• We would like to remind our members that this is a privately owned, run and supported forum. You are here at the invitation and discretion of the owners. As such, rules and standards of conduct will be applied that help keep this forum functioning as the owners desire. These include, but are not limited to, removing content and even access to the forum.

    Please give yourself a refresher on the forum rules you agreed to follow when you signed up.

1959SLP Treble and cabIR.eu MR-1960AX-G12M25 SM57 IR

Morphosis

Fractal Fanatic
Just seen this video of a real SLP1959 Plexi & the 1960AX cab, miced with just an SM57 and i really liked it:


So i tried to get in the same ballpark with the Axe-Fx, using the same "virtual" gear:

Guitar: Epi LesPaul
Amp-Sim: 1959SLP Treble, all default, but Mids on 10 and correct low-resonance at 114Hz, match the MR-1960AX-G12M25 Cab from www.cabIR.eu
Cab-IR: SM57 single Mic, speaker C: MR-1960AX-G12M25_SM57-F-C_P

So, just used the P-voicing, instead of the I_dealized-NULL-Amp voicing (Mic+Di), to pronounce the low-resonance better, cause i like it :D

And that`s what its sounds:
 
Last edited:

stm113

Veteran
The clip sounds awesome but is also a great example of what is to me the missing element in my search for the right IR. There is something missing in the top end of the Fractal clip, what I call that airy, glassy top end bite. It's not fizz so much but the bite.
 

Morphosis

Fractal Fanatic
Hard to me to interprete, what you mean with "airy, glassy top end bite". Did the original Amp recording in the video have it? Or did you have some examples for me, i can listen to? I`m really interested to figure out, what you mean exactly! Perhaps, it does not have to do with the IR itself, but the difference of a live recording, when a guitar react directly with a speaker in the room? Or ambience reflexions, or compressions from the mic capsule, or ... would like to isolate your missing link :)

Or in other words: Is it just a frecquency curve thing ... or something else ... if something else, no any IR will satisfy your demand and it is something others ... because IRs are all about frequency curve as a "linear event" ...
 
Last edited:

Hubi

Veteran
I like the fractal Sound from Mophosis here very much.......very close.
impossible to sound the same - have a look at the Pickups and also the playing hands - there is also a little fingervibrato on the chords in the original vid.
 
Wow, nice original clip....and close clip from the Fractal Markus.....yes, I do hear something still missing...but it is like sitting and watching Grass grow......, somebody once told me....:rolleyes:
 

axifist

Veteran
I like both clips when I listen to them separately, but when comparing them directly the original clip clearly wins! "airy, glassy top end bite" describes it very well in my opinion. But it doesn't describe the cause of the differences.

As Markus stated, the question is, where does the difference come from... I honestly don't know, I think one has to have very well trained ears and a lot of knowledge to know what's the difference exactly. Amp simulation in the Axe? Noone will agree on this ;) Mic position? Maybe! 170ms limit of UltraRes? Most probably not! Guitar, pickups, fingers? Very possible! Different cables? THAT MUST BE IT!!!! :D Variations in Marshall amps? Very possible aswell!

If I had to make a choice I'd say that you can get closer with smart EQing. Maybe create a tonematch with the original clip and look at the frequency curve to see what's missing frequency-wise and use that as a starting point, if you want to keep the original IR and just use an EQ. But this wouldn't satisfy me, because it doesn't explain anything.

The best way to compare the virtual and analog world would of course be this:
- Mic up a guitar amp + cabinet
- Shoot an IR (Mic+DI- / Idealized-method to erase the power amp's color)
- Load the IR into the Axe and recreate the amp's settings
- Play something into the amp and the Axe-FX and record both
- Compare them :)

ML has done such comparisons with his Mesa stuff and I just couldn't hear a difference!


Thank you Markus for the nice comparison!
 

Morphosis

Fractal Fanatic
The best way to compare the virtual and analog world would of course be this:
- Mic up a guitar amp + cabinet
- Shoot an IR (Mic+DI- / Idealized-method to erase the power amp's color)
- Load the IR into the Axe and recreate the amp's settings
- Play something into the amp and the Axe-FX and record both
- Compare them :)

ML has done such comparisons with his Mesa stuff and I just couldn't hear a difference!
I`ve done such "real miced cab vs. IR" tests a dozen times. In different szenarios. Comparing youtube clips to a simliar signal chain, like i`ve done above is always apples to oranges by design! Even the same Amp (sim) is used, the same Cabinet (or IRs from the actual cab), the same mic .... it will sound different. Why? Every room sounds different, every cab sounds different, the four (same type of) speakers of the captured 1960AX sounds different, i came with speaker "C" most close in this comparison, every Mic position sounds different ,... every (old) plexi amp sounds different .... so, yes ... to match more accurate the sound of the video, a tonematch would really be key ... or tweaking the Amp perhaps ...
 
Last edited:

barhrecords

Axe-Master
@Morphosis nice clip and preset!

I think if you dime the Treble you will get the bite they are talking about.

A dimed Plexi is an acquired tasted though. And maybe not as satisfying to play in that some of the dynamics are lost in favor of sound vs. feel.
 

Morphosis

Fractal Fanatic
@Morphosis nice clip and preset!

I think if you dime the Treble you will get the bite they are talking about.
Thanks! Yes, maybe some more amp tweaking had done the job better, but i wanted it so easy, without much tweaks, as possible ... so ... only the Mids to ten and the correct low-res for the IR ... i think, for just doing these two simple tweaks, ... the virtual setup is not soooooo much away from the authentic reference from the vid ....honestly i found other IRs in the pack, which did satisfy me personal a lot more ... but this was not target here ... ;)
 

Morphosis

Fractal Fanatic
I also prefer less extreme tone stack settings in general.

To my ears on the Fractal, the defaults with minimal tweaks give a lot of mojo.
Me too! Personally, when choosing or searching or trying out a new amp, i start everything on default and search first for an matching IR. When found something not fast - it`s the wrong Amp ... or type of cab. But if i get fast in the ballpark with the right IR, i tweak the standard parameters maximal for a minute, if a came closer to what I´d like to hear ... and that`s it.Very very rarely i touch some advanced parameters like X-Former or negative feedback (but always the speaker tab to match my IRs.. at least the low-res frequency) , or saturation, if i want to sound the BE100 more like the Steve Stevens model or something ...
 

FractalAudio

Administrator
Fractal Audio Systems
Moderator
The difference in the top end is due to the original being recorded loud and the guitar in proximity to the cab. You can hear it almost taking off into feedback, there's an underlying squeal. You'll never get this without volume but you can simulate it somewhat by putting a filter block before the amp block and boosting a narrow range of frequencies. Set the type to Peaking and experiment with the freq, Q and gain. Start at 1 kHz and adjust from there.
 

Morphosis

Fractal Fanatic
The difference in the top end is due to the original being recorded loud and the guitar in proximity to the cab. You can hear it almost taking off into feedback, there's an underlying squeal. You'll never get this without volume but you can simulate it somewhat by putting a filter block before the amp block and boosting a narrow range of frequencies. Set the type to Peaking and experiment with the freq, Q and gain. Start at 1 kHz and adjust from there.
Cliff, otherwise i could repeat the recording DI, but instead using in-ears i would monitor the signal at ear bleeding level thru my FRFR Monitor, i would theoretically get more of the "vibe", whats audible in the video clip of the real Amp recording, including the "bite" and also the notable feedback, when the chord is ringing out?

Because, this would be the scenario, i did all the real cab .vs. IR recording comparisons i did in the past with really comparable results...
 

FractalAudio

Administrator
Fractal Audio Systems
Moderator
Cliff, otherwise i could repeat the recording DI, but instead using in-ears i would monitor the signal at ear bleeding level thru my FRFR Monitor, i would theoretically get more of the "vibe", whats audible in the video clip of the real Amp recording, including the "bite" and also the notable feedback, when the chord is ringing out?
Yes. You can hear the feedback in the original clip which is due to the volume.
 

GuttaLaser

Forum Addict
bite glassy and airy is not the only difference to me.
missing someting in the low-end too. maybe because the proximity effect of the close micing of the original... but... is missing in the "clone"!
all the originals - with the tonal differences - have a beef in the lows and a kind of separation between lows and mid/high... while the clone is more "continuously" mid-rangy
 

brianv4

Forum Addict
bite glassy and airy is not the only difference to me.
missing someting in the low-end too. maybe because the proximity effect of the close micing of the original... but... is missing in the "clone"!
all the originals - with the tonal differences - have a beef in the lows and a kind of separation between lows and mid/high... while the clone is more "continuously" mid-rangy
In the cab block, perhaps try adding some proximity using the null setting to achieve the low end you describe and FET 1 with drive around 3.50 and add Hi's to taste for the bite/air etc
 
Top