Your IR experience, good/bad/ugly?

Both IRs and Miced setups can work great.

The issue with IRs is that people tend to all use the same variations of the same ones - that's why everyone makes fun of youtubers tones.

Most of the truly great IR tones are combinations that would be too complex to do IRL - with programs like wall of sound you can do some truly wild stuff without needing phase correction.

If you're keeping it simple, though, i.e. a single speaker/mic, if your IR tones are better than miced tones, it's generally user error.

It's democratized recording, which is a double-edged sword. Yes, people who are new can get "good" sounds, but the vast majority don't do anything genre defining or creative with it. They just copy the same sounds everyone else copies.

Because of this, miced recordings tend to be either slightly inferior or vastly superior depending on the user.
 
hit and miss for me and I've been at it since the start of covid when I went from exclusively gigging cabs to strict home recording via IRs.

I do believe people who say if you find a good IR and dial it right with the right amp, it's indistinguishable but I've also experienced amps that simply never worked well with them, lower gain vox-y, crunchy ones like BadCat, Morgan and /13. Don't know if it's something about the filtering in the amp and how they interact with the impedance curves of the load box and the many IRs available with the statistical probability that a lot will be shite..

The other issue is that in many cases the IR user will experience the tone via studio or, worst, desktop monitors so even if the tone is ok, the projection, delivery and interaction with the room can be problematic - i've experienced that too.. In a way it validates what people with the space and kit (studio) to create IRs say then their tones are indistinguishable.. in my untreated home study though it ain't..

It's also made me perhaps too picky about my tone bc all artefacts, important or not go straight to my ears. An added issue with that, for me at least, is ear fatigue when auditioning IRs so I'd suggest if one finds a decent one, just stay with it..

My solution is to record, mix and do all critical listening via Slate VSX headphone system that also has some nice spatial trickery vs other cans or room emulation apps.

I also believe that people coming from a background of recording cabs and listening through control room monitors might be quicker to acclimatise to IRs vs live players used to hear both the cab AND monitors and how those fill a bigger room..
I also find that boosting and pre-eq'ing is almost a necessity with IRs for higher gain whereas I rarely did it live playing amps with dedicated dirt and lead channels.

Long story short, I'm not there yet with IRs but sticking with them and trying to work them bc there is FA else I can do.. YMMV
 
Catthan said:
hit and miss for me and I've been at it since the start of covid when I went from exclusively gigging cabs to strict home recording via IRs.

I do believe people who say if you find a good IR and dial it right with the right amp, it's indistinguishable but I've also experienced amps that simply never worked well with them, lower gain vox-y, crunchy ones like BadCat, Morgan and /13. Don't know if it's something about the filtering in the amp and how they interact with the impedance curves of the load box and the many IRs available with the statistical probability that a lot will be shite..

The other issue is that in many cases the IR user will experience the tone via studio or, worst, desktop monitors so even if the tone is ok, the projection, delivery and interaction with the room can be problematic - i've experienced that too.. In a way it validates what people with the space and kit (studio) to create IRs say then their tones are indistinguishable.. in my untreated home study though it ain't..

It's also made me perhaps too picky about my tone bc all artefacts, important or not go straight to my ears. An added issue with that, for me at least, is ear fatigue when auditioning IRs so I'd suggest if one finds a decent one, just stay with it..

My solution is to record, mix and do all critical listening via Slate VSX headphone system that also has some nice spatial trickery vs other cans or room emulation apps.

I also believe that people coming from a background of recording cabs and listening through control room monitors might be quicker to acclimatise to IRs vs live players used to hear both the cab AND monitors and how those fill a bigger room..
I also find that boosting and pre-eq'ing is almost a necessity with IRs for higher gain whereas I rarely did it live playing amps with dedicated dirt and lead channels.

Long story short, I'm not there yet with IRs but sticking with them and trying to work them bc there is FA else I can do.. YMMV
Click to expand...
Yep. Those kinds of tones. The crunchy, lower gain amps with character. That’s all I used to want. Now I seem to be playing higher gain metal all the time. I feel it’s because that is easier to get. Seems crunch tone is only possible with real amps and a studio. Basically wealth or professional musician, of which I am neither.
 
Over the years I’ve tried a bunch of different brands IRs (ggd, ownhammer, york, two notes, mirror profiles, ml sound, neuraldsp, stl… the list goes on). It feels like some companies either have a lackluster setup or they’re adding some studio gear into the mix in an effort to make things “better”…. And then others seem to do some level of interpolation for their stuff. A combo of all of that results in the IR feeling a bit smoothed out or less detailed than what I’d expect. It’s hard to definitively say what feels authentic and what doesn’t feel authentic without seeing the AB done from the original sessions but for my ears the MirrorProfiles and York IRs generally feel like I’m actually using said mic in front of said cab. Ownhammer are also great in general. GGD contendors feels a bit less raw but pretty good/polished as well.

It’s not really a diss on other brands because they might purposefully shape their IRs to be more mix ready, but I personally want as close to the mic/cab experience as possible.

The few times I’ve shot my own IRs here the results have been dead on when comparing the real setup vs the captured IR. With your setup at zen I imagine you can build up quite the nice collection of IRs 🤘
 
IRs have allowed me to get the recorded tones that I want without all the neighbors calling the cops. I recorded my bands last EP using a Splawn QuickRod and a TwoNotes Captor X. I was able to get the amp cooking without blowing the walls off of the house...lol! It did take some time to find the "right" IRs for the tones I was after, but once I did, we were off to the races.

Live... IRs have been a God send. Consistent tone to the FOH. Every time.
 
DanTravis62 said:
Both IRs and Miced setups can work great.

The issue with IRs is that people tend to all use the same variations of the same ones - that's why everyone makes fun of youtubers tones.

Most of the truly great IR tones are combinations that would be too complex to do IRL - with programs like wall of sound you can do some truly wild stuff without needing phase correction.

If you're keeping it simple, though, i.e. a single speaker/mic, if your IR tones are better than miced tones, it's generally user error.

It's democratized recording, which is a double-edged sword. Yes, people who are new can get "good" sounds, but the vast majority don't do anything genre defining or creative with it. They just copy the same sounds everyone else copies.

Because of this, miced recordings tend to be either slightly inferior or vastly superior depending on the user.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with this. Is it easier to do wild, complex blends of a bunch of different mics/speakers with IRs? Yes, of course. Are they inherently better sounding? No, I don't think so. Many of the best IRs are still just a single SM57 or Unidyne III on a V30 in the sweet spot.
 
Workflow with ir’s can be ok or a pain. My results with ir’s have been just ok. Tried a bunch of different ones. I still like micing a speaker better. It is nice being able to swap different speaker irs at the mix stage, though I don’t find that much diffence after some eqing.
 
I think it depends a lot on your setup, workflow and what you’re doing. If you have no interest in recording or very rarely recording, and you just want to play guitar, then playing through a speaker is probably the best option. That’s how I would do it. No Reactive Load, no mic, no IR, just in the room sounds.

I like to be able to hit record and easily capture something. I like the sound of a recorded guitar and I don’t miss the cab in the room sound. So the Suhr RL going into my Axe-Fx for IR’s and time based effects then into my audio interface to studio monitors works great. Don’t have to change anything to record.
 
avastcosmicarena said:
I don't agree with this. Is it easier to do wild, complex blends of a bunch of different mics/speakers with IRs? Yes, of course. Are they inherently better sounding? No, I don't think so. Many of the best IRs are still just a single SM57 or Unidyne III on a V30 in the sweet spot.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if you're really bad at micing things, i'm sure single mic IRs work very well for you.
 
Ok cheers guys, interesting.

One thing's for sure - option paralysis is a very real problem I think most players and producers have faced. When creating my own IR's I made the 'mistake' of using tonnes of different mics in various positions. Sorting took days, but ultimately I culled it down to just two IR's per speaker - madness! One represents the speaker typically / faithfully, and the other a little brighter (or darker, or whatever) - a useful alternative basically. They take EQ well so I didn't really feel the need to go beyond this.

I still prefer miking cabs for a recording project but not because the resultant tone is inherently better, it's more of a workflow thing. Moving a mic an inch left, or a foot back is fast and easy, and I know what the result will be. With IR's this may be doable, but often leads to 15mins of clicking around.

I haven't had much luck with software that lets you virtually sweep the placement around (like Two Notes). Never sounds right to me - I would guess there's a whole lot of processing and interpolation that goes on.

But for straight up, instantly useable tones I'm now pretty sold on a good load into compensated IR's.
 
ZEN Amps said:
I haven't had much luck with software that lets you virtually sweep the placement around (like Two Notes). Never sounds right to me - I would guess there's a whole lot of processing and interpolation that goes on.

But for straight up, instantly useable tones I'm now pretty sold on a good load into compensated IR's.
Click to expand...


The Wall of Sound software is fantastic for virtual mic positioning, I would suggest messing around with it and giving it some time if you haven't.

Especially for those complex, multi-mic setups, it's become invaluable for me as far as being quiet while making recordings :ROFLMAO:
 
@DanTravis62 if I believe phase issues do come into play when blending IRs. York Audio for example gives two different files depending on whether you intend to blend or not. But I can't tell you any more than that.

... I've always wondered though, if your reactive load has a greenback impedance curve for example, doesn't that color/conflict with the sound of your v30 based IR?
 
Bad Brain said:
@DanTravis62 if I believe phase issues do come into play when blending IRs. York Audio for example gives two different files depending on whether you intend to blend or not. But I can't tell you any more than that.

... I've always wondered though, if your reactive load has a greenback impedance curve for example, doesn't that color/conflict with the sound of your v30 based IR?
Click to expand...

They do come into play, but it's a lot easier to correct for them - you can zoom in on the waveforms to literally check them out manually.

I would guess that the impedance curve does have an effect but I can't say I know for certain
 
Bad Brain said:
if your reactive load has a greenback impedance curve for example, doesn't that color/conflict with the sound of your v30 based IR?
Click to expand...
The impedance curve differs a little - but it's not all that significant in practice if you're just talking different Celestion models of the same impedance.

To get even closer though, EQ compensated IR's can help when using a particular reactive load. The mid and highs can be dialled in almost exactly, and the frequency and amplitude of the LF resonant peak can be massaged a little. In general in won't be bang on, but close enough for rock n' roll.

I think there was a company offering this in their IR packs but don't recall who, could be Mirror? Anyway it's a cool technique to get things tonally even more similar to the original cab.
 
In my limited experience, playing and recording at home, I prefer a mic on the cab, even at lower volumes.
I would rather use ear plugs and mic a cab vs IRs.
Real cab has the feel, airiness and interaction that no IR that I've tried can duplicate.
Pros to IRs: you can make a Deluxe Reverb sound like a cranked Marshall, silent or low volume recording, massage the tone any way you like, very easy to play.
All of that comes with the cost of dynamics and homoginized tone.
 
LPMojoGL said:
In my limited experience, playing and recording at home, I prefer a mic on the cab, even at lower volumes.
I would rather use ear plugs and mic a cab vs IRs.
Real cab has the feel, airiness and interaction that no IR that I've tried can duplicate.
Pros to IRs: you can make a Deluxe Reverb sound like a cranked Marshall, silent or low volume recording, massage the tone any way you like, very easy to play.
All of that comes with the cost of dynamics and homoginized tone.
Click to expand...

This is not correct.

If you think IR's don't have dynamics, then you're comparing a real cab at high volumes to an IR through monitors at low volumes. Crank a great PA or monitoring solution up to real cab volumes and those IR's get every bit as "dynamic" as a mic'd real cab through that same PA or monitoring system.

Also, saying IR's "homogenize tone" is nonsense. IR's don't homogenize amps any more than that real cab + mic combo from which the IR is made would do that.
 
TheGreatGreen said:
This is not correct.

If you think IR's don't have dynamics, then you're comparing a real cab at high volumes to an IR through monitors at low volumes. Crank a great PA or monitoring solution up to real cab volumes and those IR's get every bit as "dynamic" as a mic'd real cab through that same PA or monitoring system.

Also, saying IR's "homogenize tone" is nonsense. IR's don't homogenize amps any more than that real cab + mic combo from which the IR is made would do that.
Click to expand...
Do they feedback and interact?
 
TheGreatGreen said:
Also, saying IR's "homogenize tone" is nonsense. IR's don't homogenize amps any more than that real cab + mic combo from which the IR is made would do that.
Click to expand...
Eazy-ESP said:
Do they feedback and interact?
Click to expand...

It's not the IRs that homogenize the tone, it's the legions of lazy beginner engineer hobbyists and youtubers using the same Mesa OS v30+57 IR and Friedman/Suhr greenback IR in literally every tone for every amp in every video to the point where we feel like it's groundhog day every time we hear that godforsaken sound
 
Eazy-ESP said:
Do they feedback and interact?
Click to expand...

They absolutely can. A real cab does it because it’s generally loud enough and projects enough mids that it vibrates the guitar’s strings. Crank the system amplifying an IR loud enough and get it to project enough similar guitar string vibrating frequencies as a cab does and it will give you feedback and interaction in the exact same way.

There’s nothing magical about feedback.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top