Need an "listening from another romm" impulse

[DrHans]

Hi!
I woulld like an impulse recorded from another room to give that listening from another room effect.

Maybey with the door closed.

Does someone have that or can make it?

Best Regards / DrHans

 

[TheWinterSnow]

you can experiment, if it is door closed i would just do a LP filter. If you want door opened it would be the opposite, do an exciter type effect and roll the mid lows leaving the sub bass intact and just upper mids

depending on the simulation of the size of the room you want the live sound to be in, you can add echo and reverb before the LP or HP filters to get the effect as if the music is bouncing off the walls before it leaves the room.

That would be an idea if you can't find an impulse since all that is happening when sound travels through the wall is that it echos and naturally low passes the entire sound.

 

[Torniojaws]

Why not just play back the stuff from your monitors and record that with a mic in a different room? It will also sound a lot better than an impulse of it would

 

[006]

+1 to that, done it a few times to get that effect, works well

~006

 

[schnarf2]

Why not just play back the stuff from your monitors and record that with a mic in a different room? It will also sound a lot better than an impulse of it would

It would be exactly the same. It's all linear.

 

[PostMortem1666]

It would be exactly the same. It's all linear.

Are you seriously saying that an impulse and a mic at the same position will sound the same?

 

[schnarf2]

Are you seriously saying that an impulse and a mic at the same position will sound the same?

Put the mic at whatever position. Record a swept sine being played from the speaker and perform deconvolution to extract the impulse response. If you record audio being played through the speakers with the same mic setup, the result will sound exactly the same as convolving the dry signal with that impulse response.

 

[abyssofdreams]

Put the mic at whatever position. Record a swept sine being played from the speaker and perform deconvolution to extract the impulse response. If you record audio being played through the speakers with the same mic setup, the result will sound exactly the same as convolving the dry signal with that impulse response.

:zombie:

 

[Melodeath]

Yep

 

[schnarf2]

I mean, if you want to be overly pedantic it won't be exactly the same because first of all arithmetic on a computer has limited precision. Then there's slight nonlinearities in the speaker and microphone, and the system isn't exactly time invariant cause odds are the air temperature isn't perfectly constant over time. But those will be all incredibly small differences, and nothing that anybody would or could notice. It's pretty much exact.

 

[PostMortem1666]

To me there is a noticeable difference between an impulse and the miced equivalent. And I am not trying to be an "audio snob" or "pedantic" I am just saying that I would much rather mic a cab than use an impulse any day.

 

[Sloan]

There is a sweet "outside small room" setting or something in GLACEVERB - it's a free reverb plug.
DO IT BRAH!!!

 

[schnarf2]

To me there is a noticeable difference between an impulse and the miced equivalent. And I am not trying to be an "audio snob" or "pedantic" I am just saying that I would much rather mic a cab than use an impulse any day.

And what I am saying is if you mic the cab up in the way you want, and capture an impulse, they will be exactly the same. You could even compare the results bit by bit and the numbers will match up.

What I'm saying isn't something subjective, this is how it all works mathematically.

Unless you're really cranking the shit out of the speakers and they're distorting. But in a case like this where you want the sound of listening from another room, there's no nonlinear distortion involved in that sound.

 

[006]

Well, you just proved his point by saying "this is how it all works mathematically." Which, to some degree, is completely true. But sonically it's not 100%, which is why a lot of people are still not completely faithful when it comes to impulses yet. If you ever want to know exactly what it is, sonically, that isn't correct with impulses just PM Moonlapse or search the forum for his comments on impulses, his argument is sound - no pun intended. I, for one, will gladly use impulses because I feel that they aren't that far off and unless I am producing huge label-contracted releases I don't care that it's only like "95% there" as some would say.

~006

 

[abyssofdreams]

And what I am saying is if you mic the cab up in the way you want, and capture an impulse, they will be exactly the same. You could even compare the results bit by bit and the numbers will match up.

What I'm saying isn't something subjective, this is how it all works mathematically.

Unless you're really cranking the shit out of the speakers and they're distorting. But in a case like this where you want the sound of listening from another room, there's no nonlinear distortion involved in that sound.

impulses are static whereas a mic'ed up cab is not which results in a flat undynamic and 2d guitarsound with impulses. you can hide that a lil bit in a mix but it is always inferior sounding.

nuff said.

 

[abyssofdreams]

There is a sweet "outside small room" setting or something in GLACEVERB - it's a free reverb plug.
DO IT BRAH!!!

Thanks, that preset is actually quite usable!

 

[schnarf2]

impulses are static whereas a mic'ed up cab is not which results in a flat undynamic and 2d guitarsound with impulses. you can hide that a lil bit in a mix but it is always inferior sounding.

nuff said.

The words you're using are totally meaningless.

 

[abyssofdreams]

The words you're using are totally meaningless.

no. they mean impulses are not the same. period.

 

[schnarf2]

Look, I'll revise my post above a bit:

Yes, if the speakers are distorting a bit, there's a difference. What bugs me is this touchy feely approach to what that difference is. There's no mystery or subjectivity to it: if your system is linear time-invariant (and guitar speakers are nonlinear), then an impulse response fully characterizes everything about that system. No exceptions.

In the case of listening from another room, that is linear. An impulse response will fully capture that sound. If you're micing a guitar amp at bedroom levels, the speakers and cabinet are linear too, and an impulse response will fully capture that sound. If you've got the amp cranked it's a very different story, and I'll agree with you there. If there's a difference between the miced and impulse versions, then that implies your system is not LTI.

But my peeve is talking about this using words like static and undynamic: they don't mean anything about impulses. And the guy who says it works mathematically, not sonically. That's also sort of bullshit. It's possible to not here something that's going on (to not pick up on some very fine detail), but you can't hear something if it's not happening, unless you're fooling yourself. I think one of the lessons from acoustics is that all these weird effects people have been hearing are being gradually confirmed by scientific data. If you think impulses don't sound the same in some system that you're micing up, it's not because you're hearing something and the math doesn't capture that. It's because you're using the wrong model. In this case, you're trying to model a nonlinear system (guitar speaker) with a linear model (impulse response). You need a higher order Volterra kernel, like what Nebula does.

And if there is something "wrong" with impulses, a "sonic" measurement is useless. Numbers are important. Another big lesson is how subjective our hearing is. Our ears are totally ridiculous. I'm not denying that any difference exists in nonlinear systems, but subjective measurements are shit.

But in conclusion and relation to this thread, if you're trying to get a "listening from another room" sound, an impulse response will work flawlessly. To say "ew impulses" about everything is being ignorant. It's important to know what techniques are available, and to know their limitations, not to blanket reject something because in one situation you didn't like the way it sounded.

 

[abyssofdreams]

Thanks for your reply, very interesting to read, indeed.
I wouldn't dismiss the subjective perception of sound as bullshit. Yes, we fool ourselfs quite often with our hearing abilities but whereas I interpret in your post that impulses are 99% of what a real cab sounds I have to disagree with you here. I have by no means super-professional hearing but even I can always tell you the difference between a cab and an impulse. I tried it out with some blindtests and I was always right. So there, I can excluse any fooling perception there.

As for the use of words, for lack of a more precise description I choose these and I don't see why it is useless to point to the differences?
I'm using impulses all the time and it is as of yet the best way to model cabs/mics for a digital workstation if no mics/cabs are around and I certainly find impulses quite useful, if you would know some of my impulse-related posts on these boards you wouldn't discredit me as a mumbling fool just because I didn't dig deeper into what I said. These were my own observations and I've invested quite a bunch of time to research into what makes them different and why.

With your one-liner prior to this rather insightful post you didn't contribute something constructive really, so I didn't bother to reply any further up till now.

And being ignorant, man, that would mean I have no clue and I actually do have a clue. I don't give a fuck how mathematic things are, that to me is meaningless. It is all about the endresult and since I've proven to myself that impulses do not sound the same like a mic'ed up cab my point remains valid for me. If you can't hear it than your hearing is simply inferior to mine. I humbly refer to my blindtests again

It is not 99% there but more likely like 75% and that is being generous.

Thanks.