" New IR Tech that sounds like an Amp " ...... what's the thinking on this ?

dronerstone said:
They're EQ curves, I wouldn't think any further than that. If they sound good, they sound good, but remember you're pretty much applying an EQ curve, not snake oil.
Click to expand...

Most likely, yes.

Now, I'd bet these guys are *not* doing this - however, IRs could be used for something else, too, namely a time based thing.
No, with IRs as short as 1024 (or even 2048) samples, that's not sufficiently long enough to properly transport any room information outside of the world of early reflections, but those 20something milliseconds would be fine to fool around in the time domain to, say, delay some frequencies.
IIRC, this is the way things such as the BBE Sonic Maximizer are working, as in delaying a portion of the frequency spectrum to help the other, non-delayed frequencies to stand out more. Kinda like the Haas (or precedence) effect, the earlier a signal arrives, the more prominent it gets.
It's at least something I always wanted to fool around with, maybe I should finally just start some experiments.
 
Sascha Franck said:
Most likely, yes.

Now, I'd bet these guys are *not* doing this - however, IRs could be used for something else, too, namely a time based thing.
No, with IRs as short as 1024 (or even 2048) samples, that's not sufficiently long enough to properly transport any room information outside of the world of early reflections, but those 20something milliseconds would be fine to fool around in the time domain to, say, delay some frequencies.
IIRC, this is the way things such as the BBE Sonic Maximizer are working, as in delaying a portion of the frequency spectrum to help the other, non-delayed frequencies to stand out more. Kinda like the Haas (or precedence) effect, the earlier a signal arrives, the more prominent it gets.
It's at least something I always wanted to fool around with, maybe I should finally just start some experiments.
Click to expand...
Yup, good summary there! 😎

Of course there's a bit more to IR's than just a 100% static EQ curve, but to simplify things, I approach them this way. Gives room to misunderstandings, I'm aware of that.

The thing is, and to get back on topic, even a clean amp might not be perfectly possible to "capture" within an IR, although you could get close enough, I guess.

This is why EQ-based amp matching makes use of "base models" after all. Pick a platform that has a similar response ("feel") to the target, apply EQ curve, and there's your new "amp model/capture". It'll probably sound alright, depending on the purpose.

But I'm skeptical about nailing specific amp tone/response with a mere IR file. Of course, nothing against a pleasant surprise... bring it on, change my mind! 😁
 
dronerstone said:
But I'm skeptical about nailing specific amp tone/response with a mere IR file.
Click to expand...

You could possibly get there with some IRs generated out of matching EQs (likely sort of similar to what the Kemper is doing), but you'd defenitely need at least two of them. To shape the drive characteristics and what not, it's mandatory to have one of them pre-amp (and that amp better sounded pretty close beforehand already) and a final shaping EQ/IR post-amp.
As we all know straight from the IR rabbit hole, a single post-amp IR can take you quite far in terms of how you perceive a sound, but it doesn't do any miracles to the amp's core tone in terms of dynamics and what not.
 
Way late on this but I found the thread when I was looking into the Tone Factor IRs.
As previously stated all IRs are static unless proprietary software is being used to change things dynamically. These Tone Factor ones would be static as they are just being loaded into your current software/hardware platform and it treats them no differently. Therefore they are for all intents and purposes a glorified EQ.

Having said that, here's how they shape up from the comparison video at a glance. (* however BMT/EQ could always be adjusted as would normally be the case when plugging in a different speaker to your amp)

The items have been staggered for easier visibility. You can see the offset on how you would move them to overlap. At a high level,, TF is just allowing more highs and lows through which if anyone can recall, that's how many of the first vendors did things. Then people complained and vendors started shaping things so less had to be done for mixing No real magic here. I threw in the GNR 75 OH since that's always been a favorite of mine and I judge all against it. I could have added way more favorites but the graphs gets way too busy. I'll add that the pink is 3Sigma as it's not in the IR name.


1718630444745.png
 
Achilles said:
Thank you.
Not only does TF (yellow) have the extra stuff way up high but it's got a pretty big dent between 100-300 hz.

Yuck!
View attachment 24146
Click to expand...
I wouldn't think too much into it until hearing it.
For a more amp in the room feel, many add a boost at 150Hz to bring back the thump.
As a side note, here is one of my favorites by Lancaster/Rosen and I love it when playing alone and not mixing. Marshall 1960B JMP 3.wav (although I could certainly mix with it but I would apply a -6db slope at 200hz. Just like their Ed's amp IR)

1718633464326.png
 
I think it's just business. At least to my ears.
last week ago I bought the solodallas bundle when it were on sale (I already tour with their 69G12M25 irs) but was interested by the other cabs and especially the H30.
I finally could get my fm3 back home and just messed 15 minutes to make a home playing preset with my FM3. These are just standard normal irs and it sound raw and fun as hell.

isn't that amp like enough?

 
It's all FOMO all the time.
You can pick one of many packs from one vendor and you would be able to make due with it.
I find Solodallas' strengths to be their room, U87 and U67 mics. Their 1979 pack is off the charts for me.
There are tons of great cab IRs out there and once you start mixing mics and adding EQ, you can pretty much achieve anything.

The only reason I started analyzing IRs with HOFA was that I simply can't go through tens of thousand of impulse responses from a pack and guess the differences. I'll grab a couple from a vendor and see if it's close to what I already have going on. OH has so many IRs that have micro adjustments between them. Then you will run into something that has a vastly different curve and my curiosity has to find what it actually sounds like.
 
Last edited:
I recently started using Bogren's Modern Fat Standard as a replacement for the OH GNR 75. It's not the same but it's closer than the graph would dictate. With a high cut at 5K, it's pretty scary. Add one more cut at 450 and I would fool myself.

1718644492137.png
 
My path to freedom of the whole IR rabbit hole/ FOMO phenomenon was when I decided, if the device doesn’t already have speaker simulation that makes me like the sound then don’t buy it. It isn’t my job to redesign the product to sound complete.
That started to become my standard around the time Helix introduced their new cabs and then my resolve was absolute after I bought a couple UA pedals.

For me the whole hunt for IR’s to ‘fix’ my sound was a construct of gear forum influence. Not a real need. Ironically the epiphany to reject that mind set came in part by listening, again, to demos of speaker simulations I had initially programmed my self to reject as inferior…that upon an objective review sounded perfectly awesome! Thank you Pete Thorn.
It wasn’t the speaker sim that was inferior it was a combination of my talent deficit and unrealistic expectation of getting both a great recording and in the room sound that was just like a guitar cabinet at volume from the same signal path.

TLDR:Your DI sound shouldn’t be your Live Room sound. Accept that and you are free from a huge time suck.
 
Enchilada Jones said:
My path to freedom of the whole IR rabbit hole/ FOMO phenomenon was when I decided, if the device doesn’t already have speaker simulation that makes me like the sound then don’t buy it. It isn’t my job to redesign the product to sound complete.
That started to become my standard around the time Helix introduced their new cabs and then my resolve was absolute after I bought a couple UA pedals.

For me the whole hunt for IR’s to ‘fix’ my sound was a construct of gear forum influence. Not a real need. Ironically the epiphany to reject that mind set came in part by listening, again, to demos of speaker simulations I had initially programmed my self to reject as inferior…that upon an objective review sounded perfectly awesome! Thank you Pete Thorn.
It wasn’t the speaker sim that was inferior it was a combination of my talent deficit and unrealistic expectation of getting both a great recording and in the room sound that was just like a guitar cabinet at volume from the same signal path.

TLDR:Your DI sound shouldn’t be your Live Room sound. Accept that and you are free from a huge time suck.
Click to expand...
I can respect that opinion. IR testing can certainly be a time waster. However, none of these devices are perfect. It's difficult to say if I would abandon any product for one shortcoming. Well, I did when my QC started crashing. Since they are organic products things can change. Like you said, before the Helix recab, I found IRs more imperative. Now, not as much. I can also say that I don't vibe with the Fractal Dynacabs. That's no shock. Out of the 100 or so factory cabs that I do use, none were made by FAS. I hear the new York one is good though. For platforms like NAM you need IRs regardless. Depending on the capture, it may warrant a different IR selection.
 
Last edited:
@dean701 - thanks for the graphs and visualizations! That's a good way to look at things impartially.

One point of feedback is that a single 57 on the speaker cap is extremely bright, so may not be the best point of comparison. I have found that the Tone Factor mixes can be a bit dark, although the 57's are more on the bright side.

I do think that overall, they are good IR's. I have a few of them, the AC30 with Greenbacks, a Marshall 4x12, and the Orange 4x12. The AC30 and Orange are really cool. There's some things they do very well. But I don't think they are necessarily a magic bullet.

Their marketing is stupid IMO. Way over the top hyperbole. I am guessing they decided to basically be cartoonish in the approach, although I do like how they did a detailed comparison video. But that's just marketing, I can look past that.

I personally don't think any brand is head and shoulders better than another. They have different sonic signatures, that's all. I like the tones of and respect the hell out of both Justin York and Kevin from Ownhammer. My two favorites overall. There's a lot of other good brands, and bad brands too.

I will say that ideally you wouldn't need IR's at all. I'd prefer cabs that you can move around and mix, so the modern approach like Dyna Cabs, the newer Helix, Neural, etc. I think that's easier to use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BenIfin
Modeller "Dynamic Range" ... how meaningful is it for Guitar Modellers ?
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
FractalAudio
F
P
Switching presets on Tonex from Helix
Replies
0
Views
205
pipelineaudio
P
L
Modding an Original Amp + Tubes
Replies
2
Views
235
Byrdman
Byrdman
L
Newbie Question on the Boss Katana Artist MKII
Replies
2
Views
382
laxu
laxu
TSJMajesty
Anyone Hear Weezer's Covers?
Replies
7
Views
312
Whizzinby
Whizzinby
Back
Top