rabbit holes, mixing irs, what I learned this week...

mistermikev

Experienced
so have been sort of stalking old posts of ML/Mr.ClarkKent in an effort to get better at mixing irs. I have a few collections that don't offer any mixed selections and have always struggled getting something I like when mixing myself.

it appears i've been making the mistake of picking the ones that sound the "fullest"... almost always opting for some bold 1" - 3" choices.
was reading an old post with recipe for mics and mic positions where I was surprised to find mr kent opt for several 6" choices aside one 1" (57) choice.

So I set about trying out the idea of mixing several choices I wouldn't normally pick... coupled with a single 1" choice. had 20 mixes from prior, and did 5 new mixes employing farther mics.

due to the names being too long, I auditioned them blind and and marked my favs. Curious, I went back and peeked at the full names. Of the 5 i chose 3 were based on the farther mics.
The other two I like where mixes where I only combined 2 mics.

now I can't help but wonder - what else am I doing wrong! what do you do? lots of mics or minimal? cap or cone or mix? near or far or mix?
 
so have been sort of stalking old posts of ML/Mr.ClarkKent in an effort to get better at mixing irs. I have a few collections that don't offer any mixed selections and have always struggled getting something I like when mixing myself.

it appears i've been making the mistake of picking the ones that sound the "fullest"... almost always opting for some bold 1" - 3" choices.
was reading an old post with recipe for mics and mic positions where I was surprised to find mr kent opt for several 6" choices aside one 1" (57) choice.

So I set about trying out the idea of mixing several choices I wouldn't normally pick... coupled with a single 1" choice. had 20 mixes from prior, and did 5 new mixes employing farther mics.

due to the names being too long, I auditioned them blind and and marked my favs. Curious, I went back and peeked at the full names. Of the 5 i chose 3 were based on the farther mics.
The other two I like where mixes where I only combined 2 mics.

now I can't help but wonder - what else am I doing wrong! what do you do? lots of mics or minimal? cap or cone or mix? near or far or mix?
I like a 57 or 609 near-ish the cap-edge with a bit of ribbon (160, 121, Fathead, etc.) mixed in, usually 4-7dB lower so it just starts to fill in the low strings a little. Pull it back to tailor the proximity effect. If no ribbon is available, any decent large-diaphragm condensor works as well, or an AKG D112 kick drum mic in a pinch. Most IR sets for guitar won't have the D112, though....
 
I like a 57 or 609 near-ish the cap-edge with a bit of ribbon (160, 121, Fathead, etc.) mixed in, usually 4-7dB lower so it just starts to fill in the low strings a little. Pull it back to tailor the proximity effect. If no ribbon is available, any decent large-diaphragm condensor works as well, or an AKG D112 kick drum mic in a pinch. Most IR sets for guitar won't have the D112, though....
right on - is pretty much the 'classic' recipe. my other 2 selections were exactly what you are describing. typically just raising up the 121 enough to fill things in on the lower half a bit. good to know I'm in good company there.
 
for the record... today was looking at some patches/settings by Nolly and he consistently seems to want to mix an SM57 between two close positions/distances. Sort of a 'simpler is betterer' approach. I'm not really a metal guy at all... but when you get to that level I'm going to assume your ears > my ears so... tried to do some mixing with that in mind. will have to let my ears turn back into ears before I do any comparison/final-selections.
 
I hate sm57.. I prefer e906 mixed with r121 or sometimes beyer 160..from when i ve found " my" irs also my approach has changed.. I start from the cab then set the amp..
you know that's not the first time I've heard that (e906 over 57). e906 sure seems to pick up a lot more low end so afa a single mic sound I'm not surprised. I do like the 57 for the bass cut sometimes but can def hear why the 906 is so popular.

I picked up an e609 a while back and I just do not like it. it seems to easily get ugly when smashed in the face. idk if the 906 is similar in that respect. the sm57 is like the easy button in that sense... hard to get that thing to clip no matter what (not saying you can't get bad tones, just takes a lot of abuse well).
I have been thinking about trying a 906 based on what I hear in the irs. Every now and then I like to record my stack and it seems like it might be the easier easy button!
btw thanks for the reply.
 
Last edited:
you know that's not the first time I've heard that (e906 over 57). e906 sure seems to pick up a lot more low end so afa a single mic sound I'm not surprised. I do like the 57 for the bass cut sometimes but can def hear why the 906 is so popular.

I picked up an e609 a while back and I just do not like it. it seems to easily get ugly when smashed in the face. idk if the 906 is similar in that respect. the sm57 is like the easy button in that sense... hard to get that thing to clip no matter what (not saying you can't get bad tones, just takes a lot of abuse well).
I have been thinking about trying a 906 based on what I hear in the irs. Every now and then I like to record my stack and it seems like it might be the easier easy button!
btw thanks for the reply.
Hmmm... Hadn't had any big issues in the many years I've had my 609s, but I treat them very carefully. To me, they sound sorta similar to a 57, but with a bit better lows due to their proximity effect. I would like to hear how the 906 compares, since so many places are using them. I used to hate 57s due to lack of low end, but with the addition of a good ribbon, large-diaphragm condensor, or D112 to fill in the bottom a little, I see what it is that makes them so much of an industry standard (alongside the fact you can use it to drive nails and it'll still work just fine as a microphone)....
 
Hmmm... Hadn't had any big issues in the many years I've had my 609s, but I treat them very carefully. To me, they sound sorta similar to a 57, but with a bit better lows due to their proximity effect. I would like to hear how the 906 compares, since so many places are using them. I used to hate 57s due to lack of low end, but with the addition of a good ribbon, large-diaphragm condensor, or D112 to fill in the bottom a little, I see what it is that makes them so much of an industry standard (alongside the fact you can use it to drive nails and it'll still work just fine as a microphone)....
well idk how loud you record when you record w mics... nothing fancy but I've got a 100watt dsl w 2 412s and when I play it I like to peel paint lol.

it is perhaps just a difference in how you setup, because I know it was made to just hang over the top and sit there... I put it right on the cloth. had to back off my trim quite a bit to prevent a nasty harshness I was getting. idk if they are more sensitive than the 57?

lots of folks seem to use them and swear by them so I'll assume it's more me than anything else.
 
well idk how loud you record when you record w mics... nothing fancy but I've got a 100watt dsl w 2 412s and when I play it I like to peel paint lol.

it is perhaps just a difference in how you setup, because I know it was made to just hang over the top and sit there... I put it right on the cloth. had to back off my trim quite a bit to prevent a nasty harshness I was getting. idk if they are more sensitive than the 57?

lots of folks seem to use them and swear by them so I'll assume it's more me than anything else.
I don't have any 100W amps, record at loud volumes, and generally stick it on a short mic stand and position almost touching the grille cloth.
 
I don't have any 100W amps, record at loud volumes, and generally stick it on a short mic stand and position almost touching the grille cloth.
well... kind of makes me wonder if i was "doing it wrong" lol. never know tho, could have been the vol, could have had a bad cable, bad speaker, or otherwise just too much "me" in the mix! Will have to give her another shot next time I get the urge. I appreciate the feedback.
 
@mistermikev The e906 isn’t what I’d call a smooth mic, so depending on your cab’s speakers, mic placement, mic pre, and amp settings, it’s not uncommon for it to sound harsh. I’ve got two of them. They both sound different, but they both have a good bit of upper mids that can sound “harsh” if you’re not careful with the placement.

If your tone sounds good in the room, you may just need to try a different mic placement (or try another speaker on the cab) and make sure you’re not clipping your mic pre. The 906 sounds great with cleaner tones IMO, so don’t get discouraged if it hurts a little when you throw some gain at it.

I’ve got a JCM 2000 DSL100 too, and those amps are awesome! What cab are you running it through?
 
@mistermikev The e906 isn’t what I’d call a smooth mic, so depending on your cab’s speakers, mic placement, mic pre, and amp settings, it’s not uncommon for it to sound harsh. I’ve got two of them. They both sound different, but they both have a good bit of upper mids that can sound “harsh” if you’re not careful with the placement.

If your tone sounds good in the room, you may just need to try a different mic placement (or try another speaker on the cab) and make sure you’re not clipping your mic pre. The 906 sounds great with cleaner tones IMO, so don’t get discouraged if it hurts a little when you throw some gain at it.

I’ve got a JCM 2000 DSL100 too, and those amps are awesome! What cab are you running it through?
thank you for your response mr york.

I have not tried that mic on my clean amp but def will do - given your advice. another speaker - good call. should have thought of that.

Hard to say if my tone sounds good in the room w it being so loud and all - hehe! I usually listen from the street!
my head is just the humble china version (I should be embarrassed to admit) but it is prob too good for me.

cabs... well I've got a lovely red 1985 jcm800 1960A and then a newer (mid 90s?) 1960B Vintage. take off the back of the 800 and there is a bunch of graffiti from bands thru the years. pretty funny/nostalgic. I gather that this cab was actually played around UK a bit - just a guess from the graffiti. as I recall it said something about london and a year.
I swapped around the speakers a bit so I've got xpats of g12t75/v30 and g12t75/G12M.

it's nothing fancy but they sure look cool!
thank you again for taking the time!

thousand words and all!
IMAG0025.jpg
 
Using an ir mix directly from the producer is equal to use 2 separate irs in the cab block except obviously the cpu usage?
 
Using an ir mix directly from the producer is equal to use 2 separate irs in the cab block except obviously the cpu usage?
Using Mixes from an IR producer doesn’t necessarily save CPU power. They’re mainly there to give you great options and save you time by not having to always create your own.

The Cab block uses the same amount of CPU even if you have one IR active and the rest muted. I THINK it saves CPU if you have “empty” user cabs selected in the IR slots you’re not using… but that’s just going off of memory from something I read a long time ago.
 
My point was about quality of the ir.. So an already mixed ir has not less quality than two separate is it correct? Using one slot absolutely reduce cpu usage..thank you
 
not that my responses even belong alongside or can add anything... but when you say "equal to" (bar none)... well no... because with individual irs you can in theory do a lot more in terms of panning, setting vol, etc... but the mix from mfg like mr york are > in the sense that I would almost always assume they have better ears, and are better at mixing irs, are listening on much better equipment and probably have even been reviewed by more than one person. In that sense I would say the professional mixes are almost always better in quality imho.

all that said... @York Audio - really love your new twin verb pack!! as usual there is some great attention to detail in the high end that I'm not hearing in the rest of my twin ir collection. I have only played with it a bit, but really like it and just wanted to say.
If anyone is listening and looking for a very 'vintage correct' sounding twin ir... really hits the spot.
 
all that said... @York Audio - really love your new twin verb pack!! as usual there is some great attention to detail in the high end that I'm not hearing in the rest of my twin ir collection. I have only played with it a bit, but really like it and just wanted to say.
If anyone is listening and looking for a very 'vintage correct' sounding twin ir... really hits the spot.
The Deluxe 1x12 Oxford is really nice, too....
 
The Deluxe 1x12 Oxford is really nice, too....
right on. I think that is one that we have a similar (ie deluxe by ya) in the factory axefx irs if I'm not mistaken... and it's one of my favs. I should prob go snag the full pack as YA stuff is quickly moving to the top of my list for 'fenderish' stuff.
 
Back
Top Bottom