Friedman IR-J (Jake E Lee?)

Repeating others but I’d really like a SSv2-X offering. Are you there Dave? Can you dig it?

And keep all of the switches when you build an X model. Saturation, bright, tight, +, whatever…
 
Shredder777 said:
:facepalm

I was so excited for this. Thanks for letting me know!

It doesn't make any sense. If the conversion was post loop, it would be an unadultered tube preamp. I can't see any reason for the conversion to be any sooner in the chain. Unless they are using it to modify the sound of the preamp with EQ or other nonsense.

Maybe that is their objective. They have this modular design, where they can alter the signal leading into the preamp. Would allow them to crank out more variations.
Click to expand...

Yeah, a lot of people find it an odd choice.

Dave Friedman justified it on the FaceBook IR-X & IR-D Users Group page here:

1732815706887.png


But it still doesn't really make sense to me; no matter how much I think about it... and believe me, I keep thinking about!

Time will tell when they release the "cool feature" I suppose.
 
Shredder777 said:
If the conversion is before the send loop, that means there are two rounds of conversion if you use the loop.

Unknown what total latency will be. 4-1 is still 3ms. I don't want to put anything like that in the loop of my FX processor.
Click to expand...

The latency is actually pretty low following the recent firmware update.

Dave recently stated, "The latency was reduced to basically 2ms ( inc the loop) 1 ms without loop and or 1 ms if just using the loop.."
 
Shredder777 said:
I'm glad everyone else has the same reaction to this. I'm not crazy.

I saw the friedman boxes as a friendlier version of the Synergy modules, but as soon as they are going through conversion, it opens the door for alternatives like digital AIAB like Ampworx pedals.

He will probably add something like EQ curves, maybe delay or simple effects.

Also, you can get a DSL100hr for $850. Charging $600 for this is a little nuts. I'm now looking at a DSL as a way to get analog marshall tones into my recording chain.
Click to expand...

I can tell you that the DSL100H makes a hell of a power amp for this pedal. The Resonance and Presence on the DSL add more tonal options.
 
Shredder777 said:
:facepalm

I was so excited for this. Thanks for letting me know!

It doesn't make any sense. If the conversion was post loop, it would be an unadultered tube preamp.
Click to expand...
Don't let that keep you from buying it. I use the IR-D Send to run it as a tube preamp into my Fryette Power Station or the loop of my heads and it works perfectly. You don't hear/feel any digital artifact at all using it that way.

And to be fair, what do we usually put in an effects loop anyway? Digital delays, reverbs etc so it's going to convert anyway.
 
Shredder777 said:
Its not the conversion so much as the latency.

If he is using good current day -123db s/n converters like many other flagship products, the quality shouldn't be an issue. OTH, if he is using older/cheaper parts it may not be the case.

If I stick it in the loop of my mfx, it has 3 rounds of ADDA. So it is pushing 5-6ms total at that point and its going to have that lazy feeling like I'm playing a computer amp sim.

I was hoping to have an all analog front end, and just route the send into pedals into amp. The appeal was an all analog front end. Also that mid hump sounds great but very produced, as texhex said its very different than his other mod marshalls. If that is built in using (say) digital eq, then its really just a direct tool.

It seems to me it is best as an all in one direct stage device. I want a tube preamp pedal without any digital processing.
Click to expand...
I hear you but the latency is not an issue, whatever he's using it's really good quality.
I compared the IR-D FX Send against a Synergy DS module (which is all analog), and they felt and sounded the same.

I'm an analog guy through and through, I don't use or like any digital modeling and the IR series is the first device with digital components that I felt sound/felt legitimate, either direct or as a preamp.

But you could consider the Synergy Syn1 and a module if you want to be all analogThen add something like a Two-Note Cab-M when you need IRs.

But again, I don't think that's necessary because the IR series work really well as preamps.
 
Shredder777 said:
Almost bought an IR-X last night. Then I see that there are 100 used ones for sale. What is going on with these? Is there a technical bug/issue? Or did everyone just capture it with their ToneX and sell it?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't use that as a metric. In comparison there are 68 used Tone X at GC and only 5 IRX
 
Shredder777 said:
I'm kinda an idiot. I don't really need a new toy to distract me during the holidays.

Against my better judgement, I ordered an open box IR-X for $350 otd. Video below compares the IRX to the IRJ. They sound like similar circuits, but the IRX has a fuller bottom a bit more gain, more modern. The IRJ looks cooler and has better boost section. The IRX is yesterday's news but it was cheap.

I realized the reason I don't play my tube amp is because it is about 6 feet away from where I sit at my computer and there isn't any reasonable way to get it closer. I'm putting together a tabletop pedalboard that I can adjust from my desk.

Honestly, both the IRX and IRJ sound very similar through the same IR. The IRX has a bit more bottom. They can probably be dialed to be virtually identical. But I really like the white/red so much better.

Click to expand...

That’s a good deal/purchase you got.

I think that the IRX is still hard to beat as it seems you can dial it in to sound like the others, or at least very close, but also seems to have a bit more tonal/dynamic range in reserve.

I have put a Para EQ in my IRX’s loop for extra tonal flexibility which makes it sort of the ultimate IR-unit in my mind.
I’ve tended to bump the low mids for extra fatness especially on Ch1.

Anyway I’m very happy with the IR-X and I love that Friedman made the IR line, as it’s such an elegant, tone full solution.
 
Shredder777 said:
I'm looking for an excuse to buy another one to have next to it. It seems like he has pretty much covered the range of his amps. It would be great if some other builders started to adopt this format; it is much better than Synergy for my purposes.
Click to expand...
I totally get it .. I still get a few pangs of GAS to also get an IR-D, just because 🤓… but I think I’m going to hold out for the Steve Stevens model! I hope it’ll come out in the not to distant future.
Yeah I love that format.
 
Shredder777 said:
Almost bought an IR-X last night. Then I see that there are 100 used ones for sale. What is going on with these? Is there a technical bug/issue? Or did everyone just capture it with their ToneX and sell it?
Click to expand...
There’s no technical issue. I think it’s a case of “gateway drug” GAS. Folks are buying them to get some of that Friedman sound without the moolah. Some are realising they really like it to spend more and get an amp, some are realising they’re just not that into the Friedman thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Jake E Lee Mini (New?)
2 3
Replies
56
Views
4K
Bruce
Bruce
G
Friedman IR-P (plex)
Replies
16
Views
1K
PBGas
PBGas
Ed DeGenaro
Black Friday and Amalgam put together a special donation Tonex/QC pack for me....
Replies
4
Views
675
kartikg3
kartikg3
deepskyone
Over-engineering my silent practice rig: IR-J + VP4
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
Baba
Baba
Jarick
Hybrid Pedalboard with Friedman IR-X, HX Stomp, and Analog Pedals
Replies
13
Views
977
synthpenguin
S
Back
Top