MIC+DI vs MIC ONLY vs CK METHOD

Melten said:
Edit: BTW I actually really like these IRs. So, thanks for access to them! :)
Click to expand...

Thanks. I will create a Cab Pack from this cab but with proper mic ups obviously. :) It's really good to hear that you like this one already.

Melten said:
There's definitely a significant difference. But as you say they do all seem to be something like a different lens on the same data. However, that being the case, I don't see why we would then choose one that is not the most accurate. If the difference between them is to do with power amp coloration, why would we not let the Axe FX have more total control over that aspect?
Click to expand...

I would love to comment on this but I want there to be a bit more conversation before I start discussing this more in detail. I take this very seriously as it's my job to create the highest quality IRs humanly possible for you guys to enjoy. I did a lot of tests and I can't post the results without giving information that reveals these IRs.

There are some obvious benefits for using the .wav format. Essentially using the .wav format is an insurance in case something went wrong (or in case there's something new coming up). I can f.ex. go back inside my DAW and find the issue, fix it and fix the IRs. If there would be a problem (f.ex. a phase reverse in one of the signals is very common when dealing with DIs) when shooting with the Axe-Fx that gets noticed later there's nothing you can do but to go shoot the IRs again meaning it's another 2-4 weeks of work vs something like 30 minutes in your DAW if you used the .wav format. Then there's the something new factor that I want to be aware of. F.ex. let's say that in 2-3 years Cliff comes up with a new even better IR format for Axe-Fx IV running FW23. If all I have is the UltraRes format then those IRs will be out-dated but if I shoot the IRs in .wav format I can most likely convert them into the new format as they are raw IRs. I can even go back to my stored DAW sessions and do changes.
 
Clark described the two main issues, when capturing directly in proprietary FAS format. To me, these ARE issues, that let me stay on .wav as RAW data format. Remember the first two FAS Cab-Packs? No Ultra-Res available because of truncation to "Hi-Res", when processed.
 
Clark Kent said:
There are some obvious benefits for using the .wav format.
Click to expand...
Indeed this does sound like a benefit (and a problem with the proprietary FAS formats), but isn't that a benefit of the file format rather than the IR capture process itself? To me these should be separate concerns. Or is there something truly new in FAS's capture code that can't be completely replicated outside of the Axe FX without knowing exactly what's going on? If so, that is disappointing to me, since being able to use the source data of the most cleanly captured IRs will potentially be of great benefit in the future. I understand there are concerns for competing products using the fruits of the Axe FX's loins, as it were, but that isn't particularly convincing to me.
 
paranoid said:
but what if cliff comes out with new files that mimic the sound and smell of a real amp cab combo could you convert to senswavaroma!
Click to expand...

This is actually one of my biggest secrets in making IRs professionally. I do care about the smell. Actually my IRs include the smell color also. You can especially hear it in Cab Pack 9. The way I ensure that this happens is that before I place the microphones I smell each of the speakers. It's actually really easy to smell which side of the speaker is the best side. Remember that a speakers is a 360 degree object. Then I place the mics on that particular side. That's the Clark Kent sweet spot recipe. Don't tell anyone! Keep it a secret.
 
Melten said:
Indeed this does sound like a benefit (and a problem with the proprietary FAS formats), but isn't that a benefit of the file format rather than the IR capture process itself? To me these should be separate concerns. Or is there something truly new in FAS's capture code that can't be completely replicated outside of the Axe FX without knowing exactly what's going on? If so, that is disappointing to me, since being able to use the source data of the most cleanly captured IRs will potentially be of great benefit in the future. I understand there are concerns for competing products using the fruits of the Axe FX's loins, as it were, but that isn't particularly convincing to me.
Click to expand...

Well I am removing the power amp color and I've been doing that for all of my Cab Packs. I have no confirmation from Cliff about what gave him the idea to create this new IR shoot method but I have discussed my color removal methods with Cliff over six months ago. Just to be clear I have not heard about Volterra kernel extraction before and I'm not using that method. This is exactly why this thread is blind folded. Since EQ wise these are surprisingly close to each other I would like to see that there's a clear difference and a PREFERENCE that people notice besides the EQ curve. Actually refusing to state an opinion on the IRs but still favoring one of the methods is counterproductive. Don't get me wrong. When Cliff says something he's most likely right. I remember once questioning something and he sent me an email with so much science I couldn't even begin to understand what it was. In that sense I'm already waving a white flag.

The underlying question for me personally is "Is MIC+DI so much better that I can consider leaving the .wav format behind?". The difference needs to be significant. That's undecided yet and that's why this community needs you guys to try these out and give your opinions "for a better future". Thank you guys! :)
 
Clark Kent said:
Since EQ wise these are surprisingly close to each other I would like to see that there's a clear difference and a PREFERENCE that people notice besides the EQ curve. Actually refusing to state an opinion on the IRs but still favoring one of the methods is counterproductive.
Click to expand...
I haven't done enough of a test to say that I have a preference for any one of them over the other. Like any flavouring I think it would depend on context and how I have the amp set, which guitar I'm using, how loud I'm listening to it, which speakers I'm using, etc... As usual. I doubt I'd always like one of them over the other. So I think there is merit then in picking the least affected one. I'll have another try tomorrow to see if I can choose a favorite for you, though.

Clark Kent said:
The underlying question for me personally is "Is MIC+DI so much better that I can consider leaving the .wav format behind?". The difference needs to be significant. That's undecided yet and that's why this community needs you guys to try these out and give your opinions "for a better future". Thank you guys! :)
Click to expand...
Alright, that makes sense and I now see why it appeared we were discussing slightly different things. You've contributed way more to modern guitar recording way more than I ever will, so please don't think I'm trying to be contrary just to mess with you. I just want to understand :)
 
Melten said:
I haven't done enough of a test to say that I have a preference for any one of them over the other. Like any flavouring I think it would depend on context and how I have the amp set, which guitar I'm using, how loud I'm listening to it, which speakers I'm using, etc... As usual. I doubt I'd always like one of them over the other. So I think there is merit then in picking the least affected one. I'll have another try tomorrow to see if I can choose a favorite for you, though.

Alright, that makes sense and I now see why it appeared we were discussing slightly different things. You've contributed way more to modern guitar recording way more than I ever will, so please don't think I'm trying to be contrary just to mess with you. I just want to understand :)
Click to expand...

Nah man I didn't mean to be so cold. :) Remember that I'm Finnish so I might sound like a computer every now and then. :D

This comparison is kind of lacking because we can't audibly compare any of these "with the real thing". We don't have a clip of a real cab miked vs these other methods. Obviously if we did it would only be about people measuring the waveforms and not concentrating on the feel etc. :) It's kind of impossible to do 100% correctly in that sense.
 
Clark Kent said:
The underlying question for me personally is "Is MIC+DI so much better that I can consider leaving the .wav format behind?". The difference needs to be significant. That's undecided yet and that's why this community needs you guys to try these out and give your opinions "for a better future". Thank you guys! :)
Click to expand...

Clark, if this is the target, i think you should perhaps modify the test scenario. Fist, the RAW/MPT insecurity is an issue. I would shoot the Axe-Fx variants with CL3 and make sure, the UR versions from the Axe-Fx direct are RAW files, not MPT. Secondly the kernel volterra seems to take notice on distortion, whatever this term means in this context exactly. Also i googled for that, but get lost in mathematical calculations, but i read something about independence from time domain thingy. "Our" Input/Output filtering works only accurate, if the time domain is on sample basis equal in both files. I triple checked this...
If i remember right, you`ll shoot the serious IRs (not named like tennis heroes, haha...) still with your tube amp, but in this test you mentioned using a SS amp. Perhaps the kernel Volterra thing take more notice on a tube-Amp basis?! For sure, i don`t know...

So, i would do it following:

Axe MIC+DI with CL3 / RAW - SS Amp
Axe MIC+DI with CL3 / RAW - Tube Amp
CK method RAW - SS Amp
CK method RAW - Tube Amp

Those four variants would be to me valid to compare them eachother... to judge different MIC+DI methods...

The MIC only method should be out of valuation, because it depends much, how good the used SS Amp is and what damping factor it has. What`s happen if we use Tube-Amps (low damping factor / color, blahblah...) with MIC only method, we all know...

Just my 02 cents...
 
Last edited:
Morphosis said:
Clark, if this is the target, i think you should perhaps modify the test scenario. Fist, the RAW/MPT insecurity is an issue. I would shoot the Axe-Fx variants with CL3 and make sure, the UR versions from the Axe-Fx direct are RAW files, not MPT. Secondly the kernel volterra seems to take notice on distortion, whatever this term means in this context exactly. Also i googled for that, but get lost in mathematical calculations, but i read something about independence from time domain thingy. "Our" Input/Output filtering works only accurate, if the time domain is on sample basis equal in both files. I triple checked this...
If i remember right, you`ll shoot the serious IRs (not named like tennis heroes, haha...) still with your tube amp, but in this test you mentioned using a SS amp. Perhaps the kernel Volterra thing take more notice on a tube-Amp basis?! For sure, i don`t know...

So, i would do it following:

Axe MIC+DI with CL3 / RAW - SS Amp
Axe MIC+DI with CL3 / RAW - Tube Amp
CK method RAW - SS Amp
CK method RAW - Tube Amp

Those four variants would be to me valid to compare them eachother... to judge different MIC+DI methods...

The MIC only method should be out of valuation, because it depends much, how good the uses SS Amp is and what damping factor it has. What`s happen if we use Tube-Amps (low damping factor) with MIC only method, we all know...

Just my 02 cents...
Click to expand...

All this stuff is WAAAAY over my head! But I've got, at least what I think are, good ears. I will give these a listen and try to participate, but the real reason for response was to say thanks!
You guys pushing the boundaries and questioning the processes is what leads to advancement. I learn a lot here, and I'm glad for that.
Morphosis was extremely helpful in getting my head wrapped around his MFC genius! CK has really helped push IR's forward for us. And the rest of you brainiacs, lol, able to participate in this conversation help the Axe stay such a cutting edge piece of gear. And thank goodness the head genius, Cliff, who has the ability to weed through all this stuff and use some of the info to push even farther!



Sent from my iPhone
 
Well if we're just giving opinions on what we prefer, my favorite is Rene. I couldn't tell you which method is which from playing the three. But that one seemed to be the most natural to my hands and ears.
 
JustinYork said:
Well if we're just giving opinions on what we prefer, my favorite is Rene. I couldn't tell you which method is which from playing the three. But that one seemed to be the most natural to my hands and ears.
Click to expand...

Hey Justin and thanks for sharing you opinion. Definitely means a lot! :)
 
In the OP you talk about Kevin's methods but from some of my own in-depth talks to him you are not accurate in your statements regarding his methods; I'd be careful speaking about essentially a competitor like you know how and what he does. I know you think you know everything about what he does... but you do not. No big deal to me personally but you would be better served sticking to discussing your own products and services Mikko. Even if your intent is good; its bad juju.
 
There are so many tools available to someone to control the overall sound...in and out of the AxeFX itself. We're talking IRs here and beyond the capture of one mic, there are so many ways to combine them to get what you want. Want more treble, find an IR closer to the cap (if you know). Want less bass, move it away from the cab or reduce the volume contribution in a CabLab mix. That's just creating the IRs themselves. Now move into the box. You can use a PEQ and shelf at 300K (per Scott P's other thread). You can use the speaker tab in the amp and set your low end freq lower until you get the desired response. You can use EQ in the amp block itself. You can use EQ in the Cab Block. Hey, you can even turn up or turn down the treble or bass! There are a ton of other ways to adjust the tone in the Axe itself. Want other ways to adjust the tone outside of the box? There's more! You can cut lows and highs with plug ins when you record. You're playing live through FRFR? You can do the same...btw, you may not have a choice if you have a sound man. They're doing it for you whether you like it or not!

One has to realize that in the end, tech moves fast and especially when new ground is being broken. If you're passionate and you want to make some money from your passion, naturally you will gravitate towards holding up your product and the method by which you create it. I just hope it can continue to be constructive.

I think in the end, people will find IRs that have a tonal character and response that you gravitate to. I too feel that art of the room, mic, placement, etc. has so much to do with the final product that there is really no way to truly get exact apples to apples...even if two different guys used the MIC+DI method on the same cab! It's all part of how the artist paints the final picture. Anyhow, I'm just a fan of the passion, push, and desire many of you who support this product have. Keep going...all of you.
 
Last edited:
Melten said:
Indeed this does sound like a benefit (and a problem with the proprietary FAS formats), but isn't that a benefit of the file format rather than the IR capture process itself? To me these should be separate concerns. Or is there something truly new in FAS's capture code that can't be completely replicated outside of the Axe FX without knowing exactly what's going on? If so, that is disappointing to me, since being able to use the source data of the most cleanly captured IRs will potentially be of great benefit in the future. I understand there are concerns for competing products using the fruits of the Axe FX's loins, as it were, but that isn't particularly convincing to me.
Click to expand...

Correct. The .ir format is not UltraRes. It saves the raw IR data which you can then manipulate in CabLab and save in the format of your choice. It was specifically designed to be future-proof. If the phase is reversed this is not a problem as CabLab has phase reversal. There is no advantage to .wav over .ir.

Again, Mic+DI using the Axe-Fx is SUPERIOR to all other methods because it does a Volterra kernel extraction which the other methods do not do. If your power amp is perfectly linear and has infinite damping factor (which doesn't exist) then there's no benefit. But every real-world power amp has some measure of nonlinearity which Mic+DI removes.

There is no valid argument for .wav format other than "it allows me to sell my IRs for use with other products".
 
FractalAudio said:
Correct. The .ir format is not UltraRes. It saves the raw IR data which you can then manipulate in CabLab and save in the format of your choice. It was specifically designed to be future-proof. If the phase is reversed this is not a problem as CabLab has phase reversal. There is no advantage to .wav over .ir.

Again, Mic+DI using the Axe-Fx is SUPERIOR to all other methods because it does a Volterra kernel extraction which the other methods do not do. If your power amp is perfectly linear and has infinite damping factor (which doesn't exist) then there's no benefit. But every real-world power amp has some measure of nonlinearity which Mic+DI removes.

There is no valid argument for .wav format other than "it allows me to sell my IRs for use with other products".
Click to expand...

Would be nice if CabLab could export (save) not only .syx files but .ir files also. So we could use this mix ir's later in other mixing sessions.




Sorry, have just figured out, it does saves in .ir format
 
Last edited:
Detch said:
Would be nice if CabLab could export (save) not only .syx files but .ir files also. So we could use this mix ir's later in other mixing sessions.
Click to expand...

It does. And when Cab-Lab Live is auditioning the IRs it is doing that at the full 8K resolution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom