Because the information doesn't accurately translate to a "a sound"? $100 is there any time you think you can do it.Ultimately, the info is a time saver if you already know what mics/positions you prefer. Why bother tasting every kind of mayonnaise the store offers on your ballpark frank if you know you prefer mustard?
I have yet to hear a 421 on any cab that didn't make me immediately choose something else. The mayonnaise of microphones, I guess.Because the information doesn't accurately translate to a "a sound"? $100 is there any time you think you can do it.
$100 could be yours...I have yet to hear a 421 on any cab that didn't make me immediately choose something else. The mayonnaise of microphones, I guess.
I used Leon @2112's suggestion loop some guitar, not look at the display, just hit the arrow key, and color mark the ones I liked. That helped speed the process some, but overwhelmingly and far outside the realm of chance, I landed on the same mics and postions, give or take an inch or letter. If I were on the clock, I would want to zero in on it faster via ruling out the mayonnaise....
I would disagree, it may not translate among IRs from different/random venders, but within a single vender, eg OH or Redwires, it translate pretty well, so does it translate well in real studio work.Because the information doesn't accurately translate to a "a sound"? $100 is there any time you think you can do it.
There's gotta be a reason these robotic mic positioning devices exist to precisely position whatever mic at whatever position with ludicrous precision. The info provides a likely starting point to start listening to individual IRs. Just like studio recording engineers generally start from a particular mic/position combo and adjust from there.I would disagree, it may not translate among IRs from different/random venders, but within a single vender, eg OH or Redwires, it translate pretty well, so does it translate well in real studio work.
Hence I was arguing consistency.
$100 could be yours too...I would disagree, it may not translate among IRs from different/random venders, but within a single vender, eg OH or Redwires, it translate pretty well, so does it translate well in real studio work.
Hence I was arguing consistency.
Hard to do if you don't have the info from the source. No need to start a war over it....@Mark Al and @Joe Bfstplk: you have the ability to rename IRs in the user section any way you like. You can add all the metadata, in any way you like, to organize those IRs.
Go for it.
Report back on on how futile it was, eh?
Which only further proves my point the information is useless because no one knows what it sounds like. A, B, C, D are just as good as "cap edge 2 inch" and "cap edge 2.5" on the IRs when it comes to disambiguating them. There's a reason, a decade on, we've landed on this way of doing things around here. It's not arbitrary.Hard to do if you don't have the info from the source. No need to start a war over it....
If you don't have any way to attribute any consistency to A B C and D, then they are mostly meaningless. The descriptions you chafe at provide some degree of meaning.Which only further proves my point the information is useless because no one knows what it sounds like. A, B, C, D are just as good as "cap edge 2 inch" and "cap edge 2.5" on the IRs when it comes to disambiguating them. There's a reason, a decade on, we've landed on this way of doing things around here. It's not arbitrary.
You're asking a lot of people to spend a lot of time cataloging data that won't help anyone in the end.
@iaresee , I feel you largely miss the point, not sure if you read my earlier posts and about what I proposed...@Mark Al and @Joe Bfstplk: you have the ability to rename IRs in the user section any way you like. You can add all the metadata, in any way you like, to organize those IRs.
Go for it.
Report back on on how futile it was, eh?
I did not. I only read the posts arguing for more metadata like mic and position. Useless. It's been tried and abandoned. Even by Mikko and his IR packs.not sure if you read my earlier posts and about what I proposed...
I did not. I only read the posts arguing for more metadata like mic and position. Useless. It's been tried and abandoned. Even by Mikko and his IR packs.
Someone, maybe it was you, mentioned a way to start from a reference point and ask a system to refine a selection based on wants. "I want more mids...", "I want more highs in the 10k range...", "I want more presence..."
Now that would be very interesting. And it wouldn't require any effort on the part of the IR creators because you have all that information encoded in the IR already in the impulse that has been captured. It would require some pre-knowledge of all the IRs you'd want to consider refining from but it might be worth the wait to have a system catalog a collection to use it like that.
It also works with mixes.
I'd say that'd be useful. Was that what you described? Someone said "decision tree" and that's kind of what it would implement.
Wouldn‘t it be awesome, if @FractalAudio comes up with a new interface for cab/IR selection? Something like:
1. Select a cab
2. Select a mic
3. Select a position, eg cap, cap edge, cone or cone edge.
4. Then select a distance.
Perhaps they don’t need to shoot IRs for all combinations above, instead just a subset of them, them extrapolate/model the rest of combinations. Then Fractal will be providing a consistently set of IR/sounds, covering a whole wide range that allow users to methodically find what they need.
This may require some nontrivial amount of work... but I think this will be hugely better than relying on “randomly” assembled 3rd party IRs which often sound inconsistent and incomplete... And it will be a huge step above Helix!
I love the amp modeling of Axe 3, but I think we can a lot better on the cab/IR side, which is at least 50% of the tone if not more... Just a suggestion, please think about it
My "useless" critique stands. See above: no one, or at least very few people, are helped by selecting mic and position. This information doesn't readily translate into "sounds like A" in anyones head. AND it isn't usable with mixes.Here is what I proposed earlier, a bit more ambitious than just metadata labeling, perhaps
That's fine if it jives with your workflow.I did not. I only read the posts arguing for more metadata like mic and position. Useless. It's been tried and abandoned. Even by Mikko and his IR packs.
Someone, maybe it was you, mentioned a way to start from a reference point and ask a system to refine a selection based on wants. "I want more mids...", "I want more highs in the 10k range...", "I want more presence..."
Now that would be very interesting. And it wouldn't require any effort on the part of the IR creators because you have all that information encoded in the IR already in the impulse that has been captured. It would require some pre-knowledge of all the IRs you'd want to consider refining from but it might be worth the wait to have a system catalog a collection to use it like that.
It also works with mixes.
I'd say that'd be useful. Was that what you described? Someone said "decision tree" and that's kind of what it would implement.
And you don't want to make $100 with that knowledge?I know what certain mics sound like and how to move them around the speaker and get different sounds.
People have tried it and it turned out to be too much more for too little value. And then they pivoted away from it. If it was a good idea, it would have stuck. But literally all of the IR producers save one have given up on it.I am not sure why that info being available is such an unreasonable eequest....
And you don't want to make $100 with that knowledge?
I'm good for it. I'm sure people on the forum can vouch for me.
I am accustomed to being an edge case, even amongst other edge cases. C'est la vie....People have tried it and it turned out to be too much more for too little value. And then they pivoted away from it. If it was a good idea, it would have stuck. But literally all of the IR producers save one have given up on it.