The more IRs are used, the more realistic the amp/cab in the room sound is

The more IRs are used at the same time, the more realistic the cab in the room sound is

  • Yes

  • No

  • Maybe

Results are only viewable after voting.
knwlnd said:
When adding mics on one subject you will accumulate small, difficult to detect phase differences to varying degrees at various points in the frequency spectrum. Along with the difference in frequency response from the microphone at its location.

If you continue down that path long enough the accumulation of mics starts to “take away” from the detail of the subject.
Click to expand...
While this is definitely true with physical mic's, this is not true of IR's in the Axe III if you're using minimum phase IR's, correct?
 
Jason Scott said:
I'd strongly recommend reading about Fletcher-Munson curves. Exempting people with hearing loss, the audible upper frequency limit for most people (on average) tends to fall somewhere between 15K-17K. Some specialized microphones, on the other hand, have a much higher limit. Moreover, sound perception is extremely subjective and is easily influenced by things like bias and expectations.
Click to expand...
I optimized the wording: "Let's assume ears would have perfect perception". "Never trust you ears" is no good basis for discussion. Our ears are the customers of our work ;)
 
There will still be a phase relationship even between two MPT IR’s you can hear it if you adjust their alignment in the cab block.

My understanding is minimum phase is just that, minimum, primarily by ensuring the leading silence of the IR is trimmed so all IR’s start at the same “time”

But as always happy to learn otherwise.

FractalAudio said:
If it's a cab IR the difference is basically nil because a speaker is a minimum-phase device. All minimum-phase does in this case is automatically remove the leading silence.

A room IR is not minimum phase so you should not use MPT when processing a room IR.
Click to expand...
 
No, my 2 cents is: the closer to real listening distance (3-5ft) and the better the mic, the more it will sound like amp in the room. The closest I’ve gotten to that is 12 inch distance with a dynacab pack and a ribbon mic.

I find there is a coherency and punchlines to one IR that washes away into a more polished, fuller sound with multiple.

Now if you are close micing everything, then there is definitely benefit to multiple as no one mic can get a full, natural sound from one tiny part of the speaker.
 
knwlnd said:
There will still be a phase relationship even between two MPT IR’s you can hear it if you adjust their alignment in the cab block.

My understanding is minimum phase is just that, minimum, primarily by ensuring the leading silence of the IR is trimmed so all IR’s start at the same “time”

But as always happy to learn otherwise.
Click to expand...
Well, yeah, if you adjust alignment of course you'll hear phasing. If I'm understanding the post you quoted, the minimum phase IR's are "time aligned" by removing the silence at the beginning. Since audio frequencies have specific wavelengths, wouldn't the result be that the IR's are in phase, at least as much as two perfectly in-phase physical mics can be?

I could be way off here, so correct me if I'm wrong.
 
TheRedDevil said:
Is the "amp in the room sound" known from past "lifelike" or "subjectively sound better" for you?
Click to expand...
I do have real cabs + power amp so am quite used to the real thing. If though, say a preset based on a V30 IR sounds better if I blend in a smidgen of Celestion Blue, then I'll do that and won't care that the result isn't realistic. That's one of the big advantages of using IRs, at least for me.
 
boyce89976 said:
Well, yeah, if you adjust alignment of course you'll hear phasing. If I'm understanding the post you quoted, the minimum phase IR's are "time aligned" by removing the silence at the beginning. Since audio frequencies have specific wavelengths, wouldn't the result be that the IR's are in phase, at least as much as two perfectly in-phase physical mics can be?

I could be way off here, so correct me if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

This would be true if in an IR all audio frequencies were represented the same at the same amplitude as another IR however you would then have two largely identical IR’s. Microphone frequency response, physical distance and orientation to the subject (along with a myriad of other variables) will all shape the frequency and amplitude result of the IR thus making them different and having different somewhat random content.

You can see this by comparing two IR’s in the align page, if they were perfectly in phase throughout the traces would be moving up and down in unison from start to finish.

If the IR’s were 100% phase coherent then with two IR’s totally in phase you would have a slight increase in volume only, no additional character would be imparted (like 2 identical or near identical IR’s).

Also if an IR was altered or transformed beyond the “time alignment” to be perfectly phase aligned I’d imagine the result would be more like a quite plain eq curve (I think the smoothing parameter does this?) without the random part that makes them sound different and interesting. It would allow for absolute perfect phase alignment through the frequency spectrum though.

Edit - Also happy to be educated otherwise, it has been many, many years since I studied this material.
 
Last edited:
yek said:
regardless of the IRs used, FRFR monitors simply can't produce the cab-in-the room sound.
Click to expand...
And since I've not noticed/missed that (amp/cab in the room) feature I'm getting all the tones (sound) I desire out of my Axe-FX III Mk2.
And with DynaCabs It is even better now tone-wise. YMMV.
 
I think the new generation will laugh about these old guys talking about amp in the room. I'm also much happier than before (with more than 1 IR), I compare it with cassettes and CDs, but there are still other guys who say it doesn't sound as good as an amp/cab in the room. I think that's why I'm still trying to compare it. Never trust you ears ;)
 
TheRedDevil said:
I think the new generation will laugh about these old guys talking about amp in the room. I'm also much happier than before (with more than 1 IR), I compare it with cassettes and CDs, but there are still other guys who say it doesn't sound as good as an amp/cab in the room. I think that's why I'm still trying to compare it. Never trust you ears ;)
Click to expand...
New generations will have things like dynamic real time IA generated speakers and they will laugh at how static those dinosaurs Static piece of .wav irs were 😂.
They would have some new headphones with a tech that gives you the feeling of your body shaken by the rumble of a wall of 4x12.

To me irs are just static image of a mic take. So it’s a flat as a kemper profile.
That’s why there’s still a « organic » difference between a good mix take and an ir recreation.
 
Joshua_L said:
New generations will have things like dynamic real time IA generated speakers and they will laugh at how static those dinosaurs Static piece of .wav irs were 😂.
They would have some new headphones with a tech that gives you the feeling of your body shaken by the rumble of a wall of 4x12.

To me irs are just static image of a mic take. So it’s a flat as a kemper profile.
That’s why there’s still a « organic » difference between a good mix take and an ir recreation.
Click to expand...
Organic is one of those descriptors that are meaningless when applied to audio, like state of the art. Do you mean farts, sloshing diarrhea, or bird calls? All of those things are organic sounds. Reproducing metal strings vibrating near a metal pickup and making a moving magnetic coil piston a paper cone is not organic in the slightest sense.

Every single guitar recording you have ever listened to is a static capture in a sense.

Recordings are a series of static captures played in a finite series.

That's really how the human brain works aurally and visually because the static captures happen faster than the human brain can perceive any gap between them as our brains have a lower sampling rate than most audio and visual machines can record or reproduce at this point in time.

Even the fluctuations of photons and air compressions in real time life have gaps where the amplitude of their vibration is zero, meaning a perceptual null in the signal, before the next waveform is sliced up and experienced by our brains.
 
I think you're just simply trying to achieve something that doesn't make sense to achieve through the utilized means (IRs).
A recorded sound usually means the recording of the sound of a miked up cab.
The amp in the room sound only exists in the room - it's perceived by your ears and it's perception depends on multiple factors.
Why would you want to use something associated with a miked up cab sound (IRs) to achieve a tone that doesn't exist in that realm?
Just because I've used 20 mics to mic up every square inch of my room the mics still wouldn't work like my ears do.
 
With my rig it works better than before. I think the mix of studio monitors (details) and Celestion 12" "FRFR" speaker (cab in the room mids/subwoofer) in a standard cab is the solution together with "more than one" IR or DynaCab. A mix of new and old world.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom