Dynamic IR ecosystems vs standard IRs?

[Shredder777]

I've been researching the Two Notes Opus and it looks like a really nice cab sim solution (with some extra preamps on the Cab M).

They have DynIRs which is a collection of IRs that enable you to position the mic(s) on the cab. Most of the latest software solutions like Amplitube/GuitarRig/etc have this concept.

Some of the hardware modelers have this implemented to varying degrees. I believe the Fractal do this (in software). The Tonemaster Pro does it (on device). And I'm certain there are IR collections that have multiple position captures that you can navigate with your scroll wheel to change mic position, so if your modeler doesn't have a built in dynamic IR solution, you can still hunt and peck navigate through them.

In YOUR experience, are dynamic IR solutions more better than individual IRs? The problem with dynamic IR libraries is that they don't seem to be compatible with one another.

IOW does having something like a Two Notes Opus help your sound? Or do you just find a collection of IRs you like and load them into whatever you are using?

Also, extra points for your opinion on tube amp simulation. Does simulated tube saturation work in a desirable way? A decade ago when I was recording with my iso cab, there was a sweet spot with the amp where it made it sound more alive, but if you went too far it lost headroom and could sound flubby. So there was a creative element of balancing amp's EQ, with the level of tube saturation, and the position of mics.

Worth buying an Opus? Or is tube simulation/dynamic IRs just achieving the same thing that regular IRs have been doing for a decade?

 

[laxu]

I've been researching the Two Notes Opus and it looks like a really nice cab sim solution (with some extra preamps on the Cab M).

They have DynIRs which is a collection of IRs that enable you to position the mic(s) on the cab. Most of the latest software solutions like Amplitube/GuitarRig/etc have this concept.

Some of the hardware modelers have this implemented to varying degrees. I believe the Fractal do this (in software). The Tonemaster Pro does it (on device). And I'm certain there are IR collections that have multiple position captures that you can navigate with your scroll wheel to change mic position, so if your modeler doesn't have a built in dynamic IR solution, you can still hunt and peck navigate through them.

In YOUR experience, are dynamic IR solutions more better than individual IRs? The problem with dynamic IR libraries is that they don't seem to be compatible with one another.

For me, yes. Instead of relying on someone else's idea of where mics should be placed, they can be easily moved and swapped. I mainly use ML Sound Lab MIKKO 2, which can export an IR in various formats for whatever cab setup you build. That's very handy as I can then take my favorite IRs and slap them on just about anything.

It's true that many have proprietary systems that don't work with anything else.

Also, extra points for your opinion on tube amp simulation. Does simulated tube saturation work in a desirable way? A decade ago when I was recording with my iso cab, there was a sweet spot with the amp where it made it sound more alive, but if you went too far it lost headroom and could sound flubby. So there was a creative element of balancing amp's EQ, with the level of tube saturation, and the position of mics.

I guess you mean poweramp simulation? Depends on what you are running into it. If it's a preamp only device, then yes you can benefit from poweramp simulation. It will sound alright without it, but I think it does elevate the sound. I have no idea how good the poweramp sim on the Two Notes is.

Worth buying an Opus? Or is tube simulation/dynamic IRs just achieving the same thing that regular IRs have been doing for a decade?

Movable mic cab sims produce a mixed IR, so they are the same deal. The value is in being able to build your own, but that might not be important if you love the way a particular IR vendor does their stuff.

 

[Shredder777]

Movable mic cab sims produce a mixed IR, so they are the same deal. The value is in being able to build your own, but that might not be important if you love the way a particular IR vendor does their stuff

I'm not that picky. I audition some IRs, find one that sounds in the ballpark and then just adjust eq.

But when I was working with multiple real mics, the position of the sm57 was very important. You could put it really close to the dust cap and off axis to get a really articulate sound, then pad it out with bass from the other mic. But its kinda a waste of effort because you can do similar things with EQ.

So I'm not really sure where I stand on the utility of something like the Opus. I guess the same advice applies: buy it and return it if don't like.

 

[ian_dissonance]

I use both equally, for the most part. Those “movable mic” options are also just scrolling through a list but you’re scrolling via a little animated microphone.

 

[Boudoir Guitar]

I've been researching the Two Notes Opus and it looks like a really nice cab sim solution (with some extra preamps on the Cab M).

They have DynIRs which is a collection of IRs that enable you to position the mic(s) on the cab. Most of the latest software solutions like Amplitube/GuitarRig/etc have this concept.

Some of the hardware modelers have this implemented to varying degrees. I believe the Fractal do this (in software). The Tonemaster Pro does it (on device). And I'm certain there are IR collections that have multiple position captures that you can navigate with your scroll wheel to change mic position, so if your modeler doesn't have a built in dynamic IR solution, you can still hunt and peck navigate through them.

In YOUR experience, are dynamic IR solutions more better than individual IRs? The problem with dynamic IR libraries is that they don't seem to be compatible with one another.

IOW does having something like a Two Notes Opus help your sound? Or do you just find a collection of IRs you like and load them into whatever you are using?

Also, extra points for your opinion on tube amp simulation. Does simulated tube saturation work in a desirable way? A decade ago when I was recording with my iso cab, there was a sweet spot with the amp where it made it sound more alive, but if you went too far it lost headroom and could sound flubby. So there was a creative element of balancing amp's EQ, with the level of tube saturation, and the position of mics.

Worth buying an Opus? Or is tube simulation/dynamic IRs just achieving the same thing that regular IRs have been doing for a decade?

Fractal does it on unit, not just software editor.

 

[saarangnarayan]

I was never quite excited by the “moving mic” UX and much prefer the unfreedom of a fixed list. I never get why people think that an infinitely movable mic interface is “easier” and quicker for getting the cab tones you like vs. a short list of IRs that are pre-selected as sweet spots. I still have MIKKO2 because I love ML Sound Lab’s IR packs and wanted to see if I could get any more interesting sounds out of those same cab and speaker combinations, but I still run “traditional” IRs 99.99% of the time.

 

[Jarick]

It depends on the cabs really. For me generally if I like the sound of a cab (like Dyna Cab or QC cabs) then I won't fuss with the settings much. Same with IR's, if it's a good sounding cab then I don't have to dig through a lot of the options in that IR pack.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

The reason I made mine the way I do is I hate being locked into a handful of mic positions. Scrolling through a list of IR’s that change randomly is not a way I like to work. What works for one song is usually going to be off on another, so being able to tweak is really useful.

With speakers captured in full, you can adjust IR’s with some idea of how it’ll affect the sound. So even though you have way more IR’s it’s actually easier to find what you need.

 

[DrewJD82]

I didn’t think I was going to use the DynaCabs in the Fractal much, but I haven’t loaded a single static IR since they were introduced and have zero intention/desire to do so. The IR search always took me the longest to sort out when dialing in a tone, now it’s one of the quickest and if you want to change it, you don’t have to go back and find the same pool of IR’s to get one similar-but-different, you just drag the mic over a pinch until you’re there.

 

[TheTrueZoltan!]

I might be in the minority here but to be honest I prefer single IRs. Moving the mic position seamlessly is of course the more realistic and flexible way, but I tend to get lost in those unlimited options and actually prefer to have some limitations. But that‘s just me. I definitely understand why other people might prefer to be less limited.