Few questions from a new user

I think it’s a combination of what you can fit in the IR name and amount of useful information that actually affects choosing a sound.

This is why shorthand is useful, but if you're going to use shorthand in the naming convention, providing notes to decode it is also useful. Having to cull a dozen or more sources to decode the shorthand is not useful.

People definitely choose with their eyes more than their ears in many aspects of audio.

What people choose to do is their choice, but I support giving them the choice. That said, speakers, mics and mic positions all have particular sonic characteristics associated with them, thus having a list that incorporates the aforementioned is just a quick way to reference those characteristics.
 

Mics, mic positions and speakers have certain sonic characteristics. When you're interested in those specific sonic characteristics, narrowing down the list of choices based on the available attributes can be useful.
 
What's not useful about a naming convention that includes the mic, mic position(on / off axis), speaker and cab?
I think one problem (as this thread demonstrates) is that the IR name is just a string of characters, and you can't enforce this proposed naming standard, so it would never work.

If an IR had metadata like an MP3 file, then maybe that sort of thing would be easier...

But, micing a speaker is art. Even the best description of art does a poor job of describing the art.

The best it can do is give you a general starting point.
 
I think one problem (as this thread demonstrates) is that the IR name is just a string of characters, and you can't enforce this proposed naming standard, so it would never work.

If an IR had metadata like an MP3 file, then maybe that sort of thing would be easier...

But, micing a speaker is art. Even the best description of art does a poor job of describing the art.

The best it can do is give you a general starting point.

You can't enforce a standard naming convention on everyone, but you can use a standard naming convention for a particular product that incorporates 2048 cabs.
 
Mics, mic positions and speakers have certain sonic characteristics. When you're interested in those specific sonic characteristics, narrowing down the list of choices based on the available attributes can be useful.
I get what you’re saying. But small differences in mic position can have a big effect on sound that goes well beyond the average sonic characteristics of a given mic position. By narrowing down the list of IRS to the ones that suit your eyes instead of your ears, you could be passing up IRs that suit you better.
 
You can't enforce a standard naming convention on everyone, but you can use a standard naming convention for a particular product that incorporates 2048 cabs.
I agree that Fractal could have done that. But then THEY would need to decode all of the meanings from the various IR producers AND change the IR name from that designated to it by the creator of that IR. Which also means they would have to have all of that information... Which said IR creators may not provide.

As Cliff has already stated his philosophy on this topic, I think it's pretty clear why they did not (and will not) do this.

Personally, I don't care. I'm happy to have 2k+ high quality IRs that I can use right in the box.

Knowing the speaker and the mic flavors gets me in the ballpark, then I can compare different versions of that combo (if they exist) to hear which I prefer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rex
I get what you’re saying. But small differences in mic position can have a big effect on sound that goes well beyond the average sonic characteristics of a given mic position.

Sure, while there are undoubtedly going to be sonic differences extraneous to the on / off axis positioning, if you know you have a preference for on axis positions, you stand a better chance of narrowing down the IR's that are more likely to suit you by offering some indication as to which ones are on / off axis.

By narrowing down the list of IRS to the ones that suit your eyes instead of your ears, you could be passing up IRs that suit you better.

This logic could apply to the amp models as well, but I don't see anyone suggesting that the detailed amp model guide Yek put together could result in people narrowing the list of available amp models to the ones that suit their eyes rather than their ears.
Either way, it's your choice. But there will always be people who love tweaking and listen with their ears regardless.
 
I agree that Fractal could have done that. But then THEY would need to decode all of the meanings from the various IR producers AND change the IR name from that designated to it by the creator of that IR.

At worst, they don't have to change the names of the IRs in the unit itself. Including an IR addendum with that information is doable.

Which also means they would have to have all of that information... Which said IR creators may not provide.

Commercial IR vendors such as Ownhammer provide it in the Docs for their cab packs.
 
Sure, while there are undoubtedly going to be sonic differences extraneous to the on / off axis positioning, if you know you have a preference for on axis positions, you stand a better chance of narrowing down the IR's that are more likely to suit you by offering some indication as to which ones are on / off axis.
Not arguing, but I’m curious if someone who likes “off axis” for example has only ever liked IRs labeled as such, and honestly never liked one that was on axis (or some similar situation). Did that label definitely provided them with the sounds they like?

I’ve definitely been surprised when I blindly scroll through a list of cabs, like one, then look at its description and it’s something I probably wouldn’t have chosen just given the words.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rex
Not arguing, but I’m curious if someone who likes “off axis” for example has only ever liked IRs labeled as such, and honestly never liked one that was on axis (or some similar situation). Did that label definitely provided them with the sounds they like?

Of course not, but for the sake of efficiency, it can be a useful starting point when you feel an off axis position would work best in a particular situation. If you know an SM57 generally works for the sonic characteristics you might want or need for a particular track, that doesn't mean another mic couldn't provide characteristics you might like, but why spend exorbitant amounts of time exploring if you already have an idea of what might work? If it doesn't work, that's another story.

I’ve definitely been surprised when I blindly scroll through a list of cabs, like one, then look at its description and it’s something I probably wouldn’t have chosen just given the words.

Exploring can be fun, but when you have specific sonic characteristics in mind, it can be useful to narrow down the massive list of choices, much the same way when you're looking for the sound of a specific amp, you likely aren't going to audition every amp model in the list.
 
I think there is a conceptual error in this conversation. In my opinion, if you go and "Sample" a real acoustic cabinet there is a reason. The reason is that the Acoustic cabinet has a sound. In this case its a sound of an electric guitar being amplified and sent to that Cabinet, and captured with a microphone and a mic preamp...as we know for the last 60 years or so...
The goal is clear- To get THAT sound of THAT cabinet, In which case, why beat around the bush? Tell me what the IR's are.

If you want to sculpt new original digital tones that have nothing to do with the original sounds you are sampling, fine, call them Trump's Wall as far as im concern..

But sampling traditional, well known gear and then not submitting the info under the pretense of "Letting you work with your ears" is counter logical to me, but that's me.
 
At worst, they don't have to change the names of the IRs in the unit itself. Including an IR addendum with that information is doable.
You left out the part where I said why it's likely they don't ;)
Commercial IR vendors such as Ownhammer provide it in the Docs for their cab packs.
Most do... Which is why I say "may not" and didn't say "do not".

To me, it sounds like you really want this information. I'm sure with a little bit of effort, YOU could create it. Then you and others could benefit from it... I'm sure among the community here, every pack with a representative IR in the box is owned by someone who would be able to share the details on the naming.

Start a new thread, ask for contributions to the content, consolidate the results. Done :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rex
I think there is a conceptual error in this conversation. In my opinion, if you go and "Sample" a real acoustic cabinet there is a reason. The reason is that the Acoustic cabinet has a sound. In this case its a sound of an electric guitar being amplified and sent to that Cabinet, as we know for the last 60 years or so...
The goal is clear- To get THAT sound of THAT cabinet, In which case, why beat around the bush? Tell me what the IR's are.

If you want to sculpt new original digital tones that have nothing to do with the original sounds you are sampling, fine, call them Trump's Wall as far as im concern..

But sampling traditional, well known gear and then not submitting the info under the pretense of "Letting you work with your ears" is counter logical to me, but that's me.
The cabinets and mics used are pretty much a universal part of the labeling, so I'm not really sure you have a valid point.
 
The cabinets and mics used are pretty much a universal part of the labeling, so I'm not really sure you have a valid point.

The whole conversation is about not labelling in a logical way... haven't you been part of the conversation...?
 
The whole conversation is about not labelling in a logical way... haven't you been part of the conversation...?
Your post was about the type of cabinet. I noted that this is usually already part of the label. I'm not sure what's unclear?
 
I originally said that the 1A,2A, 2B and so forth are the confusing element and cliff said its intentional. We've been there already,
 
You left out the part where I said why it's likely they don't ;)

Most do... Which is why I say "may not" and didn't say "do not".

You said:

"THEY would need to decode all of the meanings from the various IR producers AND change the IR name from that designated to it by the creator of that IR."

Which is why I said they don't have to change the names.

To me, it sounds like you really want this information.

I'm neutral on wanting it, however I understand why someone would really want and find it useful for the same reason I can understand why it might be useful for someone to know whether a guitar has humbuckers vs. single coils.

I'm sure with a little bit of effort, YOU could create it.

I have no interest in creating it, just as I had no interest in creating an amp models guide, however I can understand why someone would want and find such a guide useful.

Start a new thread, ask for contributions to the content, consolidate the results. Done :)

Alternatively, for those who are interested in such information, post it in the Wish List section.
 
I originally said that the 1A,2A, 2B and so forth are the confusing element and cliff said its intentional. We've been there already,
I commented on your specific post, where you mentioned a specific example of a cabinet. Nothing to do with anything else. Please reread my comments relative to the post I responded to.
 
You said:

"THEY would need to decode all of the meanings from the various IR producers AND change the IR name from that designated to it by the creator of that IR."

Which is why I said they don't have to change the names.
And without an addendum (as you mentioned after this), they would. Just because the creator of the IR provides the details doesn't mean Fractal doesn't still need to decode that information for each IR...
 
Back
Top Bottom