Anybody else getting sick of modellers?

[GTR37]

I agree with much of what is being said here , I think its classic amp in the room

All the products have their uses and strengths and weakness

if you are at an unmic'd rehearsal and you are use to a 212 or 412 and a tube amp , IMO you will be disappointed with "FRFR" 9 times out of 10

If you don't use sheer volume and use lower volumes and put a mic on the cab and ran it through the mains the way you will have to live , Then I think that's a much better comparison , although honestly very rarely will I see a band practice like this , they just crank up the amps
but if they were to mic like a live set and tweaked from there you will get a much more accurate comparison of what the modeller can do

If you take away the air moving and that kind of visceral thing a loud amp does , and listened only to a l mic on a Marshall and a Fractal version I think most people would concede the Fractal sounds almost as good and maybe sometimes better , and certainly more consistent when playing multiple venues

 

[spawnofthesith]

At my band's rehearsals I use a cranked amp that is also mic'ed up to feed our IEMs

 

[jay mitchell]

Sidenote: I actually happen to think that the time domain "structure" of whatever cabs/IRs (and no, I'm not talking about reflections or anything, just about how speakers blow out frequencies on the timeline) might be an important thing

That is precisely what is contained in an IR.

 

[jay mitchell]

Not saying the ""FRFR"" way is horrible. Just saying it's not on par.

""FRFR"" is not a monolithic thing. Whatever your experiences may have been, they are necessarily limited to a very small fraction of all available products. You have no valid basis on which to generalize beyond the few examples within your experience.

 

[Sascha Franck]

That is precisely what is contained in an IR.

I know - but I'm actually wondering how much the time domain is a relevant factor (without even considering any reflections and what not). Usually all we see is frequency plots of speakers but not their frequency "behaviour" along a timeline. Do any frequencies arrive at our ears quicker than others? Or do they decay faster than others?

 

[jay mitchell]

I know - but I'm actually wondering how much the time domain is a relevant factor (without even considering any reflections and what not).

Time and frequency are mathematical inverses of each other. Neither can exist without the other.

Usually all we see is frequency plots of speakers

Most of which are neither complete nor accurate.

but not their frequency "behaviour" along a timeline.

That behavior can easily be displayed, but most people would not understand its implications. The important thing is that all that behavior is captured in an IR.

Do any frequencies arrive at our ears quicker than others?

You are referring in this question to a parameter called transient response. It is indeed possible for a two-port system to respond to some frequencies more quickly than others.

Or do they decay faster than others?

Again, this is possible. The important fact is that, whether or not you ever see them presented in a graph (called a "waterfall" plot), an impulse response captures this behavior.

 

[Sascha Franck]

The important thing is that all that behavior is captured in an IR.

I'm aware of that.
But maybe I was unclear with my question, so here it is again, perhaps better to understand:
Between guitar speakers, are there differences between how quick certain frequency ranges are thrown out? In other words: Could there be one speaker with "faster" mids than another speaker, which would possibly kind of delay the mids a bit due to the used material?

I'm actually asking this for a reason. I was simply fooling around with these things, like using two IRs, EQing them differently (say one has scooped mids whereas the other one has enhanced mids) and then mixing them together while slightly delaying one. So far, the results were unpredictable and not exactly too usable. Yet, they were quite interesting.

 

[FuzzyAce]

Time and frequency are mathematical inverses of each other. Neither can exist without the other.

 

[Orvillain]

I've posted waterfall plots before. I'm pretty sure @MirrorProfiles has as well. Very useful for determining the best position for monitors and acoustic treatment within a room.

You can take a sweep of a speaker using Room EQ Wizard, and you can generate all sorts of plots with it.

 

[Sedaxel]

"""FRFR""" is not a monolithic thing. Whatever your experiences may have been, they are necessarily limited to a very small fraction of all available products. You have no valid basis on which to generalize beyond the few examples within your experience.

Of course. And that's why I've said that everyone will have his opinion.

My experience is that, after 7 years trying the "FRFR" route, always had to tweak and whatnot to be able to have the same comfort as with a real cab. Not saying I dislike it, and that's why I kept on trying, and even gigged some time with it (because I felt it reasonably good). But then, when I try again a real cab... Better feeling, without tweaking anything. I know that the audience would be perfectly fine with IRs, because the experience is totally different to the one playing on stage.

Again, I'm perfectly fine with modellers. In fact, my current rig is based on a Nano Cortex. I'm just choosing a real cab to monitor myself on stage.

My experience is much more valuable than any other one when it comes to care for my feelings.

So I agree with you... My experience has not enough basis to make the assessment that cabs are better than frfrs. Just in the same way as yours hasn't either, to say the contrary, I guess.

 

[Mongillo19]

I'm glad we are back to discussing "FRFR". It had been too long

 

[SillyOctpuss]

I'm glad we are back to discussing ""FRFR"". It had been too long

The Reaper train should be stopping here soon too.

 

[sashimi]

 

[dronerstone]

I know that the audience would be perfectly fine with IRs, because the experience is totally different to the one playing on stage.

Hence, play a real amp/cab on stage, and split a cab sim straight to FOH.

Best of both worlds, no mic bleed etc.

 

[Sedaxel]

Hence, play a real amp/cab on stage, and split a cab sim straight to FOH.

Best of both worlds, no mic bleed etc.

Yeah, that's a very solid option.

I'm sometimes sending to FOH the mic, others IRs. Since my band plays with real amps (another guitar and bass), it seems like tech guys do prefer mic on my guitar too. But when I send an IR they have no problem either.

 

[la szum]

What you using for ""FRFR""? I often flip-flop wondering whether I should get stereo ""FRFR"" or a power amp and cab.

Wasn't blown away by Kemper Kab, stereo would've probably helped but really never got closer than 80% of TIMH with Kemper all around.

I think my monitors and sub are reasonably good but

Honestly, I'd prefer not to say so I don't get lambasted by those with superior taste and ears.









I wasn't always sold on modellers---especially live with a band. I heard my Buddy use them
since we started jamming in 2004. I tried a couple of times and always went back to real amps
and cabs.

In 2020 I bought a Fractal and was blown away. That was after buying and using a Kemper and an Helix.
Felt like home.

I was using a tube amp (fx return) and a 2 x 12 with the Fractal when we rehearsed. In a pinch I was forced to use

an "FRFR", when the tube amp I was using to power the Fractal into a 2 x 12 quit working. I didn't notice

a massive difference, and I was still having fun, and wasn't over-analyzing if I should be having fun or not.




I can get all the things I could get with a tube amp and cab with FRFRs. Harmonic feedback. Touch. Sensitivity.
Chunk. Chug.

Weird. I know we all have different standards, but I am sort of over splitting hairs and blaming gear for my own
inadequacies and neediness.


(Sorry for not answering, and blowing smoke.)

 

[la szum]

I think the comparisons----God, the endless comparisons!!----are a dead end.

Ultimately, we need to turn the F around and find out what roads we really wanted
to travel when we first started playing guitar and making music. I doubt that journey
is the one we wanted to be on.

Paralysis by over-analysis is a thing.... but only in our own heads.

 

[JiveTurkey]

Like Them BothTM

 

[la szum]

That looks like more fun than this thread is.

 

[Alex Kenivel]

We'd need "average human ear" instead of "mic" then, huh.
Not an expert on this, tbh.

Kind of what I did what I did with some of the more recent IRs I've made of my own cabs. Measurement mic placed at my choice spot, IR shot, and A/B'ed with the source while the IR was EQed to match.