Amp in the Room IRs

So if I understand this correctly
You just put an amp in the room
images


Ok now what? The amp is in the room but I'm not hearing an amp in the room tone at all!
 
This is what Logic's Match EQ looks like (standard IR portion of the video as a target, the Amp where I'm at thingy as source):
View attachment 32703
Some (typically pleasant) low mids added, harsh highs cut. Yeah, the game change is real.
That's assuming he took the "other" "well known" vendors IR and tweaked it to make his own which is a whole 'nother layer of scummy if that's what he's selling.

I'd like to have more faith in people and assume that isn't what we have here, hence all the seemingly "random" EQ tweaks that your match EQ is showing.

But I can only throw hope so far!
 
I've never been able to get A.I.T.R. tone with any IRs through """FRFR""". It always sounds artificial in the end.
I have, but only after days and days of meticulously EQing IRs shot in my own room at my listening position using a measurement mic. It'll never be 1:1 (especially when the cab has moved 3 feet to the right) but it sounds more natural than sticking a 57 in front the speaker.
 
If you have Venmo I can hook you up with the code that gives you something better.
I call it the ‘Ears in the Control Room’ sound and it works with any old IR.
 
That's assuming he took the "other" "well known" vendors IR and tweaked it to make his own which is a whole 'nother layer of scummy if that's what he's selling.

Nah, I'm not saying the took others' IRs. But as he used one for comparison, I just wanted to kinda prove that it's nothing but some EQ "tricks".
 
Nah, I'm not saying the took others' IRs. But as he used one for comparison, I just wanted to kinda prove that it's nothing but some EQ "tricks".
I mean, you just did an EQ match from one to the other, of course the only thing you're gonna see different is EQ.
I dunno enough about the ins and outs of IRs to know how the time/decay factor comes into play as well... I'm sure its all mostly EQ but its still a factor.
 
I mean, you just did an EQ match from one to the other, of course the only thing you're gonna see different is EQ.

Yeah, and it sounded sufficiently close.

I dunno enough about the ins and outs of IRs to know how the time/decay factor comes into play as well... I'm sure its all mostly EQ but its still a factor.

It's defenitely a factor. Which is as well why I've used a Match EQ - to prove that in this case, it can't be much else. Besides, once you're using a similar cab with the same kinda speakers, I believe that all the time properties of whatever IRs are becoming less important in comparison.
Now, very obviously, none of this has been any scientific (way too many variables), but: In case I can pretty close to his "before/after" results, even without the slightest scientific exploration, the entire thing can't be more than snake oil.
 
It's defenitely a factor. Which is as well why I've used a Match EQ - to prove that in this case, it can't be much else
All you've really proved is that match EQ can work. You don't even need to have a cab on your signal to match the EQ of a particular IR.
 
All you've really proved is that match EQ can work. You don't even need to have a cab on your signal to match the EQ of a particular IR.

Well, for certain time properties, you likely need a "source cab". In this case it seems the existing "source cab" (hence the standard 4x12 IR) seemed to be sufficient. Whatever, while not a scientific approach, being able to get from A to B with just a Match EQ, is enough of a prove to tell that the entire thing is snake oil.
Besides, did any of you folks try their teaser packs? They pretty much prove what my Match EQ test has already shown.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top