Using a lowpass filter instead of an IR solves most of the 'amp in the room' quandry.

So I watched the @Cooper Carter video on trying to emulate the AITR thing and it has absolutely blown me away.

Using a low pass filter instead of an IR makes everything sound much 'closer' and more present. Using a graphic EQ afterwards to shape the tone is very useful as well.

I wish I'd have just tried this years ago instead of falling down the IR rabbit hole. It has been the most useful tip I've ever had in all my years of using digital gear. IRs just sound boxy now.

Here's the video in question:

 
This is a very old method of simulating a guitar cab. I used this method in the 90s. I was never satisfied with it, as the sound was always flat with no character. I would add micro delays to try to make it sound remotely like a speaker cab. Most early cabinet simulators we're similar to this, using hi order lp filters with perhaps a bit of hp and simple mid-range peaks and troughs. Some of them sounded great, but you could tell it wasn't a real guitar cabinet, miced or otherwise.

The advent of real-time convolution and IRs was a game-changer. They can do far more than simulate a close-miced speaker. In my opinion, a good far field IR is superior to achieving an amp in the room tone than simple filtering. Such IRs are few and far between, but they do exist.

I'm inclined to disagree with the assessment that this is a way to simulate an "amp in the room", especially compared to a cabinet that has multiple drivers. This is just a low-resolution EQ to get you in the ballpark of a typical guitar speaker. Again, it can sound great. And if you like it, use it. But amp in the room? Not to my ears.

If I'm looking for this type of sound, I prefer to find an impulse response that's in the ballpark and then crank up the Smoothing parameter. You'll notice that this control has no effect on an IR of a Palmer or Red Box cab sim. Nor will it with an IR capture of this method. There's nothing there to smooth. With a typical impulse response, you can dial-in how much character you'd like, or get rid of it completely like this method forces upon you. Just my opinion.
 
No disrespect to the indubitably awesome Mr Carter, but this technique has exactly zero to do with "amp in the room", as that phrase has come to be used.

The phrase is about the complex combination of ambient reflections and frequency response you inherently get being in the room with a loud guitar cab.

This technique applies much simpler high- and low-end filtering than any IR, then points out that you have the freedom to set a graphic eq any way you want to get some desired frequency response.

Breaking this into its component parts:

a) You always have the freedom to use a graphic EQ. In fact, you have your choice of various types built into every amp block, without doing anything.

b) The filtering used is an extremely simplistic approximation of the response of a generic "speaker", way less like observed reality than any IR, and there's nothing about it that models or in any detailed way resembles the response of a specific speaker and cab in a specific room. As has been pointed out, it's similar to old-school analog cab sims like the Red Box. Back in the day, those were a huge improvement over the unfiltered sound of an amp or preamp, but they've since been pretty much universally abandoned for the more specific and detailed capture of real world speaker-and-cab combinations you get with an IR.

c) What about this relates in any way to amp in the room?

None of this is to say people shouldn't do this if they like the results, as with anything.

But it lacks the detailed peaks and valleys that give real-world mic'd cabs their character, and associating it with the perennially-hot buzzphrase "amp in the room" is a complete red herring.
 
I think the point of this is to escape the sound of mic'd cabs when playing through Frfr and get something that simulates (to a degree) what you would hear if you were playing guitar through a regular guitar cabinet-a sound that some if not many guitar players find highly inspirational.

Fractal Audio posted a thread a few years ago describing the technique. Edit: Found it

It always comes as a surprise to people who love playing Frfr rigs that there are some if not many guitarists who don't and who are looking for techniques to make it more enjoyable. "What the audience hears" and "the sound of a million recordings" be damned.

Early devices like a red box did NOT sound like this because they didn't get a hard enough rolloff and still ended up being fizzy and sizzly in a way that screamed "DI!!!". I think people dismiss the technique based on their experience with the redbox type devices rather than the technique here. Newer analog filters like the mic no mo and synergy DI get favorable reviews.

Another useful angle here is that you can shoot an IR when you get Filter recipe you like and then use that anywhere you need it or more easily share it.

If the OP likes this sort of thing, there was a thread on TGP not top long ago that gets into what I refer to as "synthetic speaker simulation" and some IR's where shared. I'll try to find it and edit this with a link. Edit : here is one : Tgp
 
Last edited:
I tried this method after watching Cooper's video, and it really made me appreciate IRs.
The ability to just scroll through a bunch of IRs and find one that works, I found to be much easier than going slider by slider adding/cutting/adding/cutting....only to come out with something that was 'meh'.

I understand the comment of - it's not an 'amp in the room', and would probably phrase it more like - 'how to eq a full range speaker to sound like a V30 or the speaker of your choice' (but that doesn't fit nicely in a title)

Overall, cool thing to try....but I get the perfect tone from a pair of IRs and a pair of nice 1x12 FRFRs (XiTone/RCF/Atomic).
 
this technique has exactly zero to do with "amp in the room", as that phrase has come to be used.

The phrase is about the complex combination of ambient reflections and frequency response you inherently get being in the room with a loud guitar cab.
So, I think over time AITR has come to mean two distinct things, and Mr. Carter's vid addresses the original definition.

  1. The signal from a head is raspy and scritchy and nasty. No one listens to this.
  2. A good cab takes this signal and produces a honky, midrangey roar that is directional, thumpy and intense
  3. A good room adds complex reflections and wave interactions
  4. A good mic and preamp capture 2 and some of 3 and impart their own character in terms of dynamics and tone

Definition 1: Originally, AITR meant making a FRFR perform like a cab. That is, I can use the AxeFx to reproduce #2. The test is, can I tell the difference blindfolded between a cab and a FRFR in the room, not in a recording. Mr Cooper's vid, I think, is a whack at this.

Definition 2: The more recent definition of AITR, as highlighted by the discussion on FullRes IRs, is the degree of realism on #3 and #4 for a recorded tone. The test is, listening to the recording, can you tell whether a real cab was mic'd or the modeller was used. Does the recording really sound like an amp in a room.

These two definitions are almost unrelated, which IMO leads to observations like "zero to do with". #2 does not sound like #4. #2 is also impossible, because FRFRs can't physically do the wallop and directionality of a cab, but you get close in surprisingly fun ways, as the terrific Mr. Carter points out.
 
Last edited:
I was impressed with my quick tryout yesterday, literally just 5 minutes of riffage. But this makes me want to take a closer look at cuts on the cab block, or maybe a filter out of the cab block, because guitars need cabinets. They're a huge part of the sound. My preset which I thought I had dialed in sounded a little thin and bright when I AB'd between cab and no cab. To be fair the preset was dialed in on my F12-X200 112 and I ran through a Headrush 112 for the test. Might have to cut deeper on the high end than I have been doing. With this no cab block method I doubt the horn or tweeter is taking much load.
 
So, I think over time AITR has come to mean two distinct things, and Mr. Carter's vid addresses the original definition.

  1. The signal from a head is raspy and scritchy and nasty. No one listens to this.
  2. A good cab takes this signal and produces a honky, midrangey roar that is directional, thumpy and intense
  3. A good room adds complex reflections and wave interactions
  4. A good mic and preamp capture 2 and some of 3 and impart their own character in terms of dynamics and tone

Definition 1: Originally, AITR meant making a FRFR perform like a cab. That is, I can use the AxeFx to reproduce #2. The test is, can I tell the difference blindfolded between a cab and a FRFR in the room, not in a recording. Mr Cooper's vid, I think, is a whack at this.

Definition 2: The more recent definition of AITR, as highlighted by the discussion on FullRes IRs, is the degree of realism on #3 and #4 for a recorded tone. The test is, listening to the recording, can you tell whether a real cab was mic'd or the modeller was used. Does the recording really sound like an amp in the room.

These two definitions are almost unrelated, which IMO leads to observations like "zero to do with". #2 does not sound like #4. #2 is also impossible, because FRFRs can't physically do the wallop and directionality of a cab, but you get close in surprisingly fun ways, as the terrific Mr. Carter points out.

This is a great explanation. Maybe my terminology is not correct, but to me (in the room) it sounds much more like a guitar cab. That is what I'm enjoying. IRs are undoubtedly better for headphones and recording, but this trick is fantastic for just playing into an amp model and noodling.
 
maybe my ears are a little old, but to me it sounded good , even without a Geq . there are enough eq's around to use,even in the amp sector.
and for playing in my living room with the 2 headrushfrfr108 it was fairly enough to say cool man.
 
I think it's a great little trick!

Why not use it with an IR and mix them to get a perfect blend of great sound and 'amp in the room' then? Best of both worlds!
I used to do this before the Dephase parameter was introduced in the II, now known as the Smoothing parameter in the III. I find most IRs to be far too colored, with excessive comb filtering type artifacts. Blending in this method, or an IR of a Palmer or a Red Box helped. But the Smoothing parameter has rendered this method obsolete for me.
 
Early devices like a red box did NOT sound like this because they didn't get a hard enough rolloff and still ended up being fizzy and sizzly in a way that screamed "DI!!!". I think people dismiss the technique based on their experience with the redbox type devices rather than the technique here.
Most early devices I tried pretty much did, including emulations built in to preamps like the Triaxis. I used to build my own, and then supplement them with a graphic equalizer and various micro delays. The degree of high-end rolloff is only part of it. It's simply has a lifeless character that's hard to put into words. I remember trying to duplicate the Comfortably Numb solo tone (among others) back in the 90s, knowing that this technology was totally inadequate for the job. The technique used here is no different. No different whatsoever, other than that it is digital and the parameters can be more easily modified.
 
Most early devices I tried pretty much did, including emulations built in to preamps like the Triaxis. I used to build my own, and then supplement them with a graphic equalizer and various micro delays. The degree of high-end rolloff is only part of it. It's simply has a lifeless character that's hard to put into words. I remember trying to duplicate the Comfortably Numb solo tone (among others) back in the 90s, knowing that this technology was totally inadequate for the job. The technique used here is no different. No different whatsoever, other than that it is digital and the parameters can be more easily modified.

I dunno, it doesn't sound like the Redbox and similar methods I've tried (from memory -it was years ago). I will try mixing in a bit of IR character, see how it sounds. But for me, it sounds fantastic.
 
I dunno, it doesn't sound like the Redbox and similar methods I've tried (from memory -it was years ago). I will try mixing in a bit of IR character, see how it sounds. But for me, it sounds fantastic.
I agree with you.

That thread on TGP has some IR's that the OP "painted" in a parametric. If you like this general idea, check out that thread and some of the samples that were posted. For people that love IR's, I would say "don't bother" but for people who haven't really loved the IR/FRFR experience, this is another option and some people enjoy it.
 
Back
Top Bottom