The ultimate IR, NEBULA, REAL DEAL test
- Thread starter Skaldir
- Start date
Ermz
¯\(°_o)/¯
I think we may be hitting some common ground here.
Either way, keen to see what comes of Morgan's thread. If we've all collectively picked the IR in that one, then I give up... am officially perplexed. I do hope someone makes some good Nebula programs for this purpose though, and we can see whether it's more filter-friendly.
sorry for a long post...
Sweep also ran through the power amp.
No problem, although I'm a bit sad this thread turned into a bitchfest
BUT I want to add that I have the feeling a lot of the impulses out there are not done corretly. Some are way too short (0.2 ms), some even have some DC offset in 'em. Some sound flat, cause they are obviously made with a non-guitaramp transistor-amp. Check out yourself, don't want to badmouth somebody.
Another thing I wanted to mention...
I wonder if there is any scientific prove about this whole "moving air sounds dynamic" thing. And btw. air is being moved when creating an impulse from the sinewave, too. (And the clean guitar tracks also moved air, but in that case nobody is interested in this argument...)
I think impulses have a bad reputation for being "static", and this whole "moving air" has a good reputation although I think its a long kept audio myth. I would like to be proven wrong though!
The last thing I want to mention is when somebody says no to impulses, why isn't he so forceful to say no to impulse-based reverb and algorhitmic reverb also?
You would need to ran all your tracks in a mic'ed up real reverb-room.
But no, algorithmic and impulse-based reverb is common.
Sometimes I can't understand how a inferior construction like a guitar cab (standing waves, angled just out of the reason that the player can hear it well when standing in front of it - therefor phase problem, construction just made out of practical reasons) needs to get imitated 100% excat. Why in this case, 99% that the impulse can offer isn't enough?
People got used to work with all that not perfect things, but do not accept the tinyest difference to the real thing.
@Morgan
My name is Markus. Hope your foot is still intact.
No problem with using the tracks for your test. I will check it out soon.
Sweep also ran through the power amp.
No problem, although I'm a bit sad this thread turned into a bitchfest
BUT I want to add that I have the feeling a lot of the impulses out there are not done corretly. Some are way too short (0.2 ms), some even have some DC offset in 'em. Some sound flat, cause they are obviously made with a non-guitaramp transistor-amp. Check out yourself, don't want to badmouth somebody.
Another thing I wanted to mention...
I wonder if there is any scientific prove about this whole "moving air sounds dynamic" thing. And btw. air is being moved when creating an impulse from the sinewave, too. (And the clean guitar tracks also moved air, but in that case nobody is interested in this argument...)
I think impulses have a bad reputation for being "static", and this whole "moving air" has a good reputation although I think its a long kept audio myth. I would like to be proven wrong though!
The last thing I want to mention is when somebody says no to impulses, why isn't he so forceful to say no to impulse-based reverb and algorhitmic reverb also?
You would need to ran all your tracks in a mic'ed up real reverb-room.
But no, algorithmic and impulse-based reverb is common.
Sometimes I can't understand how a inferior construction like a guitar cab (standing waves, angled just out of the reason that the player can hear it well when standing in front of it - therefor phase problem, construction just made out of practical reasons) needs to get imitated 100% excat. Why in this case, 99% that the impulse can offer isn't enough?
People got used to work with all that not perfect things, but do not accept the tinyest difference to the real thing.
@Morgan
My name is Markus.
Hope your foot is still intact.No problem with using the tracks for your test. I will check it out soon.
Matt-Steele
Member
When you say "processing", I'm guessing you're meaning filtering the guitar signal after the impulse stage with something other than a digital effect like reverb or delay. I'll be the first person to tell you that you shouldn't attempt that and expect good results. I don't eq mic'ed guitars either. I do my best to get the sound I want without eq shaping.
Digital modeling is quite forgiving since you can swap out impulses (al la Redwirez huge assortment of slightly shifted impulses allowing for gentle overall changes to the guitar tone) and modify the amp eq to help shape the mix. Mic'ing a cab, you're forced to have to make adjustments after the fact or re-amp. UGH!
The impulses ultimately obviously are "processed" through the mix buss effects, but for me, I attempt to do as little eq'ing as possible. Some things like vocals you're going to have to EQ no matter what. So when you say "processing" yes, I do have to process the impulsed guitars through the master bus compression and finalizer and whatever other processing is going to happen on the mix buss, but I personally don't do anything to the guitar after it has been convolved other than possibly sending it to a reverb or delay.
Melb_shredder
Orpheus: Melodic Death
I don't really get it... You're being completely serious aren't you dude??? An impulse is as flawed as the fundamental set up you aquired it from, fucked it you need NO EQ ETC... *walks out indignantly*
JeffTD
Senhor Testiculo
I'd love to hear how you think impulses should be done then - again, I do plan on doing my own amp vs it's own impulse test in the next month or so, as well as a couple other tests I've been meaning to do.
I actually don't use convolution reverbs - I don't find them to sound at all natural or pleasant. Algo, on the other hand, CAN and DOES produce random results (you know, anomalies that make things sound more 'real' and 'analoge' but that can't be reproduced by impulses), and sounds a lot better to me as far as reverbs go.
For the moving air bit... sine waves produce moving air, but it's linear for the frequency range as it's just one weep. The volumes and dynamics aren't varied like they are when playing the riff, which is why they sound static when compared to a traditionally miced recording of the same rig.
When I say processing I mean EQ and compression. While not all distorted chains need compression, I have never in my life come across any kind of guitar tone that didn't need some sort of eq to fit the mix, so I don't find your argument to really hold any clout. Maybe they work perfectly in your mixes - on the other hand, and I really hope you don't take this the wrong way, but if your mixes/guitar tones are crap to begin with, then it's a moot point.
Given that - you're essentially supporting my argument about impulses (of the same rig) sounding worse than micing an amp, since you agree that impulses don't take processing well and I don't think it's at all realistic to expect to get a guitar tone that fits a mix without needing some sort of EQ.
As far as having to reamp or make adjustments after the fact... I take more offense to that statement and the "ugh" in response to it than I have anything regarding impulses being 'equal' to a miced setup. GOD FORBID someone commits to a tone in this day and age - everyone tweaks way too much for their own good, and mix quality suffers as a result.
JeffTD
Senhor Testiculo
I'm in total agreement, and I hate to bring this into the fray but at this point I think we have to consider the quality of his final product when reading his opinions on processing guitars.
Matt-Steele
Member
Yes. Completely.
Ask LePou for one. He knows my track record, and even stated on this board he was honored I enjoyed his LeGion amp so much because of my background. I was approached by Peavey to help head up a presets section of their website because my presets for ReValver were very popular back in the day. Redwirez contacted me asking for me original files to showcase their impulses since I use them regularly. I also use to host my own website filled with patches for guitar modeling software with samples very closely matching famous recordings.
From Redwirez...
Hi Matt,
It's mike from Redwirez here. I like the demo you posted on the Free Cabinet thread. You think we could use a variant of it on our site? We're really hurting for a good, heavy rhythm sample. The only hitch is that I need the sample without any cabinet IRs applied... just the dry, amped track. That way people can put whatever IRs they want on it. This also means any processing or effects, like EQ or reverb, will have to occur pre-cab. It would be great if we could get the backing tracks, too.
Let me know if you're interested and I'll give you an FTP address where you can upload the files.
There's free cabs in it for you
Thanks.
-- mike
You also can use pink or white noise instead of a sinesweep.
Should be really close to a preamp out sound
Actually I spend months with this shit and don't really want to share everything at the moment. But there are no real secrets, just a lot of reading manuals and bugging the software developers.
I don't wanna sound like an asshole, but I fear when I start with it, people will continue to bug ME with all that shit
Its no witch-craft though. Just try things until it sounds like the real deal. Then its as good as it gets.
I did the impulse myself. Otherwise I haven't been able to compare with the real deal. Same chain for everything.
Scottxx
Member
- Apr 23, 2009
- 631
- 1
- 18
I was not bad at all. A was clear that was the real amp. I don't own Nebula. But for my ears the worse one of the 3 sounds was the B so I thought it was the impulse. That state clear that the C sound (The impulse) was far better than Nebula to my ears. This tests are great because they show how different these sounds come to our ears and how we appreciate them in our brains.
ForHerDeadEyes
Señor Member
To make the impulse, what did you use? White/pinknoise, pulse, sweep?
And for how long?
Maybe you use different sources for different cabs, etc?
See.. people are already starting to bug you
But seriously.. I've only made IR's with a sinesweep..
Again, thanks for the test..!
C_F_H_13
Protools Guru
Wow what a shitstorm I missed. I would of voted:
A Nebula
B Amp
C Impulse
I gotta agree with Ermin/Jeff about the whole in the mix thing though. Regardless of whether we're comparing impulses or not, guitars in general are just wierd mid range noise. Listening to any guitar in solo is dumb cause you can have the best sounding solo tone, and you put it in your track and it sounds like dog shit.
I'm not going to fan the flames of this argument anymore, but I will say that Any tests in solo are dumb. Put these same 3 tracks in mixes and lets do it again.
A Nebula
B Amp
C Impulse
I gotta agree with Ermin/Jeff about the whole in the mix thing though. Regardless of whether we're comparing impulses or not, guitars in general are just wierd mid range noise. Listening to any guitar in solo is dumb cause you can have the best sounding solo tone, and you put it in your track and it sounds like dog shit.
I'm not going to fan the flames of this argument anymore, but I will say that Any tests in solo are dumb. Put these same 3 tracks in mixes and lets do it again.
guitarguru777
Member
C_F_H_13
Protools Guru
kev
Im guybrush threepwood
Haha glad I got it right, not sure that would be the case every time though I finally gave up on impulses when I created this thread.
(For those who cant be fucked to read it this was the experience)
The amp simulator with on board cab Shit
The amp simulator with impulse Better
The real deal at low volume Life! (and given a bit more volume will rock!)
I finally gave up on impulses when I created this thread.(For those who cant be fucked to read it this was the experience)
The amp simulator with on board cab Shit
The amp simulator with impulse Better
The real deal at low volume Life! (and given a bit more volume will rock!)
BlackwingGabriel
feels so good.
Wow, I'm glad I got it right. The difference is in the low end. A just sounded better. B & C (especially C) got these weird unpleasant resonance. The mids & the highs are remarkably close its scary.
Also, if you cant figure this out, maybe its down to your monitoring. I got this difference maybe because I'm lucky enough working in a treated studio with a good monitoring system (Opals).
Also, if you cant figure this out, maybe its down to your monitoring. I got this difference maybe because I'm lucky enough working in a treated studio with a good monitoring system (Opals).
The explanation could be that the most non-linearities of a speaker can be found in the low frequencies.
But congrats anyway
Similar threads
