It does if you are in the near field; and it's not limited to multiple drivers. Even with a single driver, comb filtering effects show up. This is the reason tiny movements in close mic'ing have profound effects on frequency response.
This is what I thought, and what I was trying to communicate regarding a 4x12; mic placement matters. However, with specificity to 4x12s, I figured directivity and comb filtering would be *more pronounced*.. but, that does not *sound right* when I write it. Unsure how to communicate this in writing
In the context of your original post, I believe you were referring to not being able to capture your preferred position based on "comb filtering of multiple drivers". See above meant see above for why this should not be a variable as you thought.
If that is what you thought, then I indeed miscommunicated. I was only referring (solely) to my own inability to produce a *perfect* capture (IR) of any of my cabs, due to lack of knowledge, and thus lack of proper technique, and also due to not having the proper environment (room).
Sure it's not trivial, doesn't mean it's not possible. Also I'm still emphasizing the FRFR system. This can also make or break "the illusion". You may think you have a FRFR system, but have you measured its response?
I am absent of much of my equipment from "studio days." Sometimes I consider myself lucky to still have my oscilloscope.. until I realize I am unable to even lift it onto my non-existent work bench. Boo-friggity-hoo, lol.
The Blue Sky System One 5.1 system is a professional studio monitoring solution, and was known for being flat/linear (but not fatiguingly so, like some famous monitors
), with great imaging. Unfortunately, they can be quite revealing; I have listened to favorite recordings, only to end up disliking the production due to how revealing a good monitoring system can be. However, since my current situation is temporary, and a rental, minimal treatments are in place (real bass traps, some foam (ugh), minimal diffusion), and thus the room has not been "shot" and treated properly (but they are calibrated as per Dolby 5.1 standard). When I purchased them, I demoed a slew of systems, from Genelec to ADAMs; the top-shelf ADAMs won, but were just out of my price range (yes, I actually cried about that), and the ADAMs just under at that time lost to the Blue Sky.
All of that is inconsequential when considering this (as it is a comparative, and is not dependent upon the above): if I record the Axe or one of my amps via mic'd cab, and then compare with similar IRs, the IR fails miserably every time. If I load the IR into a plugin on a track with a recording of a cab-disabled Axe source, I am able to get better results than with the same IR loaded in the Axe (same Amp Block patch), but the IR version is still.. the mic on the cab is still preferable. This is what led to this line of questioning.
And thus prompts me to wonder: If I place a neutral mic (TC30, via a neutral mic pre- Earthworks LAB102) less than a foot from the speaker in my cab.. say, 3".. and I record some playing; how about, create a patch in the Axe, Amp Block only, cabs disabled, and record the mic signal as well as a direct feed. Next, everything still in place, I capture an IR. By utilizing that IR, should the results not be (very) similar to the mic'd track? I am not pushing the speaker hard; I have done this with a Greenback, as well as an EVM12L (so far).
My question is: Should the IR be capable of providing a near-identical experience? Theoretically, under ideal conditions, identical? If yes, then I would wonder.. what would be the reasons for failure? Though my ultimate goal would be for FF IRs, viable NF IRs would suffice, with an "even better" being.. how far can I back the mic off before encountering *interference* from an "improper environment" (room dimensions, technique, etc)?
We are already there, the Axe-Fx there's no compromise - it uses all the IR samples you upload to it. Is this concern mostly coming from reverb convolution? Because there you have seconds of samples (i.e. hundreds of thousands of samples) as opposed to 1024 samples and yes inevitably depending on your application you may have to make compromises.
The concern arises from what I wrote above. Due to my inability to discover an IR or IR combination that will stand up to scrutiny when compared with the Axe tracked via an actual mic'd cab (at any distance/placement I have tried), I decided to discover whether an IR, if even only in theory, should be capable of such comparative. Through such investigation, questions arose.
Is the Axe of sufficient ability to provide for an uncompromised method to provide real-time convolution? If I were to compare with a convolution plugin hosted in a DAW, would the same source IR provide a different experience? Additionally, after reading about "post transient resonances" (the action of the transducer after the sound of the instrument has ceased; MLLSA measurement), I was prompted to ask: is a 1024point IR sufficient? Or, is this a matter of the "time invariant" aspect (inherent) with IRs?
And thus it comes back to my "need for the former": If no 3rd party IR(s) will provide what mic'ing my cabs provides, is it possible to create IRs myself, and if so, under ideal conditions, would they then provide such experience that is near-identical to mic'ing my cab?
I hope I came closer to communicating properly. I have serious issues with communication, and it is greatly exacerbated in non-realtime text exchanges such as this.
EDIT to add: just thought of it- it was the ADAM S3A 5.1 system I tried. Simply the most brilliant, inspiring, tasty, smooth, comfortable, beautiful monitoring system I have experienced. Well, shy of custom far field applications in a properly spec'd and constructed room
I love the physical feedback you get from that... mmm....