap
B = Edge of the dustcap
C = Midway between the center and speaker surround
D = Surround

That simplifies placement, and allows the user to pick a speaker/mic combination based on if they are looking for a brighter or darker placement.
 
Back
Top Bottom