MIC+DI vs MIC ONLY vs CK METHOD

ML SOUND LAB

ML SOUND LAB

Cab Pack Wizard
Vendor
So there's been quite a lot of talk about this new IR capture method and it is infact scientifically the most accurate method and I suggest anyone who's shooting IRs to try out.

I hope this thread manages to be as informative as I want it to be. People are already asking me and Kevin (OwnHammer) about if we're going to be changing our methods to MIC+DI. Before that question gets asked I want to make sure you guys understand what the differences between these methods are. The best way to describe this is to compare IR shooting to taking high quality photographs with a DSLR camera and these methods are like different lenses for your camera. So f.ex. MIC+DI would be the lense that makes a photograph look closest to seeing it with your own eyes. Using a power amp and not removing the color might not be scientifically accurate but it does not mean that a photograph is worse or better and in the end I believe it will be your own opinion which one you like the most. Just to be clear. Kevin uses a flat tube amp for his IRs. I remove the amp color with my own methods. Scientifically MIC+DI is a higher quality amp color removal than my methods but how big is the difference really?

I wanted to get the answer to that question so today I was shooting IRs of an old Marshall cab and did the test as I promised in some other threads. It's just an SM57 thrown in front of one of the speakers, literally a 5 second mic up. I did many tests but I will attach three IRs: MIC+DI IR, MIC ONLY IR (shot with a SS power amp) and CK METHOD IR. I'm not going to tell you which is which for very obvious reasons. It's not a good comparison if you guys to judge with your ears, feel etc.

So what do you think? Is there a clear difference in the quality of the IRs? Is there an IR that stands out?

I'd love to get as much feedback on this as possible.

Bonus question: What do all of these three men have in common?
 

Attachments

  • Bjorn Borg IR.syx
    10.6 KB · Views: 55
  • Fred Perry IR.syx
    10.6 KB · Views: 52
  • Rene Lacoste IR.syx
    10.6 KB · Views: 51
Love such stuff, will take a look at these!

Only difference is method? Same Mic placement, all RAW or MPT? What Solid State did you use? And for your own method, also the SS or the Mesa PowerAmp? ... but i assume, by audition, at least two will sound almost identical. Depending on the SS Quality, i assume the third sample will also sound between extremely similiar to identical ... At least this was my finding, when i did a similar test on my own some time ago ... ;) That said, the ohmic resistance and the damping quality of the Amp play a role - at least for one of the triple...

:encouragement:
 
Last edited:
Morphosis said:
Love such stuff, will take a look at these!

Only difference is method? Same Mic placement, all RAW or MPT? What Solid State did you use? And for your own method, also the SS or the Mesa PowerAmp?

:encouragement:
Click to expand...

I was waiting for you to join this one. :)

Same exact mic placement. I will reveal the SS power amp at some point but not quite yet. ;) I used it for my method also. Everything should be RAW but now that I'm thinking about it I'm not completely sure if Axe-Fx does an Auto Trim or MPT to the IRs automatically. Hmm...
 
Clark Kent said:
(...)I'm not completely sure if Axe-Fx does an Auto Trim or MPT to the IRs automatically. Hmm...
Click to expand...

this is a good question. I did ask myself the same! If you did shoot and save at the Axe-Fx direct w/o Cl3, i believe, the Axe convert and save the raw data automatically as MPT.... but I´m not sure... perhaps Cliff can hopefully answer...
 
well let me be the first fool to guess wrong!!!!!!! rene old sweet mic only nice and gritty old fred mic di similar to bjorn but lacking a little high clarity! bjor ck method rocking our world!
 
paranoid said:
well let me be the first fool to guess wrong!!!!!!! rene old sweet mic only nice and gritty old fred mic di similar to bjorn but lacking a little high clarity! bjor ck method rocking our world!
Click to expand...

That was extremely brave of you! That's great. :D I won't tell the final answers until we get more talk.
 
well I tried the ir before updating to 18.7 wow what a change!!! I thought bjorn was brighter and more defined but now I think fred sounds brighter. I am so confused!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
This is awesome! I'd love to know as well. Here are my guesses as well:

1. Bjorn Borg (CK Method) - Reason: A little bump in the low end (Maybe around 100-150hz??) IMO
2. Fred Perry (Mic+DI) - Reason: Most Clearity IMO
3 Rene Lacoste (Mic Only SS Power amp) - Reason: Most thickness IMO
 
First off: thanks for the freebies. Much appreciated. I certainly don't have an "old Marshall cab" laying around so I'll gladly take advantage of yours.
Second off: NOT BAD for a "5 second mic up." My choice as which was best is being saved for later use somewhere.
Third off: if this is all related to a new cab pack, there better be off-axis SM57's! Make me proud.

Now down to business. I tried these with my Ibanez through the Bassman and through the 5150 models. My opinion, regardless of method used, is that the "Fred Perry" one sounded the most natural.
The Bjorn Borg sounded and felt a little artificial to me, while the Rene Lacoste seemed to have some high end artifacts that I wasn't liking.
I hope that helps! Regardless, keep up the good work.
 
I`m sorry if i confuse now, but i feel i want say something about the used terms to describe the different methods capturing IRs:
FractalAudio said:
There are no other packs other than Cab Pack 10 that use "true" Mic+DI technique. Using the output of the reference amp as the deconvolution is only part of the equation. The processing in the Axe-Fx II is unique. It doesn't simply deconvolve the reference amp signal with the mic signal, it does a Volterra kernel extraction. No other product that I'm aware does this.
Click to expand...

From the release notes FW17.04:
The unique capture technique of the Axe-Fx removes any distortion from the measurement and completely separates the amp response from the speaker response yielding a pure and accurate IR.
Click to expand...

"MIC+DI" method is no trademark term, right? So, in fact i call the CK method for sure a "MIC+DI" method, as i call my own "Virtual-Idealized-FLAT-Amp" method the same: "MIC+DI". Because in fact, this is what we do. We use the MIC signal as Output-file and the Amp-DI signal as Input-file to filter out the frequency response of the Amp. In general, Clark and me, we do it with external gear in the postprocess, when deconvolving the IR. If i am wrong, please correct me.

The Axe-Fx method, named by Cliff as "true" MIC+DI did the Volterra kernel extraction thing when processing the Amp-Di reference - and Mic. Output-file. This removes "any distortion" as Cliff stated. And to be fair: What this means in praxis, i did not have really understand or realised. I have some theories about, but nothing more - to be fair...

... and now i have to grab my Axe-Fx to play some tennis :)
 
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?

Edit: BTW I actually really like these IRs. So, thanks for access to them! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom