Why does the sound of a modeler have to be "the sound of a miced amp" instead of "the sound of an amp"

[JoKeR III]

So I guess what I meant was, why does it have to have the "flavor of another mic" rather than a cab, a "cab" sim being an eq only (or some dynamic eq). But maybe someone else answered this above that there is a "amp in the room" preset, or a "flat cab" preset. What I meant was I buy and amp and cab (or just a combo), but not a mic. I hear with my ears. Now in the modeler world they are saying, so you hear now with some mic emulation & IR bullsh-t.

Maybe go back a decade or more and get a modeler that only had options for American 1X12 or 2X12 and British or California 4X12 cabinets. Maybe they were on to the real way to emulate speakers and not ruin their sound with mics.

 

[Piing]

That can't be modeled... yet.

And it will never be. That would be like asking to have at your room the same audition experience as when you are listening classical music in a Concert Hall. It is physically impossible. Not even the most expensive audiophile equipment can do that.

Those who have listened an acoustic instrument or voice on a special acoustic environment, from a church to an opera house, know it very well. You can model the space reverberation, but not the auditioning experience at the site

 

[olorin]

The one thing that has always boggled my mind with this, and maybe it’s from me running sound with my band that has all classic rock instruments (guitar, drums, sax, piano/keys, bass), and me being the guitarist, is that mic’d cabs or the modeler simulation of such, are needed to cut through the mix in a live setting. Wow, that’s a runon sentence! When I’ve tried to cut down on that brighter sound or make an amp in the room sound you lose the guitar in the mix. And that’s with me playing a telecaster. So for me, this has never been an issue. If you want to play solo, either go through a cab or make an amp in the room setting. Live, go through the right IR for your tone.

 

[macky7tyseven]

How would you capture the sound of the amp, if not through a microphone?

Through the ears?

 

[Will Chen]

And it will never be. That would be like asking to have at your room the same audition experience as when you are listening classical music in a Concert Hall. It is physically impossible. Not even the most expensive audiophile equipment can do that.

Those who have listened an acoustic instrument or voice on a special acoustic environment, from a church to an opera house, know it very well. You can model the space reverberation, but not the auditioning experience at the site

Nevermind the sounds of the drones...

https://articles.roland.com/soaring-sound-meet-the-piano-of-the-future/

 

[favance]

I don't have a problem w/using IRs and Cab Modeling, However, When recording w/headphones, this works pretty well for an "in the room" sound: Waves Head Tracker. I really like the Abbey Roads Studio 3 version.

 

[Xcdchdchjjf]

macky7tyseven​

How would you capture the sound of the amp, if not through a microphone?

Through the ears?

---- Yes this exchange basically sums up the whole question. As others stated there is apparently some Earthworks mic captured IR which is nice to hear, but isnt an IR just a "dynamic eq curve?" I recall someone saying they dont want any cab sims (on the stymon Big Sky, which has a cab sim) back in the day because its "just a eq filter." Though I guess IR is just a smaller "convolution" or, a convolution of a smaller space? (The small space just outside of a speaker cone).

Someone said I wouldnt like the sound of an amp from FM3 with no cab/IR to a FRFR... I do like the sound of my guitar through pedals and right into the Yamaha HS monitors though... I dont currently have an FM3 anymore but intend to get back into Fractal I think...

So I guess the question is, even though the Earthworks IS A VERY CLEAN/CLEAR/FLAT/SCIENTIFIC microphone, why cant you just have a flat "manual" eq curve without a mic used. To me the cab IR thing just seems like unwanted noise in the signal...

 

[RevDrucifer]

Someone said I wouldnt like the sound of an amp from FM3 with no cab/IR to a FRFR... I do like the sound of my guitar through pedals and right into the Yamaha HS monitors though... I dont currently have an FM3 anymore but intend to get back into Fractal I think...

I’m assuming that the person meant you wouldn’t like the sound of hearing the FM3 (or any modeler) through studio monitors without an IR/cab sim. It sounds terrible if it’s not going through some speaker simulation, but so do real amps with a direct signal taken out of them before they’re introduced to a speaker. It’s just a bunch of horrible sounding, scratchy noise.

But that’s any amp without a speaker or any modeler without a cab sim.

 

[aflynt]

[/HEADING]
[HEADING=3]macky7tyseven​

Through the ears?

---- Yes this exchange basically sums up the whole question. As others stated there is apparently some Earthworks mic captured IR which is nice to hear, but isnt an IR just a "dynamic eq curve?" I recall someone saying they dont want any cab sims (on the stymon Big Sky, which has a cab sim) back in the day because its "just a eq filter." Though I guess IR is just a smaller "convolution" or, a convolution of a smaller space? (The small space just outside of a speaker cone).

Someone said I wouldnt like the sound of an amp from FM3 with no cab/IR to a FRFR... I do like the sound of my guitar through pedals and right into the Yamaha HS monitors though... I dont currently have an FM3 anymore but intend to get back into Fractal I think...

So I guess the question is, even though the Earthworks IS A VERY CLEAN/CLEAR/FLAT/SCIENTIFIC microphone, why cant you just have a flat "manual" eq curve without a mic used. To me the cab IR thing just seems like unwanted noise in the signal...

Are you looking for something more akin to an emulation of an amp/speaker system auditioned through binaural mics or, or do you actually want someone to model the room / ears / brain too? I mean an IR of a miced speaker may be imperfect, but it’s a heck of a lot closer than just having NO ir at all… And just replacing it with an EQ is going to miss a bunch of stuff that’s happening. Which isn’t to say that you can’t just shut off the IR and be happy... Especially if you’re amplifying it through something somewhat cheap and inaccurate to begin with.

-Aaron

 

[Joel.Brown333]

Has anyone watched the Cooper Carter Amp In The Room video ? It's basically just an EQ instead of an IR. But the EQ kills everything above 5K like a guitar cab and rolls off the low end a little around 150hz or so. Then adjust to taste and it sounds really nice. For the first time I hear what my amp actually sounds like in the PA, not a mic'd up version of it. I remember doing this in the late 80s when trying to go through a modeler in the studio (can't even remember the name of the modeler it's been so long). We just EQ'd the crap out of it until it sounded decent. Fast forward 35 years and it works really well.

I'm not saying this is for everyone. But it's something I think more people should try once and see what they think.

 

[jaymanfm3]

...

Note that to date - there's no system so far (even non-realtime) that can model a guitar/speaker cabinet box virtually, from specifications of the components themselves - maybe this is where the confusion comes from?

...

Any idea why modelling a cab is harder than modelling an amp? Or is cab modelling just not a priority for some reason like the IR approach is generally preferred?

 

[drgamble]

My experience has been a little different than described so far. I had a Mesa Dual Rec 3 channel that played through a Marshall 4x12 with 25w Greenbacks. When I first got the Fractal II, I used the same amp model, cabs turned off, into a Matrix power amp into the same Marshall cab. There was definitely a difference in the sound.

First of all, the amp hiss from the real amp was clearly louder than the Fractal model. For the amp rig, I used a NS-2 with a TS808 in the loop of the NS-2. For the Fractal, I used the gate on the input block, with a TS808 in the drive block. The Fractal was quiet a bit cleaner sounding than the amp.

The second thing that I noticed is that the high end on the Fractal seemed to be a little bit more controlled, less shrill, and overall a little smoother. There seemed to be a lot more clarity in the result than with just the amp. Now, I am going off of memory, and I think that I might have dialed back some of these highs through a combination of the output EQ along with a subtle high and low pass filter. I can't really remember exactly how it was set up. I do know that, even though I turned off cab sims and power amp modeling, the same amp on the Fractal sounded a little different using the same model, through a SS poweramp, into the same cab.

I quickly adapted to the miced sound of an amp. I feel like I went through a long time playing, not really knowing what I sound like. Looking back, I probably set eq settings the wrong way because I did not know what the final result sounded like. Like it or not, all of the guitars tones that everyone loves are the result of a miced amp. I remember having a JCM 900 and I set the tone controls to Bass 10, Mid 2, High 5, Presence 6. I am amazed that I was able to get decent tones like this and realize now that I should have started with everything at 5 and to make adjustments from the control room.

Just my 2 cents, I would rather hear what it really sounds like and make adjustments with that knowledge, then just try to make a good tone out of context.

 

[WKSmith]

It would be interesting to try serious analysis to take the faithful signal chains we all use of IRs that sound exactly like perfectly mic'd cabs... that we send to FOH or record with.

... and then sculpt a series of filters to make a specific FRFR out block sound like the original cab in the room with all the cab resonances and pants flapping perfection.

It might take FIR or FFT narrow filters and an outboard DIRAC DSP (or similar) filter that can read csv values for mathematically derived theoretical filters. And some serious measurement. But it's do-able. It could be as simple as well configured eq.

But it's mostly impossible to match every FRFR to every Physical cab that it would require to please everyone.

We could easily make a FRFR behave exactly like a 1x12 cab and amp in the room... Instead of FRFR response.

But you could really only use a microphone to demo it, which negates the need for anything but the original IR.

Quite the paradox

 

[AlbertA]

Any idea why modelling a cab is harder than modelling an amp? Or is cab modelling just not a priority for some reason like the IR approach is generally preferred?

For starters, you have to simulate energy radiating in all directions in 3D space even if you are just interested in the response at a single point.
Far easier to just obtain the impulse response using a real cabinet.

 

[Piing]

Any idea why modelling a cab is harder than modelling an amp? Or is cab modelling just not a priority for some reason like the IR approach is generally preferred?

The amplifier has a fixed input and output, with the only external variables of the gain, master and tone controls. However, the CAB has to be captured with a microphone at one specific point. There are infinite points where you can capture the CAB, not only in front of the speaker but around the room. There are also the variables of the microphone used, and a mix of different microphones at different position. Endless combinations.

However, the comparison of the recordings of a microphone and the IR at the same position cannot be differentiated. They are identical.

CABs are easier to model/capture than an amplifier (we can all do it by ourselves, with the Axe-FX ToneMatch utility), with one specific microphone at one specific point. Ask Cliff and the competitors if modeling an amp, with all its variables and nuances, is easy. The Kemper Bread Toaster can do it -user friendly- but it will not respond accurately when you move the tone/gain controls. As with the CAB IR, the capture is made at one specific point

 

[jaymanfm3]

Thanks @AlbertA and @Piing. Sounds like the cost benefit ratio is pretty poor for model cabs in comparison to capturing them via IR. Cab modelling seems like an interesting problem that could lead to some unique sounds perhaps through moving ports around, changing slant angles, weaking or strengthening materials. However, even if achievable, this not going to add much for most practical cases.

 

[marsonic]

Has anyone watched the Cooper Carter Amp In The Room video ? It's basically just an EQ instead of an IR. But the EQ kills everything above 5K like a guitar cab and rolls off the low end a little around 150hz or so. Then adjust to taste and it sounds really nice. For the first time I hear what my amp actually sounds like in the PA, not a mic'd up version of it. I remember doing this in the late 80s when trying to go through a modeler in the studio (can't even remember the name of the modeler it's been so long). We just EQ'd the crap out of it until it sounded decent. Fast forward 35 years and it works really well.

I'm not saying this is for everyone. But it's something I think more people should try once and see what they think.

I finally got around to trying this...I gotta say that regardless of whether it sounds more or less "real", I do very much enjoy the sounds I'm getting.

I think I like this approach better than auditioning a bunch of IRs or trying to combine them. Comparatively, auditioning IRs feels like shooting in the dark. Working with EQs....that's something I do every day and they make a lot of sense to me.