Here's 59 Bogner IR's for you all! Using 6 mics - FIXED!!

[jerotas]

I've spent about 5 hours doing these IR's and figured I'd share them.

All 59 of these are of a Bogner 1x12 cube, which is loaded with a CL-80 speaker. Mostly I did mic movements of 1 inch, but on the latter half I started doing 1/2 inch movements. I also did some farfield IR's with the condensors in the bunch. But the condensors were not limited to only farfield.

I used the following mics, one at a time:
1) Blue Baby Bottle (LD Condensor)
2) Cascade Fathead II (ribbon)
3) Sennheiser E-609 Silver (Dyn)
4) Behringer ECM-8000 Omni mic (Dyn)
5) Sennheiser MD-421 (Dyn)
6) Oktava MK-319 (with the most expensive mod from OktavaMod) LD Condensor

Mics I have that I haven't made IR's for:
1) An unmodded Oktava MK-319
2) A Blue Bluebird

I have no reason to believe that IR's of those mics would be better than the 6 I captured. If you disagree, please let me know and I will capture those as well. Maybe the Bluebird would be better at clean guitar? I don't know.

I would appreciate feedback (good or bad) if you try these out. Thank you everyone who helped me figure out how to make IR's!

Newest VALID zipfiles are attached. It was too big for one attachment. I deleted the old invalid zips.

 

[AndrewSimon]

Re: 59 Bogner IR's for you all free! Using 6 mics.

Thanks

I'll give them a spin shortly

 

[GuitarDojo]

Re: Here's 59 Bogner IR's for you all! Using 6 mics.

Nice. Thanks for doing the work!

 

[mortega76]

Re: Here's 59 Bogner IR's for you all! Using 6 mics.

Yes! Muchas Grassy-Ass!!!!

 

[Ventanaman]

Re: Here's 59 Bogner IR's for you all! Using 6 mics.

Thanks alot - I'm sure this took some work.

I do have one question though: why the CL-80 in a Bogner 1x12 cab?

 

[jerotas]

Re: Here's 59 Bogner IR's for you all! Using 6 mics.

Thanks alot - I'm sure this took some work.

I do have one question though: why the CL-80 in a Bogner 1x12 cab?

It was recommended to me by my very knowledgeable luthier at the time. Something like: since it can handle more power, it won't distort as easily and thus be more accurate compared to a 30-watt celestion (speaker distortion is not accurate). I don't remember exactly what he said, but he's pretty much a genius on these things so I'm sure he's right. In any event the cabinet sounds amazing.

I've always gone for products that were at least a little different than what most people use. Heck, we all have that tendency if we bought the Axe-Fx!

 

[AndrewSimon]

Re: Here's 59 Bogner IR's for you all! Using 6 mics.

OK I finally got a chance to try these and..... there is something wrong.

All of these have a little color in them but when they are pushed
they distort in a very bad way.
It almost sounds like how a "no cab" would sound.

So a closer look at the SYS file in Bome's SendFX clearly shows the problem.
There is some info at the begining of the file (first row) but the rest is all zeros (empty)
Not sure where things went bad, most likely in the conversion.
I hope you still have the original wave files and they are good.
Can you post one of them?

 

[jerotas]

Re: Here's 59 Bogner IR's for you all! Using 6 mics.

Yeah I still have all the wav files. Are you wanting the trimmed recording of the sweep, or the actual deconvolved wav? I still have everything. Although I'm unsure about whether I'm hearing what you're hearing...They sound fine to me. Maybe I'm not "pushing" them as you say. I don't know.

Before deconvolving the wav's are 1.37Mb, then afte deconvolving they are only 86 bytes!! Then I use the Axe-fx IR Convertor and that is 8kb. Does that give anyone a clue as to what I may be doing wrong? The Axe-IR file size looks correct. I don't know about the other file sizes in between. I trimmed the recording of the sweep to the absolute smallest amount of time before and after the sweep, before exporting each sweep recording.

 

[Jay Mitchell]

Re: Here's 59 Bogner IR's for you all! Using 6 mics.

Before deconvolving the wav's are 1.37Mb, then afte deconvolving they are only 86 bytes!!

Something is not right in the deconvolution process, then. The two files should be of similar size. The "IRs" you have gotten this way are definitely not valid.

 

[jerotas]

Re: Here's 59 Bogner IR's for you all! Using 6 mics.

Before deconvolving the wav's are 1.37Mb, then afte deconvolving they are only 86 bytes!!

Something is not right in the deconvolution process, then. The two files should be of similar size. The "IRs" you have gotten this way are definitely not valid.

Ok well hmmm....I didn't use any extra options on Voxengo Convolver. I pointed it to the sweep used, picked one recording of the sweep, and selected 24 bits for output. That's it! I'm not sure what there is to screw up - pretty simple right? Unless I'm supposed to turn on an extra option or two? Anyone use Voxengo Convolver and get wav's bigger than 86 bytes out of it?

 

[Jay Mitchell]

Re: Here's 59 Bogner IR's for you all! Using 6 mics.

Ok well hmmm....I didn't use any extra options on Voxengo Convolver. I pointed it to the sweep used, picked one recording of the sweep, and selected 24 bits for output. That's it! I'm not sure what there is to screw up - pretty simple right? Unless I'm supposed to turn on an extra option or two? Anyone use Voxengo Convolver and get wav's bigger than 86 bytes out of it?

If the process produces a valid result, the IR of a loudspeaker will contain well in excess of 20 milliseconds of actual data. Since I have never used Voxengo, I can't say what you need to change to get it to work. I can say with 100% confidence that, at present, you are not getting valid impulse responses.

 

[jerotas]

Re: Here's 59 Bogner IR's for you all! Using 6 mics.

Ok well hmmm....I didn't use any extra options on Voxengo Convolver. I pointed it to the sweep used, picked one recording of the sweep, and selected 24 bits for output. That's it! I'm not sure what there is to screw up - pretty simple right? Unless I'm supposed to turn on an extra option or two? Anyone use Voxengo Convolver and get wav's bigger than 86 bytes out of it?

If the process produces a valid result, the IR of a loudspeaker will contain well in excess of 20 milliseconds of actual data. Since I have never used Voxengo, I can't say what you need to change to get it to work. I can say with 100% confidence that, at present, you are not getting valid impulse responses.

Well I am using the demo version of Voxengo...it's possible that's the problem.

 

[AndrewSimon]

Re: Here's 59 Bogner IR's for you all! Using 6 mics.

From Voxengo:

Demo Limitations
Unregistered demo version does not allows batch processing and is limited to 3 deconvolutions per program's session only.

Whatever that means..... I have no idea

 

[jerotas]

Re: Here's 59 Bogner IR's for you all! Using 6 mics.

From Voxengo:

Demo Limitations
Unregistered demo version does not allows batch processing and is limited to 3 deconvolutions per program's session only.

Whatever that means..... I have no idea

Yeah I knew that part. It just means inconvenience to the user.
Ok I think I need to put like .5 seconds of silence at beginning and end of the recorded sweeps, then deconvolve then with the settings of .5 seconds (I didn't know before whether to put the total of the 2 silences). I'll repost these shortly.

 

[jerotas]

Re: Here's 59 Bogner IR's for you all! Using 6 mics.

Ok, I posted a 2nd download in the OP. Now these may be more correctly done. But I think they sound terrible. almost all of them have wayyyyy too much bass. Like you can hear the low end every time you pick - just from the pick sound, even on a high note.

Ooooh, I'm going to apply a low cut filter, there's an option there. I'll try 200Hz.

 

[Jay Mitchell]

Re: Here's 59 Bogner IR's for you all! Using 6 mics.

Ok, I posted a 2nd download in the OP.

Still not there.

A speaker IR will look something like this:

[attachment=1:1i5hrpnt]Sample IR.jpg[/attachment:1i5hrpnt]

Yours all look like this:

[attachment=0:1i5hrpnt]Sample Invalid IR.jpg[/attachment:1i5hrpnt]

Rather than continuing to post zip files, you need to figure out why you're not getting valid IRs. I took the above pictures straight from Alberta's converter. Once you get something that looks like the first picture above, it will make sense to upload it for comment. Absent that, something isn't working as it should, and there's no point in sharing the results.

 

[jerotas]

Re: Here's 59 Bogner IR's for you all! Using 6 mics.

Rather than continuing to post zip files, you need to figure out why you're not getting valid IRs. I took the above pictures straight from Alberta's converter. Once you get something that looks like the first picture above, it will make sense to upload it for comment. Absent that, something isn't working as it should, and there's no point in sharing the results.

Ok, I just redid all the deconcolving and IR converting with a 200Hz low cut filter. And they pretty much look like your picture above now - and they do sound a lot better. I reposted the new zip file in the OP. Is there a way for me to delete the first 2 files I posted? There are 3 now. The new one is called "Impulses Take3". Ignore the others.

 

[Jay Mitchell]

Re: Here's 59 Bogner IR's for you all! Using 6 mics.

Still not there. What you now have is some kind of noise/clutter, but you still haven't gotten a valid IR of the speaker.

 

[jerotas]

Re: Here's 59 Bogner IR's for you all! Using 6 mics.

Still not there. What you now have is some kind of noise/clutter, but you still haven't gotten a valid IR of the speaker.

It's not just the speaker IR I was doing Jay. I was doing speaker + mic IR. I think you know that. Why do you think I don't have a valid IR? The graph now looks pretty similar to what you posted...

 

[Jay Mitchell]

Re: Here's 59 Bogner IR's for you all! Using 6 mics.

It's not just the speaker IR I was doing Jay. I was doing speaker + mic IR.

Still not valid.

Here's the time-domain IR picture of the same speaker as before:

[attachment=1:63a180a4]Sample IR TD.jpg[/attachment:63a180a4]

Here's the time-domain picture from one of yours:
[attachment=0:63a180a4]Sample Invalid IR TD.jpg[/attachment:63a180a4]

I repeat: you have not yet captured a valid speaker IR. I don't have time to teach a course in spectral analysis here, so you'll have to do some research on your own. I have gained enough insight over the past 28 years of doing this type of work professionally to be able to recognize the difference between an impulse response and noise. As before, I can still state with 100% confidence that, whatever it is, your "IR" is not the impulse response of a speaker + mic. You need to take another pass at this.