Using Atomic CLR with no cab sim

S

Stadanko

Inspired
Hi All,


I'm absolutely loving my CLR's. The one thing that I'm not loving so much is are the cab sims. I've been all over the map trying them out and tweaking them for who knows how long. As one might expect, Your not going to get away from a mic'ed sound since that is thier nature.

I've become quite fond of my "amp in the room" tone. I have been A/B comparing this with my matrix GT1000 and Mesa Recto 4X12 Cab.

Finally, I ditched the Cab sims and tried filtering and EQ to see what would happen and sure enough the CLR's sound like a cab to me. I haven't dialed anything to exact specs in regards to a cab, but here are a clean and gain preset.

Wondering if any CLR users wouldn't mind trying them ad letting me know what you think?

Thanks in Advance:mrgreen

View attachment 19168
View attachment 19169
 
I'll certainly take these for a spin on my NEOs this weekend - thanks for the presets and suggestion Stadanko.

A great deal of the fun is in the journey!
 
Thanks All! Yes they will be my cabs sims LVC... I just figured that these speakers could do more for me if I treated them directly instead of putting sims in front of them. I'm liking what's happening so far. Most of us are aware that a guitar speaker is a more complex wave shape than just filter cuts and simple EQ curves, but who knows? The amp sims have a lot of shaping capabilities on their own. For instance, the speaker resonance is still very effective.

Can't wait to see what y'all think. No hurt feelings either way of course. I am having fun smcrosby, a nice rabbit hole for sure!

The initial objective was to get the fizz down without giving up top end quality. By adjusting the cut down below what you would normally expect and then adding back in some highs with the EQ, things are starting to take shape.

I tried this in the past with my Dynaudio's(mains), but didn't really put much thought into it. With the CLR's, I got more motivated. I'm definitely encouraged at this point.
 
Last edited:
Keep us updated with what you discover incrementally and I'll do the same.

This will not discourage me from going full in on IRs and blending them in Cab-Lab, etc.

But, it will be fun to explore tone shaping possibilities with the AXE amp & effects sims through CLRs with cab sims off.
 
I tested the Friedman preset.
I have to admit, I didn't expect to sound it this good.
A little too harsh, direct, but useable.
 
Thanks Yek.

Definitely needs more tweaking. I've only spent a few hours on it. No doubt I will spend days coming and going with it.
 
Stadanko said:
Thanks All! Yes they will be my cabs sims LVC... I just figured that these speakers could do more for me if I treated them directly instead of putting sims in front of them. I'm liking what's happening so far. Most of us are aware that a guitar speaker is a more complex wave shape than just filter cuts and simple EQ curves, but who knows? The amp sims have a lot of shaping capabilities on their own. For instance, the speaker resonance is still very effective.

Can't wait to see what y'all think. No hurt feelings either way of course. I am having fun smcrosby, a nice rabbit hole for sure!

The initial objective was to get the fizz down without giving up top end quality. By adjusting the cut down below what you would normally expect and then adding back in some highs with the EQ, things are starting to take shape.

I tried this in the past with my Dynaudio's(mains), but didn't really put much thought into it. With the CLR's, I got more motivated. I'm definitely encouraged at this point.
Click to expand...

never been a fan of IRs so it will be in interesting to see the results folks get.

Could be the birth of a new cottage industry -- eq/filter blocks matched to cab types.
 
Hmmm - interesting - if I run my Atomic Reactors with no
Cab sim it sounds like broken glass.
 
Hmmm...Well sprint you may want to follow what's going on here, Or you can stay with the broken glass. Either way I'm good.

Yeah LVC, I was thinking about that. What if someone came up with a utility for tone shaping using these types of tools instead of IR capturing. Its been said before, that using recording techniques in the cab sim process will inherently give you a recorded sound. Its certainly seems true for me. I think IR's sound good and will definitely still use them in a mix process.

For Live playing, I'm after the same feeling and sound I get from the cab to my ears. And for anybody who tries these, remember that they are a rough sketch.

All factors come in to play:

Ear fatigue
string age
pick type
guitar type
room shape
playing style etc.etc...

So you may still hear something different than I do on your end. Play ON!!!!!!:pirate:


Hoping other people will pick up on it and come up with something interesting as well.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: LVC
Just so you can see how varied my experiment is, here are some more files after tweaking a bit today. I can only last as long as my ears fatiguing, so I have to come and go with it.

Who knows I'll probably think they suck when my ears calm down!:lol

I think I'm getting somewhere but I'll leave any more preset shares for major improvements.


FYI- I turned off the sub on the CLR and am playing a Warmoth Les Paul which I built. Very similar in tone to a Gibson. Also I've been using Pete Thorn's posted BE and Cab Ir for a good fullly processed reference. Its a damn good preset by the way! Sounds real good through the CLRl. I can see why Yek found my initial preset to be harsh in comparison to something like that.

View attachment 19180
View attachment 19181
View attachment 19182

I went to the celestion site and started roughly outlining the illustrated curves for the V30 and some others with the graphic EQ. Now I'm taking the parametric EQ and playing with individual frequencies to fine tune. Also I'm playing with speaker resonance. I was grabbing grabbing at things like the character and definition knobs, but I think I'll get as close as I can with EQ/filter/resonance techniques before playing with those.

I realize that if this was that easy, Cliff and many others would have abandoned IR's long ago. I just couldn't resist trying once I got the CLR's cause they sound capable, and will move plenty of air like a real cab. Mind you, This is my first set of FRFR speakers and my near fields did not inspire quite the same way.
 
Last edited:
I'll try this weekend too. Are your CLR's passive? Said you have a GT1000, But I just got a Matrix GT1000 2U to Try Out, and have Active CLR Wedges. The GT1000 is fgor my Bogner 4x12 Cabinet.

I haven't tried the AFX-II through the Bogner yet, just the Output 2 of the AFX-II DRY for a wet dry wet, using one patch a user gave me. I am interested in also trying out the Axe-FX II with the matrix and my 4x12 Bogner V30 loaded Cabinet. If that doesn't do it for me, the CLR's are Fantastic and I love them. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything with a Power AMp/AXE-FX II/ and 4x12 Cabinet. But as I said, I still haven't had the chance to hook up the Axe with the Matrix and bogner (except 1 test as a dry out from Output 2 of my AFX). I assume I turn off cab sims when I run my Bogner and Matrix.

Anyway, back to YOUR post, yes I will try the CLR Patch.


Tex
 
HI Tex.

These patches will work well for you. On scene One, I'm running the main outs for the CLR's. On scene 2, I have the fx loop(Out 2) running out to my Matrix 2U GT1000FX into my Mesa 4X12.

The presets are set up perfect and ready to go. Just hook up your matrix to Out 2 and the CLR's to the xlr out 1 jacks.
Your gonna have a hard time wanting to get rid of the Matrix if you like that Bogner. I can't bear to part with my Matrix/Mesa setup or my CLR's.

One thing. Your Bogner will likely be voiced differently from my Mesa, so you'll probably need to tweak the tone. I'm using the same Friedman BE with different tweaks on x/y, so you'll be fine to mess with that.

Looking forward to hearing feedback, have fun!

Here is a pic of my current CLR settings for reference.

View attachment 19191
 
Last edited:
LVC said:
I think filtering and EQ are basically becoming your cab sims
Click to expand...

Well, there a reason for that ... and that's that they are the same thing ...

You can think of a cab sim in terms of an impulse response ( sound pressure plotted against time) , or a frequency / phase response, but they are the same thing ... you can easily transform a impulse response into a freq/phase response and vice versa.

Essentially, it is just two ways of displaying the same data. In fact, normally you capture an IR using a slow frequency sweep, and then run a convolution algorithm over it to transform it into an impulse response. The reverse transform is equally possible. Given enough bits of parametric EQ, you could build a cab sim from freq/phase data just as effectively as using an impulse response, except in the digital domain IR is a lot easier to use ... if you were working in the analogue domain, freq/phase data would be the way to go.

Put another way, you are going to get a similar overall effect by tweaking the EQ's .. what you are not going to get is the tiny detail that a full IR gives you, effectively giving you a few thousand EQ points, each just a few Hz wide. You are going to get a broadly similar frequency response, equivalent to using a IR with half a dozen data points. It may not be a perfect replica of a particular cab, but if you can get the sound and feel you want, then that's all that really matters.
 
That's what I was thinking in terms of resolution. I know I'm not going to get anywhere near the level of detail that you get from an IR capture.

I wish there was a way to take all of the recording gear that colors the tone out to get to the raw curve of the speaker, but that is the structure and therefore cannot be removed.

I wonder if there is a way to analyze a response curve directly with a scope or metering device then translate that into an IR, rather than by recording technique? That would essentially be what I'm trying to replicate with this crude EQ method.

I'm guessing that because your trying to capture the actual behavior of the speaker ,which is air movement, then a microphone is the only way to get that back into an electrical signal path for processing.

A couple last thoughts. With the tone I'm getting from the Matrix/Mesa route, it seems to me that the amp modeling is really starting to split hairs with real amps. I owned a real Friedman for about a year and sold it once I was comfortable that my Axe was damn near spot on and it really is. I will never try to argue that I conquered the Friedman, but I'm happy. I couldn't justify having that much money tied up into an amp that should really be in the hands of a pro. IMHO

That being said, I think the cab component is the last major stumbling block here in terms of creating an all digital/SS signal path that can do virtually anything you command. With people like Cliff on the scene, I think it will get sorted eventually.
 
Last edited:
Stadanko said:
I wish there was a way to take all of the recording gear that colors the tone out to get to the raw curve of the speaker, but that is the structure and therefore cannot be removed.
Click to expand...

There is - careful selection of calibrated measurement equipment
I wonder if there is a way to analyze a response curve directly with a scope or metering device then translate that into an IR, rather than by recording technique? That would essentially be what I'm trying to replicate with this crude EQ method.
Click to expand...

The metering device is the microphone - because you want to measure sound pressure. Crude EQ will not replicate the speaker behavior if that's your actual goal. However I believe in the end the goal is to get a pleasant tone out of your rig - if you get that with just EQ that's fantastic. There's nothing that dictates that you have to emulate the behavior of a guitar cabinet to get pleasant sounds. Creative experimentation is great.

That being said, I think the cab component is the last major stumbling block here in terms of creating an all digital/SS signal path that can do virtually anything you command. With people like Cliff on the scene, I think it will get sorted eventually.
Click to expand...

I disagree. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with the cab component. If your goal is to faithfully replicate a particular guitar cabinet which you play at a reasonable distance (i.e you ear not in the cone), you can get a reasonable approximation by careful impulse response measurements in the far field. We've discussed this ad-naseum over the years here at this forum and others - it's possible but for most users impractical to acquire such an impulse response - the point being that there's no technological breakthrough that has to occur - all this is already well understood.

However to your point, you already have an all digital signal path that provides so much sonic creative possibilities - we don't have to restrict ourselves to emulating a physical system
 
Stadanko said:
Hi All,


I'm absolutely loving my CLR's. The one thing that I'm not loving so much is are the cab sims. I've been all over the map trying them out and tweaking them for who knows how long. As one might expect, Your not going to get away from a mic'ed sound since that is thier nature.

I've become quite fond of my "amp in the room" tone. I have been A/B comparing this with my matrix GT1000 and Mesa Recto 4X12 Cab.

Finally, I ditched the Cab sims and tried filtering and EQ to see what would happen and sure enough the CLR's sound like a cab to me. I haven't dialed anything to exact specs in regards to a cab, but here are a clean and gain preset.

Wondering if any CLR users wouldn't mind trying them ad letting me know what you think?

Thanks in Advance:mrgreen

View attachment 19168
View attachment 19169
Click to expand...

I standard user so can you post a screen shot of one of your patches so I can see settings in EQ and Filters? Thanks.
 
I'm aware the microphone is the meter. I think your missing my point. The method colors and affects the sound.

I didn't say that there was something fundamentally wrong with the cab component, but again my focus is on trying to get the FRFR to sound like my cab cause I like my cab lots. Problem is that its real heavy and life would be more grand if I could tune an FRFR to my liking. Why? Because then my tone would likely be more reflective of the FOH tone.

I can see why that last comment could be taken out of context. Let me reiterate. With regards to getting the "amp in the room" tone I am focused on, I think the cab block is the weakest link cause it sure doesn't sound like a real cab. Hence why the term "amp in the room" has been thrown around lots. Cliff himself has told users that if they want that sound, then plug the axe into a guitar cab. anyways...I'm getting of track and screwing around a bit too much here.

Back to real life!!!
 
Last edited:
Stadanko said:
I'm aware the microphone is the meter. I think your missing my point. The method colors and affects the sound.
Click to expand...
No I don't think I missed the point - Your point was essentially that recording equipment introduces coloration that cannot be removed. This is not true of proper calibrated recording/measurement equipment where it is almost trivial to compensate for. The main factor is not the microphone or recording equipment (again assuming you use proper calibrated equipment) - the biggest factor is the measurement technique and the space you measure the guitar cabinet in question.

I didn't say that there was something fundamentally wrong with the cab component, but again my focus is on trying to get the FRFR to sound like my cab cause I like my cab lots. Problem is that its real heavy and life would be more grand if I could tune an FRFR to my liking. Why? Because then my tone would likely be more reflective of the FOH tone.
Click to expand...

Then I can definitively say you won't be able to achieve that with just coarse EQs. You may find a pleasant sonic result though but it won't really sound like your preferred guitar cab if that is your goal.

I can see why that last comment could be taken out of context. Let me reiterate. With regards to getting the "amp in the room" tone I am focused on, I think the cab block is the weakest link cause it sure doesn't sound like a real cab. Hence why the term "amp in the room" has been thrown around lots. Cliff himself has told users that if they want that sound, then plug the axe into a guitar cab. anyways...I'm getting of track and screwing around a bit too much here.

Back to real life!!!
Click to expand...

I don't think I took it out of context - probably just semantics - to reiterate the cab block itself is not the weak link (after all it just a convolution operation) - the impulse responses you are using are. However, IT IS possible to get a reasonable approximation by proper capture in the far field of your guitar cabinet - which is not trivial to capture unfortunately - but you could use such an impulse response in the existing cab block. There's been a lot of discussion on this over the years (search for far field).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom