So how come none of the Cab IR makers do this anymore?

[Pwrmac7600]

How come it seems like none of the Cab IR makers do the standard mic layout anymore in their IR production?

What I mean by this is the common mic techniques of Cap, Cap off axis, Cap Edge, Cap Edge Off Axis, Cone, Cone Edge. with distances?

Just curious, it was actually very helpful for me to select IRs that way because I knew which mic techniques I tended to like right off the bat from real world experience. Even still when I mic my 4X12 I like a 57 slightly off axis on the cap edge, and a 421 riding out about 3/4 of the way on the cone, but about 1 inch away. Like I said, I just always thought this was such a convenient way of finding IR's I liked very quickly, and was curious why no one does it anymore?

 

[ConnorGilks]

Probably because it's limiting. Lots of these makers prefer to give more variation than just the standard positions, therefore labelling them gets a bit more confusing. That's why a company like OwnHammer for example uses numbers to mark placement and distances. Personally I prefer that, just because that way I'm really focusing on the sound and not the technique. If I like a sound, I can look up what it is in the manual that comes with the IR's.

 

[chris]

does a 1" cap edge ALWAYS give you the same sound though? labelling things sometimes lets our eyes tell our ears what it SHOULD be hearing. granted that means having to audition things with your ears and not your eyes, but that usually produces the best results.

i once made 2 presets for someone - one called Best Mesa, and the other called Junk Marshall. the guy was a huge mesa fan, hated marshall.

he played the 2 presets and completely agreed. the "mesa" preset sounded best, the "marshall" preset sounded horrible. just plain, ew, who uses marshall? it's horrible.

i let him walk closer to the screen so he could see that the "mesa" preset actually used a Marshall amp, and the "marshall" preset used a mesa. a fun conversation followed.

 

[Pwrmac7600]

Probably because it's limiting. Lots of these makers prefer to give more variation than just the standard positions, therefore labelling them gets a bit more confusing. That's why a company like OwnHammer for example uses numbers to mark placement and distances. Personally I prefer that, just because that way I'm really focusing on the sound and not the technique. If I like a sound, I can look up what it is in the manual that comes with the IR's.

I don't know, with 6 positions and each of those 6 positions having up to 12 distances, that doesn't seem to limiting to me.

 

[Pwrmac7600]

does a 1" cap edge ALWAYS give you the same sound though? labelling things sometimes lets our eyes tell our ears what it SHOULD be hearing. granted that means having to audition things with your ears and not your eyes, but that usually produces the best results.

Well technically in the situation of me micing my 4X12, yes it does, lol But I get what you are saying. Although when using pre labeled IR's as I listed, Cap Edge 1" may not do it, but Cap Edge .5" or 2" may? My point being it always got me in the ball park faster.

 

[aziz]

When I shoot IR's, I take about a 100 in the small area around the dust cap edge, and they all still end up sounding different.

 

[zenaxe]

does a 1" cap edge ALWAYS give you the same sound though? labelling things sometimes lets our eyes tell our ears what it SHOULD be hearing. granted that means having to audition things with your ears and not your eyes, but that usually produces the best results.

Given the thousands of choices many of these packs contain those bread crumbs are more valuable than some arbitrary producer specific labeling and I personally found it incredibly useful even if it was not one hundred per cent consistent. And yes, generally, i *can* tell the difference between an off axis and on-axis mic and can hear it in IRs and yes, I know what to expect in terms of overall flavor of change as the mic moves closer or further from the speaker. So, knowing which IR has which config at a glance without having to load or memorize a naming scheme is super useful.

IRs are a ginormous data management PITA, IMHO. Anything that gives me even the *illusion* of control to reduce analysis paralysis is worthwhile. Don't get me wrong they are a godsend and still the absolute best cab emulation tech but one that is a pain to manage.

It is a shame there is not some standard for them as a data format that includes significant metadata like mic, position, angles, cab type, etc. Then tools could be built that selected or sorted based on what the user who does know what they like wants. This is the big problem, a wav only contains the raw acoustic data, everything else has to be encoded externally, either in the name or a readme or directory structure, etc.

 

[barhrecords]

Given the thousands of choices many of these packs contain those bread crumbs are more valuable than some arbitrary producer specific labeling and I personally found it incredibly useful even if it was not one hundred per cent consistent. And yes, generally, i *can* tell the difference between an off axis and on-axis mic and can hear it in IRs and knowing which IR has which at a glance without having to load or memoriza naming scheme is incredibly useful.

IRs are a ginormous data management PITA, IMHO. Anything that gives me even the *illusion* of control to reduce analysis paralysis is worthwhile. Don't get me wrong they are a godsend and still the absolute best cab emulation tech but one that is a pain to manage.

I agree.

As it is now, we learn each IR providers nomenclature as to what "A" "B" etc. means.

I find myself going back to the instructions, web, PDF, to get my head back around it.

Pain in the arse.

 

[chris]

And yes, generally, i *can* tell the difference between an off axis and on-axis mic and can hear it in IRs

Well of course, I didn't mean we can't discern that. But maybe 1" away and 1.5" away and 2" away etc doesn't give as good a sound as what ultimately becomes 1.3526482" away. They got there by just moving it andn listening, not placing it at arbitrary measured distances away.

I think the IR makers are using their ears, not eyes and measurements. And that's what gives the best sounds during their creation session.

 

[barhrecords]

Well of course, I didn't mean we can't discern that. But maybe 1" away and 1.5" away and 2" away etc doesn't give as good a sound as what ultimately becomes 1.3526482" away. They got there by just moving it andn listening, not placing it at arbitrary measured distances away.

I think the IR makers are using their ears, not eyes and measurements. And that's what gives the best sounds during their creation session.

Agree and fair enough.

But when you buy cab packs from FAS, Ownhammer, cabIR.eu etc, you are faced with embracing each providers scheme and nomenclature.

Adopting a standard way of talking about the mic and position, like when describing / teaching someone how to mic a cab, is useful to the consumer.

 

[henryrobinett]

While I'm certainly not a power IR cab user, it does help me picking cabs. I've done plenty of real life cabinet guitar mic'ing and I know what I prefer and know what I would go for, so I can choose those first. Knowing what the mic position is in general terms helps me as opposed to micro numerical measurements. But you know, whatever.

 

[Pwrmac7600]

Well of course, I didn't mean we can't discern that. But maybe 1" away and 1.5" away and 2" away etc doesn't give as good a sound as what ultimately becomes 1.3526482" away. They got there by just moving it andn listening, not placing it at arbitrary measured distances away.

I think the IR makers are using their ears, not eyes and measurements. And that's what gives the best sounds during their creation session.

Completely get what your saying, and I guess my response would be. If it's 1.365" lie to me and mark it as 1.5", that will at least give me the same ballpark tone and general area to start listening.

 

[ML SOUND LAB]

Because there are more than 4 positions on a speaker of which the sweetspots are always different. I will not include a cap IR if it's unusable etc. Less is more.

 

[barhrecords]

Because there are more than 4 positions on a speaker of which the sweetspots are always different. I will not include a cap IR if it's unusable etc. Less is more.

I'm not in favor of mandatory mic positions or standard mic positions.

I just wish the nomenclature was more standard using simple distances and axis numbers vs. abstract labels for the captures.

The numbers don't have to be spot on, but like redwirez.

 

[Pwrmac7600]

In comparison to the amount of mic positions many of these companies offer in their packs, yes, it is.

Like others have said, tiny movements make a huge difference.

Actually the bulk of what most IR companies offer are not actual single mic positions, the bulk are mixes of different ir's. If you took into account 6 mic positions with 12 varying distances each that would yield you 72 ir's of just one mic. Then multiple that by say, 6 microphones which puts you at 432 ir's of just actual single mic positions. Then add in custom mixes of different positions, different mics in different positions, not to mention different speakers within the same cab, and I think it is hardly limiting, in all actuality it would probably come out to more options than what most current IR manufacturers offer. So the limiting factor is off the table IMO.

 

[JJunkie]

Because there are more than 4 positions on a speaker of which the sweetspots are always different. I will not include a cap IR if it's unusable etc. Less is more.

While I'm certainly not a power IR cab user, it does help me picking cabs. I've done plenty of real life cabinet guitar mic'ing and I know what I prefer and know what I would go for, so I can choose those first. Knowing what the mic position is in general terms helps me as opposed to micro numerical measurements. But you know, whatever.

Following these two points, if certain positions aren't that great for a particular speaker, it might be better overall not to label the IR based on the position, as the people who would go straight for a certain position might think that the whole set of IRs is no good.

 

[Pwrmac7600]

Because there are more than 4 positions on a speaker of which the sweetspots are always different. I will not include a cap IR if it's unusable etc. Less is more.

I get that, and please don't take what I ask the wrong way because your ir's are killer ir's. It is really a more common naming scheme, with some kind of direction to it would eliminate the constant scrolling through ir's to get close to what I am looking for.

 

[chris]

Why keep reaching for only IR's labelled "cap off axis" constantly, why not use your ears instead?

they want to start their search there because - in general - they know they like the sound from that position.

but i feel that if things were labelled like that, they could audition all IRs at "cap off axis", not reallllly like what they hear, but then force themselves to pick one of them because it says "cap off axis." yet, there is a "cone edge" sitting there that is actually perfect, but they'd never try because it doesn't say "cap off axis."

i think it really doesn't matter what position or measurement made any particular IR. i can understand the want from the consumer to have some sort of clue for "where to start looking." but the same position doesn't yield the same result on every cab. so it's actually a disservice - like the example above - to label them as such!

we just have to listen to them and find what we like. so there's 1000 IRs, and you only have time to audition 50? well find your fav in those 50, and next time try some more - maybe you find something better, maybe you don't? i just don't think there's a way to name them consistently among cabs and methods.

 

[barhrecords]

Redwirez did it like this and it was easy to understand.

It seems a silly position to me. Why not then not document anything about the IR's? And we all just find them with our ears, 50 at a time.

Why am I trying greenbacks or v30's when a jensen is sitting right there and I'm not trying it?

We know what speaker, what cab, what mics, but information about mic position, well that is too hard? I don't get it.

 

[chris]

We know what speaker, what cab, what mics, but information about mic position, well that is too hard? I don't get it.

i don't make IRs so my POV is as a customer as well. but i think it's the fact that 1" off edge doesn't have the same result on all cabs, so perhaps that information is not beneficial after all?

meh i don't know. i'm out of this one