Jim Lill: "In-the-room tone doesn't matter" and he's absolutely right

GreatGreen said:
I think Jim Lill's main point is that appreciating good in-the-room tone is fine when it happens to sound good, but chasing in-the-room tone is a fool's errand. And it is.

Oh you got your in-the-room tone sounding great? That's nice. Now move your head an inch in any direction. Hey look the tone is completely different. Better start tweaking knobs again. Also, if you ask somebody to listen to your in-the-room sound with you while you play, they're going to hear something completely different than you do because they're standing in a different spot. That's just how guitar cab tone works. Now let's take that rig and put it somewhere else. Completely different tone, better start tweaking, etc.
Click to expand...
Of course when you take your rig out of your room you will most likely dial it differently. What does this have to do with anything?

When I am playing in my room (which I do a lot and so most players), I dial the tone to sound good where I am sitting in my room. It's important to me and most others, to get an inspiring tone when we are writing, practicing, jamming with tracks or whatever. That's what getting a good tone in the room means.

When I am recording or playing live I dial the tone for that situation. Obviously. That has nothing to do with the fact that when I am playing in my room, getting a good tone right then and there matters too.

And unless you are a busy touring or recording player the majority of us spend the MOST time playing guitars in our music rooms/bedrooms . How many gigs and albums are you making this year? I am actually busy with gigs and recording but that still pales in comparison to the amount of time I spend playing in my jam room. So obviously we look for gear that sounds good in this situation. And yes, in other situations (live studio etc) you will most likely have to dial it differently. So what? These things are not mutually exclusive. It's not a fool's errand to find gear that sounds good where we spend the most time using it.
 
Jim's videos strike a nice balance between being easy to watch for anyone vaguely interested in guitar, and having enough analysis for enthusiasts to sink their teeth into. It's a good example of the "common sense isn't common" style of content. No mean feat to do what he does and engage with a broad range of "the guitar community".
 
GuitarBilly said:
He's a session guitarist like Glenn Fricker is a producer.
Click to expand...
:idk Dude can play. And he's got plenty of legit side-man credentials. Plenty of people make a living in Nashville playing on demo sessions, etc., that never make it to released recordings. It takes a while (and some luck) to become Kenny Greenburg.

Honestly, I have no idea if Glenn Fricker is a good producer or not. He's a terrible YouTube personality, imo, can't play guitar, and has opinions on gear that I don't care about...

...but the proof of being a good producer is in the end product, which maybe is pretty solid? Dunno.
 
That video could've been 20 seconds and still made the same point without skipping any essential content: "your favorite guitar tones on records are recorded tones, not in-the-room tones and should be approached as such". Done.

Maybe that point needs to be repeated in the amp & cab subforum for some people but anyone who's ever used IRs should understand this very well already.
 
JiveTurkey said:
You know the deal. I LOVE amp modeling. But it has introduced a layer of "discussion" and over-analysis that cannot be overstated enough. All these oscilloscope readings but zero clips of people actually playing guitar :hmm:rofl
Click to expand...

This same exact thing happened to photography.

Suddenly all these “photographers” stopped worrying about art and started obsessing over taking photos of test screens to compare pixel level sharpness and detail.

Digital is great, but it seems like it introduces all of this additional data that can be analyzed, and some people get so distracted by that they lose focus of what they’re even using it for
 
bigcupholder said:
That video could've been 20 seconds and still made the same point without skipping any essential content: "your favorite guitar tones on records are recorded tones, not in-the-room tones and should be approached as such". Done.

Maybe that point needs to be repeated in the amp & cab subforum for some people but anyone who's ever used IRs should understand this very well already.
Click to expand...

I think the problem with the super quick approach is that so many guitar players who don't already know this stuff are such stubborn know-it-alls that they would just say "this doesn't echo what I already think, so I don't want to believe he is correct, so therefore he's wrong!" and click away.

There is some length to the video but everything in it helps to illustrate his main point.
 
Last edited:
Interesting video... Something few talk about is how an amp "sits int he mix".

Often I hear demo videos of thick, luscious guitar that'd disappear in the mix or need to be so loud it'd ruin the mix.

In my experience as a player and doing sound: brighter and less drive is often the answer......
 
GuitarBilly said:
Of course when you take your rig out of your room you will most likely dial it differently. What does this have to do with anything?

When I am playing in my room (which I do a lot and so most players), I dial the tone to sound good where I am sitting in my room. It's important to me and most others, to get an inspiring tone when we are writing, practicing, jamming with tracks or whatever. That's what getting a good tone in the room means.

When I am recording or playing live I dial the tone for that situation. Obviously. That has nothing to do with the fact that when I am playing in my room, getting a good tone right then and there matters too.

And unless you are a busy touring or recording player the majority of us spend the MOST time playing guitars in our music rooms/bedrooms . How many gigs and albums are you making this year? I am actually busy with gigs and recording but that still pales in comparison to the amount of time I spend playing in my jam room. So obviously we look for gear that sounds good in this situation. And yes, in other situations (live studio etc) you will most likely have to dial it differently. So what? These things are not mutually exclusive. It's not a fool's errand to find gear that sounds good where we spend the most time using it.
Click to expand...

I think everything you're saying here was answered in the post you're quoting.

The overall point is that in-the-room tone is never comprised of only the rig you're playing. In-the-room tone specifically refers to the way the rig you're playing interacts with the space it's in at every point within it, which means it is not actually any one specific sound. Instead, "in-the-room tone" is really just shorthand for a waveform that constantly changes at every point within the space it occupies. In that sense, in-the-room tone doesn't exist in any measurable way, because it doesn't describe any one specific tone. You can say, "my rig in X specific space when my ears are positioned exactly at point Y" represents a specific tone, but "in-the-room tone" as a general term actually represents an entire spectrum of possible sounds, the perception of which depends entirely on where your ears are.

I mean, sure, you're absolutely free to chase great in-the-room tone, but it's also important to realize what in-the-room tone is, and more importantly, what it is not. What it *can be* if you're lucky, is great for personal inspiration if you get it just right. What it is not, and inherently cannot be, is transferable to anyone or anything else, including yourself if you shift the position of your head at all after you've found that great in-the-room tone. It's also not ever going to get you the sounds on your favorite records. These two schools of dialing in amp tones are almost entirely incompatible.

Finally, I think it's also important to add that in-the-room tone doesn't have a monopoly on being inspiring. In-the-room defenders talk about it as if it's somehow inherently more special and has more mojo than any good recorded tone, but that's something I categorically disagree with. I think what happens is that most guitar players spend their money on good guitar gear, but go cheap on their own full range solutions, so any comparing they might do between Amp where I'm at tone vs mic'd tone means "great guitar rig where they get to stand in the exact spot that sounds best to them in the room" vs "great guitar rig mic'd through a cheap PA" and in that situation, yes, the in-the-room tone is probably going to win out for them. But replace the budget PA with some a real-deal full range setup to even the odds and I personally find the full range system wins every single time, even for "inspiration" and as a bonus, it can even be captured and reproduced later!
 
Last edited:
As with all of his videos, there's plenty of good stuff here. The question driving the video is a fantastic one: "What do I think good guitar tone is?". Simple question. His next point about not thinking about objects when he thought about good guitar tone is huge...how many questions in D&M forums of various types are "how do you get that [insert some wildly generic amp name here]] tone from X?" People ask about 'Marshall" or "Plexi" or "Blackface" or "tweed" or all sorts of generic stuff, not even a particular amp. And if they DO list songs/recordings they are using as a reference they are often all over the place tonally.

My only beef with his analysis is the same beef I have with most people on the internet. "Any tone that any of us has ever loved was..." He doesn't know my experience, or that my whole motivation to ever try a tele and a Vox amp came from a gig where the guitar was NOT mic'ed up and running through a PA. And his statement of "if it isn't recorded it doesn't exist" is nonsense. Indeed, the temporal, existing for only a moment in time is part of what makes live music so much more powerful than recorded music.

Whether you think its insightful, already knew the result, or whatever...the test he did at the end was semi-clever and entertaining if nothing else. I dunno. I guess I just like watching people do semi-dumb stuff that takes an extraordinary amount of work.
 
Last edited:
Boudoir Guitar said:
"Any tone that any of us has ever loved was..." He doesn't know my experience, or that my whole motivation to ever try a tele and a Vox amp came from a gig where the guitar was NOT mic'ed up and running through a PA. And his statement of "if it isn't recorded it doesn't exist" is nonsense.
Click to expand...
I think he does mention this though - it’s just that our memory isn’t really a reliable point of reference, and even if it was, all the variables involved mean it’s basically a different experience for everyone and impossible to recreate. I can think of some gigs where the tone was great, but I know that it’s impossible to even try and recreate how that sounds. Recorded tones are something you can actually listen to and reference, and it’s also possible to recreate much closer (which is what he’s getting at).
 
GreatGreen said:
I think everything you're saying here was answered in the post you're quoting.

The overall point is that in-the-room tone is never comprised of only the rig you're playing. In-the-room tone specifically refers to the way the rig you're playing interacts with the space it's in at every point within it, which means it is not actually any one specific sound. Instead, "in-the-room tone" is really just shorthand for a waveform that constantly changes at every point within the space it occupies. In that sense, in-the-room tone doesn't exist in any measurable way, because it doesn't describe any one specific tone. You can say, "my rig in X specific space when my ears are positioned exactly at point Y" represents a specific tone, but "in-the-room tone" as a general term actually represents an entire spectrum of possible sounds, the perception of which depends entirely on where your ears are.

I mean, sure, you're absolutely free to chase great in-the-room tone, but it's also important to realize what in-the-room tone is, and more importantly, what it is not. What it *can be* if you're lucky, is great for personal inspiration if you get it just right. What it is not, and inherently cannot be, is transferable to anyone or anything else, including yourself if you shift the position of your head at all after you've found that great in-the-room tone. It's also not ever going to get you the sounds on your favorite records. These two schools of dialing in amp tones are almost entirely incompatible.

Finally, I think it's also important to add that in-the-room tone doesn't have a monopoly on being inspiring. In-the-room defenders talk about it as if it's somehow inherently more special and has more mojo than any good recorded tone, but that's something I categorically disagree with. I think what happens is that most guitar players spend their money on good guitar gear, but and go cheap on their own full range solutions, so any comparing they might do between Amp where I'm at tone vs mic'd tone means "great guitar rig where they get to stand in the exact spot that sounds best to them in the room" vs "great guitar rig mic'd through a cheap PA" and in that situation, yes, the in-the-room tone is probably going to win out for them. But replace the budget PA with some a real-deal full range setup to even the odds and I personally find the full range system wins every single time, even for "inspiration" and as a bonus, it can even be captured and reproduced later!
Click to expand...
:facepalm
 
MirrorProfiles said:
I think he does mention this though - it’s just that our memory isn’t really a reliable point of reference, and even if it was, all the variables involved mean it’s basically a different experience for everyone and impossible to recreate. I can think of some gigs where the tone was great, but I know that it’s impossible to even try and recreate how that sounds. Recorded tones are something you can actually listen to and reference, and it’s also possible to recreate much closer (which is what he’s getting at).
Click to expand...
The bit I'm talking about was where he followed it up with "unless you fell in love with the sound of someone playing across the room in guitar center". I think there are plenty of people that fell in love with the sound coming straight from a guitar amp with no mic involved. Whether that's a useful reference for anything other than emotional response is another discussion.
 
GreatGreen said:
Please, do tell me exactly what point I missed with that post.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't give it a facepalm, but for live music, worrying about the microphone doesn't change any of what you typed, it just means that now you're worried about all of that stuff from the right point of view.
 
I honestly thought "in the room" meant something totally different until watching this vid, so thanks for the OP, I learned a few things today.

I often wonder about how different we are and how we interpret things differently. Like, when you eat an orange, does it taste to you like it does to me? Do we see the same pantone of blue when we look at the same blue car? Or when I hear something "wrong" with my tone, does someone else hear it too? Never really considered moving about the room, I go straight to tweaking or replacing gear. :idk
 
Boudoir Guitar said:
I wouldn't give it a facepalm, but for live music, worrying about the microphone doesn't change any of what you typed, it just means that now you're worried about all of that stuff from the right point of view.
Click to expand...

What do you mean? I was responding to GuitarBilly's post where he defended "in the room, straight from the cab only" tones and I was saying how it's fine to chase those if you want, but it's important to realize what they are and what they aren't, how elusive they are, and that they're not necessarily any better than a great mic'd tone, my point there being that there aren't any areas where in-the-room tone will always be superior to a great mic'd tone, even just for one person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top