"EQing" impulse responses

cole lewis

Experienced
Wondering what insight guys here have on something I've noticed a couple times watching videos on making IR's or showcasing them.

The usual approach is, mics, preamp, flat poweramp, do the IR capture process, done. A couple times I've noticed people using for example the seymour duncan powerstage poweramp EQ controls to either boost treble or sometimes cut a little mids, or both. Or sometimes parametric EQ's to do similar things. Is there any actual merit to this? The usual way to change sound obviously in this context is going to be changing mics, mic position or even the preamp choice before doing this. However it has been done.

My guess is it's an easy way to change something about a speaker you might not love. Too dark even with would usually be a super bright SM57 position, maybe you need a little presence boost. Too honky in the mids cut some out.
 
"Other guitar or bass cabinet IR file providers sometimes make arbitrary EQ cuts or boosts in the files as kind of a one size fits all approach to try and get an instrument to sit in a mix that is at best a guess. Such best EQ guesses don’t take into account your playing style, strings, pickups, instrument setup, amp model selection/settings, effects choices, or the other sounds and arrangements going on in the music you are going to play live or record."

Quote from Dr Bonkers website.
 
I would love if we could overlay an EQ onto an IR in CabLab, then export that IR. That would save me one block in the chain.
 
Wondering what insight guys here have on something I've noticed a couple times watching videos on making IR's or showcasing them.

The usual approach is, mics, preamp, flat poweramp, do the IR capture process, done. A couple times I've noticed people using for example the seymour duncan powerstage poweramp EQ controls to either boost treble or sometimes cut a little mids, or both. Or sometimes parametric EQ's to do similar things. Is there any actual merit to this? The usual way to change sound obviously in this context is going to be changing mics, mic position or even the preamp choice before doing this. However it has been done.

My guess is it's an easy way to change something about a speaker you might not love. Too dark even with would usually be a super bright SM57 position, maybe you need a little presence boost. Too honky in the mids cut some out.
I personally don't care for pre EQ'd IRs in the commercial realm. It's all just personal taste of the IR creator anyhow. If you are making them for your own use then....EQ all you want. Every time I see words such as "Pre-mixed or "Pre-EQd" to "Sit in a mix" from commercial IR sellers, I usually roll my eyes. How would they know what fits in MY mix???
 
I would love if we could overlay an EQ onto an IR in CabLab, then export that IR. That would save me one block in the chain.
In making an IR you should be able to do exactly what I was saying with the powerstage EQ, but with the axe FX parametric EQ. Just have to route it correctly.
 
I personally don't care for pre EQ'd IRs in the commercial realm. It's all just personal taste of the IR creator anyhow. If you are making them for your own use then....EQ all you want. Every time I see words such as "Pre-mixed or "Pre-EQd" to "Sit in a mix" from commercial IR sellers, I usually roll my eyes. How would they know what fits in MY mix???
It seems to me like Dr Bonkers says in his quote that ultimately it's not something important at all. If my guitar is for example brighter than the guitar of the person who made the IR, what would the point of doing an EQ treble boost in the chain be? Or a mid scoop EQ in the IR isn't accounting for what amp model I'm using it with. Maybe the amp is already scooped enough. Etc.

I have noticed certain IR brands or certain IRs made by brands sound quite bad I wonder if excessive processing is the cause.
 
"Philosophically, Dr Bonkers Soundlab® strives to preserve the particular bass cab or guitar cab as a historical snapshot in time within an acoustically neutral physical space within the digital world for each mic position and choice. The reasoning is that you have so many tools in your modeler or digital audio workstation (DAW) to remove or boost frequencies if you need to in a specific circumstance, but you can’t put back what was eliminated and have it be truthful to the reality of the cabinet in an acoustically neutral space at the time of recording. The goal is that if you have a great acoustically engineered cab captured by a seasoned engineer with careful mic positioning of the speakers using professional class mics and signal chain, there should be cab sounds that will help make you sound like you without a ton of EQ."

This quote I should have added as well.
 
I have noticed certain IR brands or certain IRs made by brands sound quite bad I wonder if excessive processing is the cause.
I believe that is the case with many IR makers.
I am actually the creator of the IRs at this site:
https://zombiecabs.com/
I am not the current owner though. It was originally created with me and my brother. We didn't see eye to eye on how the web site was made and choices of which IRs were used. So, I ended up leaving. We are in the talking process of maybe re-launching the site under "My way" this time :)
If we do it, they will be more high res and less mic positions and less tube variations. To me, it needed to be more simple for the average user.
You can check out a few examples in this forum under my post titled "IRs made with SS amps or Tube amps?"
 
This is an interesting subject for me as I tend to use @York Audio IR which sound really great. It's when I come to mix time that I always find with most IR vendors that I have to cut the mids in around the 700Hz region to get it to sound like a mixed guitar sound.
There is one part of me that thinks I should just do it in the mix but there is the old saying about getting the source right.

One of my current experiments I am trying is combining the 3 sigma 2x12 Mesa (which sound quite scooped to me) with the York Audio 2x12 Mesa to get some of the mid range back.

I've also been trying to bake audio audio curves into Ir's to see how that performs
 
This is an interesting subject for me as I tend to use @York Audio IR which sound really great. It's when I come to mix time that I always find with most IR vendors that I have to cut the mids in around the 700Hz region to get it to sound like a mixed guitar sound.
There is one part of me that thinks I should just do it in the mix but there is the old saying about getting the source right.

One of my current experiments I am trying is combining the 3 sigma 2x12 Mesa (which sound quite scooped to me) with the York Audio 2x12 Mesa to get some of the mid range back.

I've also been trying to bake audio audio curves into Ir's to see how that performs
Personally, I think EQ’ing IRs does more harm than good. Before I started making IRs, I found myself needing to make a lot of EQ adjustments to later find that I was basically “correcting” IRs that the IR producer had EQ’ed… essentially spending time trying to “undo” the EQ he baked into the IRs. The idea of EQ’ing an IR to be “Mix Ready” doesn’t really work when you put the IR in the hands of various players with different guitars, playing techniques, amp choices, listening environments, etc. We all have different needs and tastes, so there isn’t a one size fits all just like there isn’t a single guitar that’s perfect for everyone.

So I believe the best approach is to keep an IR accurate to the real thing and let it do what it does. When we’re listening in the mix, having an accurate, non-EQ’ed, IR let’s us treat the track as if we used a real amp and cab. We can EQ in post to let the guitar sit the way we want for THAT particular mix while realizing that what sits right in one song may not sit right in another with the same EQ tweak.

Just think about the amps in the Fractal… They sound and feel great because they’re modeled accurately, so they sound and feel like the real thing. Cabs and IRs work the same way. Keeping it accurate will give you more natural results in the long run and make your shows and recordings sound better and more realistic.

Just my two cents. :)
 
Personally, I think EQ’ing IRs does more harm than good. Before I started making IRs, I found myself needing to make a lot of EQ adjustments to later find that I was basically “correcting” IRs that the IR producer had EQ’ed… essentially spending time trying to “undo” the EQ he baked into the IRs. The idea of EQ’ing an IR to be “Mix Ready” doesn’t really work when you put the IR in the hands of various players with different guitars, playing techniques, amp choices, listening environments, etc. We all have different needs and tastes, so there isn’t a one size fits all just like there isn’t a single guitar that’s perfect for everyone.

So I believe the best approach is to keep an IR accurate to the real thing and let it do what it does. When we’re listening in the mix, having an accurate, non-EQ’ed, IR let’s us treat the track as if we used a real amp and cab. We can EQ in post to let the guitar sit the way we want for THAT particular mix while realizing that what sits right in one song may not sit right in another with the same EQ tweak.

Just think about the amps in the Fractal… They sound and feel great because they’re modeled accurately, so they sound and feel like the real thing. Cabs and IRs work the same way. Keeping it accurate will give you more natural results in the long run and make your shows and recordings sound better and more realistic.

Just my two cents. :)
Good two cents!
I agree.
Most guitarist might find it abhorrent to find out that most engineers will get the drums, bass and vocals going first then make the guitar "work" around them.
 
Personally, I think EQ’ing IRs does more harm than good. Before I started making IRs, I found myself needing to make a lot of EQ adjustments to later find that I was basically “correcting” IRs that the IR producer had EQ’ed… essentially spending time trying to “undo” the EQ he baked into the IRs. The idea of EQ’ing an IR to be “Mix Ready” doesn’t really work when you put the IR in the hands of various players with different guitars, playing techniques, amp choices, listening environments, etc. We all have different needs and tastes, so there isn’t a one size fits all just like there isn’t a single guitar that’s perfect for everyone.

So I believe the best approach is to keep an IR accurate to the real thing and let it do what it does. When we’re listening in the mix, having an accurate, non-EQ’ed, IR let’s us treat the track as if we used a real amp and cab. We can EQ in post to let the guitar sit the way we want for THAT particular mix while realizing that what sits right in one song may not sit right in another with the same EQ tweak.

Just think about the amps in the Fractal… They sound and feel great because they’re modeled accurately, so they sound and feel like the real thing. Cabs and IRs work the same way. Keeping it accurate will give you more natural results in the long run and make your shows and recordings sound better and more realistic.

Just my two cents. :)
I agree - what I've been looking at today is this
http://recordinghacks.com/microphones


this gives information about the microphones being used and the frequency response - I always tend to stick to the same combination so I think I need to experiment more with the different microphones
 
I agree - what I've been looking at today is this
http://recordinghacks.com/microphones


this gives information about the microphones being used and the frequency response - I always tend to stick to the same combination so I think I need to experiment more with the different microphones
Researching is a great way to understand WHY a mic sounds the way it does, but it’s much quicker to audition IRs of different mics to hear what they’re actually doing in a real world context. They all have different characteristics, much like different guitars or pickups, so they can’t really be defined for a specific sound… a P90 may be a single coil pickup, but it rocks through a cranked Marshall or a Mesa. We gotta experiment with stuff until we find the things that click.
 
Personally, I think EQ’ing IRs does more harm than good. Before I started making IRs, I found myself needing to make a lot of EQ adjustments to later find that I was basically “correcting” IRs that the IR producer had EQ’ed… essentially spending time trying to “undo” the EQ he baked into the IRs. The idea of EQ’ing an IR to be “Mix Ready” doesn’t really work when you put the IR in the hands of various players with different guitars, playing techniques, amp choices, listening environments, etc. We all have different needs and tastes, so there isn’t a one size fits all just like there isn’t a single guitar that’s perfect for everyone.

So I believe the best approach is to keep an IR accurate to the real thing and let it do what it does. When we’re listening in the mix, having an accurate, non-EQ’ed, IR let’s us treat the track as if we used a real amp and cab. We can EQ in post to let the guitar sit the way we want for THAT particular mix while realizing that what sits right in one song may not sit right in another with the same EQ tweak.

Just think about the amps in the Fractal… They sound and feel great because they’re modeled accurately, so they sound and feel like the real thing. Cabs and IRs work the same way. Keeping it accurate will give you more natural results in the long run and make your shows and recordings sound better and more realistic.

Just my two cents. :)
In your opinion and especially in a live scenario would you say that also applies to high and low pass filters? I almost always find myself adding a low cut between 80-120 and high cut between 6k-8k on the cab block preamp. I feel like this is standard practice but I wonder if you'd see that as limiting the IR as well?
 
In your opinion and especially in a live scenario would you say that also applies to high and low pass filters? I almost always find myself adding a low cut between 80-120 and high cut between 6k-8k on the cab block preamp. I feel like this is standard practice but I wonder if you'd see that as limiting the IR as well?
I apply literally the exact same filters! Those cuts really help get rid of mud and harshness.

It makes sense to just do the cut on the unit vs built into the IR in my opinion specifically for fractal, because we don't need an extra EQ block to make it work. It is just a simple cut control in the cab.
 
In your opinion and especially in a live scenario would you say that also applies to high and low pass filters? I almost always find myself adding a low cut between 80-120 and high cut between 6k-8k on the cab block preamp. I feel like this is standard practice but I wonder if you'd see that as limiting the IR as well?
In my opinion and live experience, I think it’s perfectly fine to use a low cut if you want to clean up the low end a bit. My live low cut is usually between 80-120 as well. However, I don’t recommend using a high cut for live tones. That top end energy is what gives your tone separation and dimension in the mix. If the IR is accurate, the top end information will translate just like a 57 on a real cab… and I’ve never had/talked to a sound guy that uses high cuts on guitars at FOH.

I tried using a high cut at 10k once (I was the only guitar player using a modeler) at rehearsals and went back to our FOH guy after a few songs to see if he was EQ’ing my channel at all. Turns out, he had a high shelf cranked at 10k trying to get back what I had taken out. So I turned my high cut off, played a few songs, and went back to see if it made a difference… he had ZERO EQ on my channel and said my guitars sounded “alive” again.

Just two more of my cents.
 
I’ve had some experience with IRS where they seem to be drastically high in the treble and bass to a point that does not seem natural. Seems very likely IRS with that awful scooped sound are ones people EQ’d to sound like that.
 
In my opinion and live experience, I think it’s perfectly fine to use a low cut if you want to clean up the low end a bit. My live low cut is usually between 80-120 as well. However, I don’t recommend using a high cut for live tones. That top end energy is what gives your tone separation and dimension in the mix. If the IR is accurate, the top end information will translate just like a 57 on a real cab… and I’ve never had/talked to a sound guy that uses high cuts on guitars at FOH.

I tried using a high cut at 10k once (I was the only guitar player using a modeler) at rehearsals and went back to our FOH guy after a few songs to see if he was EQ’ing my channel at all. Turns out, he had a high shelf cranked at 10k trying to get back what I had taken out. So I turned my high cut off, played a few songs, and went back to see if it made a difference… he had ZERO EQ on my channel and said my guitars sounded “alive” again.

Just two more of my cents.

I was checking out @Willis 's live preset he shared for Firehouse and I
swear his Hi Cut for dirty/lead tones was in the 4500 range, while clean
tones were around 10K. I have not seen such a severe Hi Cut used, but
there must be a reason. Maybe he will chime in here. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom