Realism of IRs vs Tone Match - Which is more real

[RackAddict]

Hi. I am a very happy Axe FX 2 user and my set up is I run my axe fx 2 to the fx return of a tube head just for its power section, and I play through a Marshall Mode 4 cab. For recording, I like to either record that or profile it with a kemper that I have been renting. But as it turns out, I cannot buy out the kemper due to financial issues and need to tone match my set-up from pro tools into the Axe Fx 2 to have that for DI when needed. (I also noticed a tad of latency on the kemper so I guess this is not a big loss).

With fractal firmware 16.02 I notice better realism, sound quality and feel in the axe 2 for DI purposes in playing through both the tone match block for matching some tones off the cd's I've been able to isolate, as well as through the cab block using IRs. So after giving up on DI-ing the axe 2 a while ago and just using it for a preamp before a tube amp, I am now wishing to use the unit for DI recording again. But I still find the tone match to be more convincing feel and response and fidelity.

But before I go get a pro audio power amp for making IRs, can I please know the following? if I want to make my own sounds: is it more real sounding to make IRs of my cab? or should I record it with the same mic positions as if I would create the IR and just tonematch that for more realism? I really hope fractal can comment on this one.

Thanks

 

[casketshrine]

Unless you can find IRs that really nail it, go with the TM. That's what I do for achieving that realistic depth, thump and sizzle that you get from a mic'd up amp/cab set up. Even KPA lacks that with most profiles.

 

[Fl7x]

Unless you can find IRs that really nail it, go with the TM. That's what I do for achieving that realistic depth, thump and sizzle that you get from a mic'd up amp/cab set up. Even KPA lacks that with most profiles.

I think he's asking about what method is more faithful; make an IR of he's own cab and his own mics, or record a track with his own gear (same cab and mics) and Tone Match it.

 

[toolfanem]

Hi. I am a very happy Axe FX 2 user and my set up is I run my axe fx 2 to the fx return of a tube head just for its power section, and I play through a Marshall Mode 4 cab. For recording, I like to either record that or profile it with a kemper that I have been renting. But as it turns out, I cannot buy out the kemper due to financial issues and need to tone match my set-up from pro tools into the Axe Fx 2 to have that for DI when needed. (I also noticed a tad of latency on the kemper so I guess this is not a big loss).

With 16.02 I notice better sound and feel in this unit for DI purposes in playing through both the tone match block for matching some tones off the cd's I've been able to isolate as well as through the cab block using IRS. So after giving up on DI-ing the axe 2 a while ago and just using it for a preamp before a tube amp, I am now wishing to use the unit for DI recording again. But I still find the tone match to be more convincing feel and response and fidelity.

But can I please know if I want to make my own sounds: is it more real sounding to make IRs of my cab? or should I record it with the same mic positions as if I would create the IR and just tonematch that for more realism? I really hope fractal can comment on this one.

Thanks

Since both the tone match and the IR are just complex eq curves, there is really no more "depth" in either. If you shot an IR of you own cab, and then tone match to that IR isnt that just doing the same thing twice? If you want the sound of your own cab then do a regular IR capture of your cab in the mic positions you like. Tone-matching to that IR will only get you an additional step further away from what is originally coming out of your cab. The IR of your cab will of course sound slightly different than a tone match of the same cab IR, but whether or not this sounds "better" to you is just a matter of taste. I would just use tone matching to match to previously recorded material, and if I wanted to actually capture my own cab, I would shoot real IRs.

Plus tone matching to your own cab IR means you have to shoot a cab IR anyway, so your already doing one step of the process.

 

[randombastage]

I haven't made any of my own TM's or found any of someone else's creation that made me want to stop using the ir's.
I don't think the TM's are necessarily inferior but I just don't find them to be anything special and the variety of high quality available ir's is vast so no need to start exploring yet another rabbit hole...
I play medium to light gain and almost clean sounds mostly if that matters.

 

[RackAddict]

Hmm, so clearly we have competing views here on which method will yield the most realism.

Eric: I am not sending that with any cab simulation to the return of my amp head. And i am not going the matrix style power amp to frfr route since I never really saw a point. This is just the preamp section to a return of a tube amp to a cab. And yes in the TM method I'd want to TM perhaps even a quintuple-miked sound which I would phase-align and mix before sending to the axe 2.

(in addition, I am not here to start any debates on axe 2 vs kemper. To me, they both have their strong points and weaknesses. But I do notice constant realism increase on the axe 2 with each firmware release. And despite some tone-match attempts I've made for sh*#s and giggles, as well as some IR exploring from 3rd party libraries, I am no longer in the business of using other people's sounds. I am just here to try to find out other's experiences in making digital replications of their own sounds.

 

[Sixstring]

I have to agree with other posts and would add that tone matching is best used for catching an elusive tone that would otherwise be really hard to dial in using just an amp sim and IR.

 

[toolfanem]

Hmm, so clearly we have competing views here on which method will yield the most realism.

Eric: I am not sending that with any cab simulation to the return of my amp head. And i am not going the matrix style power amp to frfr route since I never really saw a point. This is just the preamp section to a return of a tube amp to a cab. And yes in the TM method I'd want to TM perhaps even a quintuple-miked sound which I would phase-align and mix before sending to the axe 2.

(in addition, I am not here to start any debates on axe 2 vs kemper. To me, they both have their strong points and weaknesses. But I do notice constant realism increase on the axe 2 with each firmware release. And despite some tone-match attempts I've made for sh*#s and giggles, as well as some IR exploring from 3rd party libraries, I am no longer in the business of using other people's sounds. I am just here to try to find out other's experiences in making digital replications of their own sounds.

Ah, okay I understand your situation a bit better now. I think in this situation I might use the TM. With wanting to have multiple mics phase aligned, it may just be simpler to setup the amp, cab and axe fx the way you like, track some stuff, phase align the tracks to your liking, and then tone match to that stem. Actually, if you are going to try to phase allign the tracks in a DAW to get the tone your after, then I think the ONLY way to do this is to have separate tracks in a DAW, shift tracks to your liking, and then TM to the stem of the combined mics.