Help me decide IR-X or attenuated tube amp?

[GuitarBilly74]

The baked in cab emulation from the XLR out is post fx loop, right? Good implementation.

That's right. The IR and power amp emulation are post loop.

From the send it's basically the Dirty Shirley preamp. I have a 20w DS here and running the IR-D from the send into the Dirty Shirley return, they sound exactly the same.

 

[henrik1224]

I wasn't using the 4x12, it belonged to another band. It was all direct.

But to answer your question, you can split the signal from the effects loop. From the last pedal in the loop, use a Y splitter, one side goes back to the effects return and the other goes to your power amp. By splitting it there, there is no IR going to the power amp.

Then the IR-D out (with the IR) goes to the PA. It's very simple and easy to do.

Aha, got it. Makes perfect sense and very simple to keep rigged up on the pedal board.

 

[Jarick]

I like the IR-X but would rather have the IR-D. Seems more versatile, maybe more organic?

 

[GuitarBilly74]

Could you comment on the IR-D compared to your amps? Where's the difference in sound or feel in a real-world scenario in your opinion and experience? I know it's subjective, but it is the kind of comparative experience that I am really hoping to hear about. Thank you, I appreciate the time and effort!

It feels and sounds like an amp. Full stop. I didn't notice anything different, other than not having the sound coming out of the 4x12 on my back.

Compared to my amps? The closest is my Dirty Shirley Mini, for obvious reasons. The Marshalls are different, but they're also different from each other, that's the point of having different amps. :)

But the IR-D sounds like a legit tube rig because well, for the most part, it is one.

I've had a bunch of modelers, a Kemper etc and I didn't like any of them, I had all but given up on DI rigs. A lot of people like modeling, so I won't get into it, but it's just not my thing.

But I don't feel like I'm compromising anything as far as the live sound goes by using the IR-D.

 

[GuitarBilly74]

I like the IR-X but would rather have the IR-D. Seems more versatile, maybe more organic?

I had both. I didn't get along with the IR-X, it sounded a bit thin and overly bright for my taste.

The IR-D is fatter and more organic. But that's just my taste, maybe the X is better for some styles.

 

[henrik1224]

It feels and sounds like an amp. Full stop. I didn't notice anything different, other than not having the sound coming out of the 4x12 on my back.

Compared to my amps? The closest is my Dirty Shirley Mini, for obvious reasons. The Marshalls are different, but they're also different from each other, that's the point of having different amps. :)

But the IR-D sounds like a legit tube rig because well, for the most part, it is one.

I've had a bunch of modelers, a Kemper etc and I didn't like any of them, I had all but given up on DI rigs. A lot of people like modeling, so I won't get into it, but it's just not my thing.

But I don't feel like I'm compromising anything as far as the live sound goes by using the IR-D.

This is pure gold. Thanks. Exactly what I was looking for. I think my experience with modellers has been like yours so good to hear that the Friedman units has 'that' feel and sound . Thanks again

 

[henrik1224]

Thanks everyone.

Got some great advice and valuable lessons learned.
Gonna go with the IR-X first and run it through the newest update. If nothing else, it sounds like a good choice for a fly rig

Then we'll see if it's worth it to have an attenuated head as well.

I appreciate the time and consideration given

Cheers
Henrik

 

[Byrdman]

Not the IR-X,but I have the IR-D and several Marshalls I use with or without attenuators: Super Lead, 2203, DSL100, 3203 etc

I started to use the IR-D live a few weeks ago due to an emergency (it was my backup and my main rig went down) and I was really impressed with how it sounded. I've done another 3 shows with it since then and will probably start using it as my main live rig moving forward. The IR-D is very close to an amp and probably the most realistic DI sound I've had so far, miles ahead of the modeling I've tried before.

If I owned the amps you do and played live all the time, I would definitely capture my amp collection to go direct. I would think that NC was made for someone in your situation.

 

[Whizzinby]

I had both. I didn't get along with the IR-X, it sounded a bit thin and overly bright for my taste.

The IR-D is fatter and more organic. But that's just my taste, maybe the X is better for some styles.

That was my experience with the IRX. I’ve wondered if the new uodate for power amp emulation helped. The core sound was great, but it lacked some thump on the bottom.

 

[Jarick]

That was my experience with the IRX. I’ve wondered if the new uodate for power amp emulation helped. The core sound was great, but it lacked some thump on the bottom.

I feel like the "thump" it has was shifted up a little too high, so you'd want to use the "tight" switch to dial it out. But then you're missing that really deep speaker thump feel. I'm too lazy to measure the IRX but would be curious if that got shifted down with new power amp modeling. Also there is a deep switch on the unit that may help here, so maybe turn that up and then use the tight switch?

 

[dk_ace]

Personally, I found the “combo amp plus a DI splitter and attenuator” rig to be too much trouble. I was much happier with a modeler than I was with that rig. I’ve got no problems with just bringing an amp when it makes sense, but needing that extra stuff all the time was too fussy for me. Now, I’m playing an amp or I’m playing direct.

This was mainly a pain for me because some of the gigs required silent stages, so I’m lugging a heavy amp plus extra outboard gear just to end up with a DI experience. A modeler or preamp with built in cab sim beats the pants off an amp rig in those scenarios IMO. YMMV, but I didn’t notice much difference in playing experience when comparing them as DI solutions only.

I hope that IR-X does the trick for you. It’s far simpler than the other alternatives you’re considering.

D

 

[henrik1224]

Personally, I found the “combo amp plus a DI splitter and attenuator” rig to be too much trouble. I was much happier with a modeler than I was with that rig. I’ve got no problems with just bringing an amp when it makes sense, but needing that extra stuff all the time was too fussy for me. Now, I’m playing an amp or I’m playing direct.

This was mainly a pain for me because some of the gigs required silent stages, so I’m lugging a heavy amp plus extra outboard gear just to end up with a DI experience. A modeler or preamp with built in cab sim beats the pants off an amp rig in those scenarios IMO. YMMV, but I didn’t notice much difference in playing experience when comparing them as DI solutions only.

I hope that IR-X does the trick for you. It’s far simpler than the other alternatives you’re considering.

D

Thank you. Very nice to get that perspective. It sounds like your requirements resemble mine.

I'm gonna go for the IR-X as the basis for a direct/back line amp set-up and try that out. It has been nice to hear about different (positive experiences) and - I agree - it is fairly simple. Also fairly cheap and very light. Furthermore I can run my trusted 4-cord analog setup directly from a pre built board and just plug in to whatever the house wants.

I don't play silent stages, though, and always have a back line amp for direct monitoring. - but only just loud enough to be able to hear myself directly in a concert setting.


Thank you for your thoughts. I appreciate it.

 

[Jarick]

Compared my Orange Rocker 15 into a Torpedo Captor vs Friedman IR-X finally, both running in the loop of an Axe FX 3 which is handling the cab IR and effects. Normally I don't like the Rocker 15 with a real cab but I like it a lot more into the Captor and IR. It's a lot less fizzy and harsh and I can open it up a little more even though I'm still running in "Bedroom" mode which is like 1 watt (that's pretty loud through a 1x12 even at 1/3 volume).

The Rocker 15 sounds a little more natural where the IR-X needed more tweaking and didn't sound quite as good. I can't say how much is the difference in the amp vs having all tube vs poweramp simulation. I would guess the IR-D sounds more natural closer to the Orange amp. But that's what I'm hearing anyways.

I will also say the Axe 3 amp when dialed in sounded pretty dang good too, but always had more presence. The IR-X with the new firmware seems to have less top end.

 

[laxu]

For a dark horse option that is somewhere in between your options, you could consider the BluGuitar Amp 1 Mercury Edition. It's a full 100W amp in a ridiculously small and light size and soundwise will do what you want.

The issue for your uses is that it only has an analog cab sim, which is ok for live but probably not the option you want to use when recording. So you'd still need a cab sim option. BluGuitar's BluBox cab sim is perhaps the best option for it, but it's not cheap and is hard to get atm.

You could plug a Captor X into it without issue. Two Notes Cab M would be a solid option too, because the BluGuitar does not necessarily need a load on it, though it sounds better with one. If you are always using a real guitar cab with it, then Cab M would work well.

It's just a question of where you want your tradeoffs: With Friedman IR-X or IR-D you need a poweramp if you want to use a guitar cab, with the BluGuitar you need a cab sim for recording or silent practice (or you compromise by using headphones with the analog cab sim).

 

[GuitarBilly74]

For a dark horse option that is somewhere in between your options, you could consider the BluGuitar Amp 1 Mercury Edition. It's a full 100W amp in a ridiculously small and light size and soundwise will do what you want.

The issue for your uses is that it only has an analog cab sim, which is ok for live but probably not the option you want to use when recording. So you'd still need a cab sim option. BluGuitar's BluBox cab sim is perhaps the best option for it, but it's not cheap and is hard to get atm.

You could plug a Captor X into it without issue. Two Notes Cab M would be a solid option too, because the BluGuitar does not necessarily need a load on it, though it sounds better with one. If you are always using a real guitar cab with it, then Cab M would work well.

It's just a question of where you want your tradeoffs: With Friedman IR-X or IR-D you need a poweramp if you want to use a guitar cab, with the BluGuitar you need a cab sim for recording or silent practice (or you compromise by using headphones with the analog cab sim).

I also have the BluGuitar ME and I love it, but I usually play it through a cab. The analog cab out of the BluGuitar is actually not bad, the main limitation is that it's controlled by the amp's master volume, so if you're using the DI and a cab its hard to get a balance between the stage volume and the signal going to the FOH. So getting an IR loader is a good idea.

Overall, I prefer the IR-D for a purely DI application. I think it sounds a big fatter and more organic.

But both are great units. They also work great together. The IR-D effects send into the BluGuitar fx return is a great portable rig!

 

[aivoryuk]

Looks like Friedman are announcing the IR-J

 

[henrik1224]

Compared my Orange Rocker 15 into a Torpedo Captor vs Friedman IR-X finally, both running in the loop of an Axe FX 3 which is handling the cab IR and effects. Normally I don't like the Rocker 15 with a real cab but I like it a lot more into the Captor and IR. It's a lot less fizzy and harsh and I can open it up a little more even though I'm still running in "Bedroom" mode which is like 1 watt (that's pretty loud through a 1x12 even at 1/3 volume).

The Rocker 15 sounds a little more natural where the IR-X needed more tweaking and didn't sound quite as good. I can't say how much is the difference in the amp vs having all tube vs poweramp simulation. I would guess the IR-D sounds more natural closer to the Orange amp. But that's what I'm hearing anyways.

I will also say the Axe 3 amp when dialed in sounded pretty dang good too, but always had more presence. The IR-X with the new firmware seems to have less top end.

Thanks. Appreciate that comparison

 

[henrik1224]

Looks like Friedman are announcing the IR-J

Which does look interesting! Thanks for the heads up, cheers

 

[henrik1224]

For a dark horse option that is somewhere in between your options, you could consider the BluGuitar Amp 1 Mercury Edition. It's a full 100W amp in a ridiculously small and light size and soundwise will do what you want.

The issue for your uses is that it only has an analog cab sim, which is ok for live but probably not the option you want to use when recording. So you'd still need a cab sim option. BluGuitar's BluBox cab sim is perhaps the best option for it, but it's not cheap and is hard to get atm.

You could plug a Captor X into it without issue. Two Notes Cab M would be a solid option too, because the BluGuitar does not necessarily need a load on it, though it sounds better with one. If you are always using a real guitar cab with it, then Cab M would work well.

It's just a question of where you want your tradeoffs: With Friedman IR-X or IR-D you need a poweramp if you want to use a guitar cab, with the BluGuitar you need a cab sim for recording or silent practice (or you compromise by using headphones with the analog cab sim).

Good points there. I had forgotten that the Blu has its own power amp which is an important feature. Thanks