Do multi-mic mix IRs retain time/phase information?

[Shredder777]

I used to record with two dynamic mics. I would pull frequencies from each and it sounded better than any IRs I've heard. It sounded "3D".

I had two mics, two mic preamps, feeding two mixer channels, that were EQed and mixed to one channel, then stereo reverb was applied. My thinking for the reason it sounded so 3D, was that the mic preamps were independent and possibly there was minor phase cancellation that I EQed around. And also because the mic pres were independent, it wasn't the same thing as digitally splitting a signal and running it parallel through two different IRs. Each mic path was its own thing.

But that is the only time I've had direct sounds that didn't feel like they needed double tracking. In a way they sounded like they were double tracked already , but they weren't.

Do IRs retain this information and have the ability to do this? I don't know exactly why, (maybe one of the mics was "slower" or phase cancellation gave it a 3d sound?)

I have a feeling that a mix IR won't be able to do the same thing.

 

[Foxmeister]

Do IRs retain this information and have the ability to do this? I don't know exactly why, (maybe one of the mics was "slower" or phase cancellation gave it a 3d sound?)

From the Helix 3.50 release notes, which document the new cab engine:

• Delay (Dual only)—Although the new cabs in 3.50 perfectly line up with one another, there may be situations where you want to delay one side very slightly, to perhaps impart a bit of phase incoherence or at higher values, to increase the apparent stereo spread. A little goes a long way here

 

[laxu]

Yes they can have that, or the IRs can be phase aligned. For movable mic systems, defaulting to phase aligned makes most sense.

 

[FuzzyAce]

I'll do this in HX native a lot, slightly delay one cab and start to pan each one L and R til I get what I want. Depending on the cab/mic choices you have to tweak volumes and so forth for each cab, but there is a lot of room for experimentation in the stereo image.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

defaulting to phase aligned makes most sense.

disagree. Phase relationships are too complex to assume they are either aligned or not. Blending mics is going to have a range of phase effects across the frequency range.

The mics should first be positioned in positions that represent real world use and produce good results, and then captured and preserved like that. MPT alignment should be optional, and generally speaking, I don’t think it’s very helpful.

 

[laxu]

disagree. Phase relationships are too complex to assume they are either aligned or not. Blending mics is going to have a range of phase effects across the frequency range.

The mics should first be positioned in positions that represent real world use and produce good results, and then captured and preserved like that. MPT alignment should be optional, and generally speaking, I don’t think it’s very helpful.

I find it makes it easier to work with mixing IRs, then if you want you can try reintroducing phase differences.

Even for multiple real close mics I like using phase alignment tools if I didn't get them 100% right manually.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

Even for multiple real close mics I like using phase alignment tools if I didn't get them 100% right manually.

There is no “100% right”, you’re always going to have some frequencies that add and some that cancel. There’s no guarantee you’ll like automatically aligned ones more than manually aligned ones, it’s totally user dependent. There’s obviously some combinations that sound bad but it’s trivially easy to adjust if needed.

I also don’t really like mixing IR’s so casually but that’s another discussion. My preference is always to try and keep it as true to a real world situation - generally speaking that’s going to be a single mic. If there are multiple, then I want it from the exact same cab, with the amp under the same (correct) impedance load.

I think so much of blending multiple randomly captured IR’s just leads to odd sounding digital tones. Better to pick one correct one than trying to fashion something out of 2 that ultimately aren’t quite right. But each to their own.

 

[laxu]

I also don’t really like mixing IR’s so casually but that’s another discussion. My preference is always to try and keep it as true to a real world situation - generally speaking that’s going to be a single mic. If there are multiple, then I want it from the exact same cab, with the amp under the same (correct) impedance load.

I think so much of blending multiple randomly captured IR’s just leads to odd sounding digital tones. Better to pick one correct one than trying to fashion something out of 2 that ultimately aren’t quite right. But each to their own.

I can agree with that. I think same cab but multiple mics, or same cab with multiple mic positions, FRED technique (two mics, one mic 45 degrees angled) etc can work. But I wouldn't try to do this by picking e.g a York Audio IR and try mixing it with an OwnHammer.

I recently made some IRs of my Bluetone 4x10 using a SM57 and an Austrian Audio OC16 and most of the time the single mics do just fine. I bought the Cabinetron app on sale to mess around with mixing them, but I think I need to make more IRs with more extreme positions to get something better than a single IR.