"Amp in the room" - Why?

ethomas1013 said:
For recording direct, the ability to add a room mic to the close mic tone would be amazing. To me, that's the biggest use for a room mic simulation.
Click to expand...

We can do this. There are several farfield IR's out there. They usually (always?) are of a particular cabinet. For instance I have IR's of a Mesa 4x12 miced at 1, 3, and 5 feet with various condensors on this forum. And I made Bogner farfield IR's as well. Jay has some of his own, and Red Wire also makes some.

I'm starting to wonder how much it matters that we listen to our guitar amp from several feet away with a stereo source (our 2 ears), so maybe you'd need 2 farfield mics (or a stereo one) to accurately capture the sound (if there were a truly flat mic). Thoughts Jay?
 
jerotas said:
ethomas1013 said:
For recording direct, the ability to add a room mic to the close mic tone would be amazing. To me, that's the biggest use for a room mic simulation.
Click to expand...

We can do this. There are several farfield IR's out there. They usually (always?) are of a particular cabinet. For instance I have IR's of a Mesa 4x12 miced at 1, 3, and 5 feet with various condensors on this forum. And I made Bogner farfield IR's as well. Jay has some of his own, and Red Wire also makes some.

I'm starting to wonder how much it matters that we listen to our guitar amp from several feet away with a stereo source (our 2 ears), so maybe you'd need 2 farfield mics (or a stereo one) to accurately capture the sound (if there were a truly flat mic). Thoughts Jay?
Click to expand...

I haven't seen any properly captured farfield IR except from Jay. All the other ones are just in the room, which includes reflections in the window of interest. You need a proper measurement technique to capture the uncolored behavior of a guitar cabinet, nut just put a mic some feet away.
 
jerotas said:
ethomas1013 said:
For recording direct, the ability to add a room mic to the close mic tone would be amazing. To me, that's the biggest use for a room mic simulation.
Click to expand...

We can do this.
Click to expand...
Actually, we can't do this. The IR in the Axe-Fx cab sim is 1024 samples, or 21.3 milliseconds, in length. The creation of anything recognizable as "room sound" - even for a very small space - requires a minimum IR length several times that long.

For instance I have IR's of a Mesa 4x12 miced at 1, 3, and 5 feet
Click to expand...
None of those distances is in the farfield of a 4x12, although 5 feet is getting close.

I'm starting to wonder how much it matters that we listen to our guitar amp from several feet away

with a stereo source (our 2 ears),
Click to expand...
The direct sound is coming from a single location, however.

so maybe you'd need 2 farfield mics (or a stereo one) to accurately capture the sound
Click to expand...
Both the recording and the playback systems are highly critical if you're interested in capturing a binaural IR. A playback system capable of correctly reproducing binaural material would be completely unusable for playing guitar.

Back in 1991, I worked with a team of engineers on a "3-D sound" project for IMAX theaters. The project, which was funded by Sony, resulted in systems being installed in a handful of theaters worldwide. Three or four films were produced with soundtracks suitable for playback on this system. The binaural recordings were mostly done with an Aachen dummy head, and the playback system consisted of pairs of transducers mounted on the 3-D headsets - which used shuttered-LCD technology and were sync'ed to the projection system - just in front of the listeners' ears. The system employed the theater's main loudspeakers (which I designed) in addition to the binaural transducers in the headsets. Audio to the headsets was transmitted via infrared transmitters located throughout the theater.

The result was the ability to create the impression that a sound was coming from any distance, down to less than an inch away from your ears. It was eerie, and in combination with the 3-D projection, it involved the audience in a way that has never before or since occurred.

The practical (more accurately, impractical) side of the system was its downfall. In a standard "large" IMAX theater with a 525-seat capacity, you needed to have on the order of 2000 headsets on hand to accommodate continuous showing. They had to be collected, cleaned, and tested after each showing, and the audience had to be instructed how to tell if their headsets were working prior to each show. There was also the nontrivial issue of maintaining fresh batteries in 2000 headsets, as well as dealing with failures due to damage or defects.

If anyone ever wants to implement a system like this, I can be of assistance. It'll cost you, though.... :lol:
 
Jay Mitchell said:
jerotas said:
ethomas1013 said:
For recording direct, the ability to add a room mic to the close mic tone would be amazing. To me, that's the biggest use for a room mic simulation.
Click to expand...

We can do this.
Click to expand...
Actually, we can't do this. The IR in the Axe-Fx cab sim is 1024 samples, or 21.3 milliseconds, in length. The creation of anything recognizable as "room sound" - even for a very small space - requires a minimum IR length several times that long.

For instance I have IR's of a Mesa 4x12 miced at 1, 3, and 5 feet
Click to expand...
None of those distances is in the farfield of a 4x12, although 5 feet is getting close.

[quote:1fngqm6s]I'm starting to wonder how much it matters that we listen to our guitar amp from several feet away

with a stereo source (our 2 ears),
Click to expand...
The direct sound is coming from a single location, however.

so maybe you'd need 2 farfield mics (or a stereo one) to accurately capture the sound
Click to expand...
Both the recording and the playback systems are highly critical if you're interested in capturing a binaural IR. A playback system capable of correctly reproducing binaural material would be completely unusable for playing guitar.

Back in 1991, I worked with a team of engineers on a "3-D sound" project for IMAX theaters. The project, which was funded by Sony, resulted in systems being installed in a handful of theaters worldwide. Three or four films were produced with soundtracks suitable for playback on this system. The binaural recordings were mostly done with an Aachen dummy head, and the playback system consisted of pairs of transducers mounted on the 3-D headsets - which used shuttered-LCD technology and were sync'ed to the projection system - just in front of the listeners' ears. The system employed the theater's main loudspeakers (which I designed) in addition to the binaural transducers in the headsets. Audio to the headsets was transmitted via infrared transmitters located throughout the theater.

The result was the ability to create the impression that a sound was coming from any distance, down to less than an inch away from your ears. It was eerie, and in combination with the 3-D projection, it involved the audience in a way that has never before or since occurred.

The practical (more accurately, impractical) side of the system was its downfall. In a standard "large" IMAX theater with a 525-seat capacity, you needed to have on the order of 2000 headsets on hand to accommodate continuous showing. They had to be collected, cleaned, and tested after each showing, and the audience had to be instructed how to tell if their headsets were working prior to each show. There was also the nontrivial issue of maintaining fresh batteries in 2000 headsets, as well as dealing with failures due to damage or defects.

If anyone ever wants to implement a system like this, I can be of assistance. It'll cost you, though.... :lol:[/quote:1fngqm6s]
Wish I could have been part of the test audience for that theatre sound system, that's awesome!

Jay said - "The direct sound is coming from a single location, however" - this is a 4x12, so it's coming from 4 locations isn't it? It's also a slant cab.

Yeah I know the 1024 sampling size makes it pretty much not realistic to have "proper" farfield since the sound might not even reach the mic by then. But I never let facts or logic stop me from liking a tone. I think my farfields are simply shifted backward so that they're EARLY farfields or something improper like that. Some of these sound pretty good mixed with a close mic'd IR. It might sound like a farfield that gets picked up earlier than it should (not so much air room sound as normal). It's the difference of the EQ it adds to the sound that I like.

Does anyone know if Cliff has plans to make increase the sample size (1024) to allow for proper farfield IRs? Or is there some other workaround anyone knows of? Jay, how do actually use your farfields? It sounds like they can't be put into the Axe-Fx.
 
jerotas said:
Jay said - "The direct sound is coming from a single location, however" - this is a 4x12, so it's coming from 4 locations isn't it? It's also a slant cab.
Click to expand...
The individual locations are close enough that, at a typical listening distance, binaural hearing will identify a single source.

Yeah I know the 1024 sampling size makes it pretty much not realistic to have "proper" farfield
Click to expand...
Incorrect. A "proper" farfield IR contains the direct, farfield response of the speaker, and nothing else. IOW, there are no environmental reflections in a farfield IR. This is a nontrivial thing to achieve.

since the sound might not even reach the mic by then.
Click to expand...
You're missing some of the basics here.

Does anyone know if Cliff has plans to make increase the sample size (1024) to allow for proper farfield IRs?
Click to expand...
See above. No increase is necessary. The essential element in "farfield" is not latency due to time of flight, it is the response of the speaker in the farfield.
 
Mesaholic said:
I'm not trying to start a flame-fest. I see so many posts about this and am trying to figure out what it is they/you are actually looking for and why this is so important to some players. The overwhelming majority of guitar tones we hear each day are mic'd up and processed, and we are players. The average non-musician hears only processed tones, unless they go to a live show where they are (for some reason), hearing some portion of stage volume. So, what's the deal? :D
Click to expand...

For me...

I see the recorded sound as being inferior to the live sound.
We're all accustomed nowadays to creaming our jeans over some sound that we've heard on a record and frustrated by the fact that we can't duplicate that sound with out live rigs.
But for me, it's the live sound that counts.
Recordings never do justice to the way that a great guitarist using great gear actually sounds like when you're sitting right in front of him in a small intimate venue.
Recording techniques always try to capture that sound and that feeling but IMO they always fall short. It probably has most to do with the fact that music is really performed in a 3 dimensional space. Stereo was invented to help re-create the 3 dimensional feeling, but it falls short. Multi-channel systems probably come closer, but they still fall short.
That's why they've had to develop all sorts of ancillary recording techniques that try to fool the ear that that something more interesting is going on.

I'm sure that lots of folks here will disagree with me.
 
jerotas said:
Jay Mitchell said:
[...] Back in 1991, I worked with a team of engineers on a "3-D sound" project for IMAX theaters. [...]
Click to expand...
Wish I could have been part of the test audience for that theatre sound system, that's awesome! [...]
Click to expand...
I'd have loved to check that out too.
shame they didn't just install 1/8" jacks and a volume knob into all the seats and have it be bring-your-own-headphones (or rent on-site... like an airplane) to avoid the cleaning/battery part of the hassle.
 
godprobe said:
shame they didn't just install 1/8" jacks and a volume knob into all the seats and have it be bring-your-own-headphones
Click to expand...
There weren't headphones, and headphones wouldn't have worked at all. The "personal devices" were headsets consisting of shuttered-LCD glasses with associated electronics, a two-channel audio receiver/amplifier, and the audio transducers. A wired system with the audio channels and sync signal for the glasses portion would have been possible (and we considered it as one option), but it would have added something like a couple million dollars to the cost of theater construction and introduced its own set of failure/maintenance problems. Additionally, all the non-battery headset maintenance issues would have still been there.

At least two theaters - the original Sony theater in New York, which opened in 1994, and and an Edwards Cinema theater in Anaheim, California, which opened in 1996 - operated with the system for several years. The last movie I saw in the format was at the Edwards theater in 1997. Edwards went bankrupt a few years after that.

Here's a link to a page with a photo of a headset at the top of the page: http://www.red3i.es/stereoweb/imax.htm.

Here's a link to IMO the best of the five films that were produced for the medium: http://www.bigmoviezone.com/filmsearch/ ... ml?uniq=68.

Here's a link to a press release about the opening of the Edwards theater: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-17956309.html
 
Off topic I know but I saw some of these flicks at the Edwards Cinema in the Ontario Mills mall in Ontario, CA in the late 90's to 2000ish. I spent a lot of time in the Ontario /Riverside area during that period for work and I've always been a huge movie fan so I spent most of my off time in the evenings at Edwards. That theater was and is still the most awesome theater I've ever experienced. The IMAX was incredible. I saw the 3D underwater flick, one about dinosaurs and I think I saw the L5 movie too but it's fuzzy now. I remember that the sound was nothing short of amazing. Nice work Jay. I remember hearing that it had the largest screen in socal at the time. I also remember thinking how can they keep this going. There were always a lot of empty seats unfortunately. Glad I was able to experience it. I saw Gladiator there the screen (not the IMAX) was so huge it became hard to follow fast motions but it was awesome none the less :D
 
I tend to straddle the line a bit, but always like the flexibility of the FRFR.

When I hear a nice chimey amp or the power of a 4x12 I think wow that would nice to have, and I get GAS'n to try something new.

Then I go back to my FRFR setup and my fun boxes - Axe Ultra, GR33,VG88,Axon MK100/Emu and I hear the incredible pallet of sound I can produce and control (I monitor my 8 channel mix into the PA). I don't miss the amp thing all that much. In fact I think not having a traditional guitar amp setup has kind of shaped me as a musician and the creativity it allows me. My mashup jam band, Painful Awareness, depends on this flexibility to create lots of sound and texture in our music.

In my cover band, Teacher's Pet, I now have everyone playing into the PA (except drummer), and I we can finally get a nicely balanced mix we can control, and the instrumentation is distinct. I use the Axe to run straight up guitar sound with out all the gizmos.

When I play my acoustic duo - its the Axe, the acoustic, a mic and a QSC direct out of the Axe for me and the singer. It sounds great, and we use the axe for the vocal effects too.

I understand the amp in the room feeling, and tried for a while to reproduce this from all my 'modeler' experiences and its different than playing thru the PA, or FRFR. I still wonder if maybe I should add a SS power amp and throw some $ into buying a 2x12 cab.

Then I'd have a buffet to select from. hmmmmmmm......
 
Its 'horses for courses' isnt it?
Personally, I love the axefx straight to desk.
Been playiing in bands since the early 80s. Love rock music and rock guitar sounds.
I live in the uk where the gigs vary from small pubs during the winter months to outdoor festivals (usually in a big tent cos of the rain!) in the summer.
Ive used all sorts of gear over the years, Marshall, Boogie, Soldano and Cornford stacks to name a few.
Over the last few years audiences for rock covers bands has dwindled to a few diehards, and other musicians standing at the back with arms folded and a 'go on, impress me then' expression.
I decided Id had enough of this so a few years back formed a band with a female singer, doing much more modern pop stuff but retaining the rock sound. We got ourselves a full time sound engineer bought a pa (Just a 3k Mackie rig, nothing spectacular) and decided to work on getting a band sound. (Just to give you an idea most of my sounds are based on Pete Thorns Van Halen patch)
We rehearsed through the pa with the sound engineer. In ordr to accomodate actually being able to hear the singer in smaller venues the drummer had to scale down his kit, and I had to turn way down in the backline to give the soundman more control.
This was a departure for me, being used to standing there in my own space, trousers flapping in front of the 4x12. After months of struggling with my ego I had to concede that the band actually sounded a hell of a lot better for it.We use monitors for foldback (sometimes in ears) and I was never completely happy with the guitar sound coming back at me as it was the miced cab and was louder than my amp (master volume at about 2) so when the axe came along I thought Id give it a try.
The soundman and the rest of the band lovede it immediately. I thought it sounded a hell of a lot better than any of my valve amps running at low volume, and after tweaking for a while thought it was great.
The next thing was the drummer. He went and bought a Roland TD kit (not sure which one) for quiet rehearsal and for a laugh brouht it along through the pa.
Like me he had to get over the ego thing but quite frankly the band has never sounded so good. Not even close. Fair enough you dont get that thump on stage, but you quickly get used to that. Plus you can actually hear, really hear what everyone else is doing. The audience gets plenty of thump from the pa and the comments we get soundwise is overwhelmingly very positive.
Set up time is now at a minimum about 30 minutes from arrival. We use a Yamaha 01v96 desk so very little tweaking required sound wise.
When we play the festivals with other bands they sound no better with their 'real' gear than we do.(In fact many reckon we sound a lot better).
All IMHO of course, but if you are having trouble with the 'in the room' thing, try hooking up to a wireless, get a mix happening and stand in front of the pa.
If you can get used to the sound and response of a guitar amp, the you can get used to the sound and feel of the axefx. Its just a matter of perception and what you are used to isnt it? And lets face it, the audience doesnt care how it feels and sounds to you, just how the whole band sounds to them.
 
sheguitarplayer said:
Its 'horses for courses' isnt it?
Personally, I love the axefx straight to desk.
Been playiing in bands since the early 80s. Love rock music and rock guitar sounds.
I live in the uk where the gigs vary from small pubs during the winter months to outdoor festivals (usually in a big tent cos of the rain!) in the summer.
Ive used all sorts of gear over the years, Marshall, Boogie, Soldano and Cornford stacks to name a few.
Over the last few years audiences for rock covers bands has dwindled to a few diehards, and other musicians standing at the back with arms folded and a 'go on, impress me then' expression.
I decided Id had enough of this so a few years back formed a band with a female singer, doing much more modern pop stuff but retaining the rock sound. We got ourselves a full time sound engineer bought a pa (Just a 3k Mackie rig, nothing spectacular) and decided to work on getting a band sound. (Just to give you an idea most of my sounds are based on Pete Thorns Van Halen patch)
We rehearsed through the pa with the sound engineer. In ordr to accomodate actually being able to hear the singer in smaller venues the drummer had to scale down his kit, and I had to turn way down in the backline to give the soundman more control.
This was a departure for me, being used to standing there in my own space, trousers flapping in front of the 4x12. After months of struggling with my ego I had to concede that the band actually sounded a hell of a lot better for it.We use monitors for foldback (sometimes in ears) and I was never completely happy with the guitar sound coming back at me as it was the miced cab and was louder than my amp (master volume at about 2) so when the axe came along I thought Id give it a try.
The soundman and the rest of the band lovede it immediately. I thought it sounded a hell of a lot better than any of my valve amps running at low volume, and after tweaking for a while thought it was great.
The next thing was the drummer. He went and bought a Roland TD kit (not sure which one) for quiet rehearsal and for a laugh brouht it along through the pa.
Like me he had to get over the ego thing but quite frankly the band has never sounded so good. Not even close. Fair enough you dont get that thump on stage, but you quickly get used to that. Plus you can actually hear, really hear what everyone else is doing. The audience gets plenty of thump from the pa and the comments we get soundwise is overwhelmingly very positive.
Set up time is now at a minimum about 30 minutes from arrival. We use a Yamaha 01v96 desk so very little tweaking required sound wise.
When we play the festivals with other bands they sound no better with their 'real' gear than we do.(In fact many reckon we sound a lot better).
All IMHO of course, but if you are having trouble with the 'in the room' thing, try hooking up to a wireless, get a mix happening and stand in front of the pa.
If you can get used to the sound and response of a guitar amp, the you can get used to the sound and feel of the axefx. Its just a matter of perception and what you are used to isnt it? And lets face it, the audience doesnt care how it feels and sounds to you, just how the whole band sounds to them.
Click to expand...


Good post.
 
I would have to agree i just got my axe fx ultra and after hooking up to some better peavey pv 215 speakers that i was using for my pa system the band used. I tweeked a bit and im not missing my tube combo amp at all. The other guitarist has a pretty nice sounding peavey tripple xxx amp that he has had to dial back the destortion just to keep it from whistling all the time. He managed to accomplish this feat some how and it sounds pretty good to me. Now im my challage is to get a "really good non tube amp sound" that can get him to think hmm "thats not tube and it still sounds good". It would be even awesome to have him think " hmm i wouldnt mind having a axe fx too".

i personally was sick of having to go down to start recording my parts for songs for the album my band was doing and realizing i had to move mics ten million times to find the right location for that nice tone, then still most likely having to eq it afterwards to get it just right. For some reason the sound i was hearing at a distance from the speakers was over doing the destortion on my amp, so when i got a mic close to the cab it had to much destortion, and didnt sound to good. Im hoping in the future i can tweak with headphones and frfh, so when it gets time to record i can just get down there and just EQ it a little in the axe to fit better with the drums, and then get down to recording the guitar parts.
 
Scott Peterson said:
Comes down to IR's guys. Hate to say it, but, IMHO, it is that simple.

You tell me, does this sound "in the room" or "close mic'd/recorded direct"?

http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?0mwynjyj0y0

Have your cake and eat it too. IMHO. YMMV.

(*100% recorded direct, no post processing, one pass).
Click to expand...

What IR(s) did you use for that one?

Sounds good on my iMac's speakers.
Probably even better on real speakers.
Definitely does not sound like an amp modeller.
 
joegold said:
Scott Peterson said:
Comes down to IR's guys. Hate to say it, but, IMHO, it is that simple.

You tell me, does this sound "in the room" or "close mic'd/recorded direct"?

http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?0mwynjyj0y0

Have your cake and eat it too. IMHO. YMMV.

(*100% recorded direct, no post processing, one pass).
Click to expand...

What IR(s) did you use for that one?

Sounds good on my iMac's speakers.
Probably even better on real speakers.
Definitely does not sound like an amp modeller.
Click to expand...

These are done using the Red Wirez ( http://www.redwirez.com ) IR's. Converted to sysex files via AlbertA's utility and loaded into the Axe-FX with the beta editor.

Here are some more tones:

Fender Deluxe: http://www.mediafire.com/?mlknpt5jxjx

Vox AC30: http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?k3mc1n7tti0

Marshall JCM 800: http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?zmw2djzzfuh

These IR's - combined with the Axe-FX - deliver on the goods. I am in freaking heaven right now.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IMHO, IR's of this quality sort of level the playing field to the topic at hand. The whole 'recorded direct via close mic'ing' versus 'amp in the room' is rendered useless with the right IR's.

Certain members here have held that out as truth over the years; but not too many could do the level of IR themselves. This package I just got into this week (tipped off here on this board and hipped to these guys) makes this 'debate' sorta moot.

IMHO, YMMV.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom