The “problem” with impulse response for amp cabinet sounds

This forum is for discussing Propellerhead's music software. Questions, answers, ideas, and opinions... all apply.
User avatar
Marco Raaphorst
Posts: 2068
Joined: 22 Jan 2015
Contact:

20 Sep 2016

mooseharris wrote:I guess rattle and hum are a thing of preference. I have a low action on my '59 Precision expressly to achieve fret rattle. Coupled with cabinet and amp rattle it tanks along nicely at high volume, so is great for gigging. My '95 Precision is set up to be less rattly, and gives a more precise sound when recording. I set my guitars up in a similar way.
Yes weird stuff :cool:

If my strat doesn't rattle it sounds like shit. I saw Lukather the other day on a video with his Luke and thought it sounded like a well balanced guitar, great for recording also.
Marco Raaphorst

Music & soundware https://melodiefabriek.com.
Check out my new ReFill Rockmen: https://melodiefabriek.com/blog/rockmen ... available/

User avatar
stratatonic
Posts: 926
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: CANADA

03 Oct 2016

selig wrote:First problem to what you've said above is that "air flows" (wind, a fan, etc.) which is true, BUT that's not how SOUND works. Sound doesn't move air, it modulates air pressure. So air can flow but sound does not.
I beg to differ...

.
Image
I think it's essential when purchasing software to understand that you are purchasing a license for the software as it is today, not necessarily some fantasy of what you want it to be, nor the ability to influence its future. J Frankel REAPER dev

User avatar
syncanonymous
Posts: 341
Joined: 16 Mar 2015
Location: UK and France

14 Dec 2017

what happened to this compelling conversation? really deep waters here
I am looking into a post I read a week or so back about bypassing the Vermillion cab sim and loading IRs into RV7000....but I can’t seem to find that thread...this thread is great, tho

User avatar
Ottostrom
Posts: 262
Joined: 13 May 2016

14 Dec 2017

syncanonymous wrote:
14 Dec 2017
what happened to this compelling conversation? really deep waters here
I am looking into a post I read a week or so back about bypassing the Vermillion cab sim and loading IRs into RV7000....but I can’t seem to find that thread...this thread is great, tho
Sounds like you are talking about the conversation in the thread "Demoing Kuassa Vermillian is Jaw droping" in the RE forum! But that was about bypassing the cab sim of the Softube amp which comes with Reason :)
Aim for progress, not perfection.

User avatar
stratatonic
Posts: 926
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: CANADA

15 Dec 2017

stratatonic wrote:
03 Oct 2016
selig wrote:First problem to what you've said above is that "air flows" (wind, a fan, etc.) which is true, BUT that's not how SOUND works. Sound doesn't move air, it modulates air pressure. So air can flow but sound does not.
I beg to differ...

.
Image
Looks like the link to my pic has vanished... so here it is again for you who missed it before...
Attachments
maxellsoundpressure.jpg
maxellsoundpressure.jpg (203.03 KiB) Viewed 786 times
I think it's essential when purchasing software to understand that you are purchasing a license for the software as it is today, not necessarily some fantasy of what you want it to be, nor the ability to influence its future. J Frankel REAPER dev

User avatar
stratatonic
Posts: 926
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: CANADA

15 Dec 2017

syncanonymous wrote:
14 Dec 2017
what happened to this compelling conversation? really deep waters here
I am looking into a post I read a week or so back about bypassing the Vermillion cab sim and loading IRs into RV7000....but I can’t seem to find that thread...this thread is great, tho
Just bypass the Softube Amp Cab, follow the Amp withe the RV7000 set to convolution mode and drag in some guitar amp impulse responses.
I think it's essential when purchasing software to understand that you are purchasing a license for the software as it is today, not necessarily some fantasy of what you want it to be, nor the ability to influence its future. J Frankel REAPER dev

User avatar
syncanonymous
Posts: 341
Joined: 16 Mar 2015
Location: UK and France

15 Dec 2017

BRIGGS was talking about both Vermillion and Softube pres :-)

User avatar
Marco Raaphorst
Posts: 2068
Joined: 22 Jan 2015
Contact:

15 Dec 2017

mostly don't like the resonance in many of the cabs. Kuassa could use some better IRs. the Soft Tube ones are not the best either. in general I love more open sound. less of that resonance in the midrange. the ringing.
Marco Raaphorst

Music & soundware https://melodiefabriek.com.
Check out my new ReFill Rockmen: https://melodiefabriek.com/blog/rockmen ... available/

User avatar
syncanonymous
Posts: 341
Joined: 16 Mar 2015
Location: UK and France

15 Dec 2017

for me, it’s just so easy to mic a cabinet...and it just sounds so much better than a virtual option
that said, I am not opposed to trying sims and IRs
thanks to all for sharing their experiences and opinions on said
it gonna save a lotta time :-)

User avatar
sublunar
Posts: 377
Joined: 27 Apr 2017

15 Dec 2017

normen wrote:
21 Jun 2016
As I said before, it perfectly captures a static combination of room, mic, mic position and sound source position.
We could argue about whether or not "perfection" has been achieved but I will completely agree about the static combination of source material. The static combination part is exactly where the limitation inherent to emulations becomes obvious to anyone who plays the equipment being emulated. If you're okay within the confines of the emulation, then you've achieved success in the quest for tone. If you're not okay with the limited source material/dynamics/etcetera, then you will prefer the real things. Unless you're not happy with either, in which case your quest for tone continues. That's all there is to it.

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3396
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

15 Dec 2017

sublunar wrote:
15 Dec 2017
We could argue about whether or not "perfection" has been achieved but I will completely agree about the static combination of source material. The static combination part is exactly where the limitation inherent to emulations becomes obvious to anyone who plays the equipment being emulated.
I don‘t know what you mean - do you move your mic while recording a guitar amp?

User avatar
sublunar
Posts: 377
Joined: 27 Apr 2017

15 Dec 2017

normen wrote:
21 Jun 2016
They are less noticeable at lower volumes, but it doesn't change their characteristic.
If something is not observable at a lower volume and it becomes observable at higher volume does it not "sound different"? You seem to be going at the question from a scientific definition, which is fine, but if something sounds different (reverb level, for example) at different volumes, does it not meet the definition of sounding different?

User avatar
sublunar
Posts: 377
Joined: 27 Apr 2017

15 Dec 2017

normen wrote:
15 Dec 2017
sublunar wrote:
15 Dec 2017
We could argue about whether or not "perfection" has been achieved but I will completely agree about the static combination of source material. The static combination part is exactly where the limitation inherent to emulations becomes obvious to anyone who plays the equipment being emulated.
I don‘t know what you mean - do you move your mic while recording a guitar amp?
As a recording engineer, have you ever moved a mic around on a speaker cab? If so, then you've noticed the HUGE difference in sound which TINY adjustments make. The mic position is baked into the sound of the emulation. But was it positioned "perfectly" when it was baked in?

Maybe you could define perfect mic placement.

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3396
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

15 Dec 2017

sublunar wrote:
15 Dec 2017

If something is not observable at a lower volume and it becomes observable at higher volume does it not "sound different"? You seem to be going at the question from a scientific definition, which is fine, but if something sounds different (reverb level, for example) at different volumes, does it not meet the definition of sounding different?
Less noticeable, not different. Like when you turn down the volume it‘s not different just because you don‘t hear it.

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3396
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

15 Dec 2017

sublunar wrote:
15 Dec 2017
As a recording engineer, have you ever moved a mic around on a speaker cab? If so, then you've noticed the HUGE difference in sound which TINY adjustments make. The mic position is baked into the sound of the emulation. But was it positioned "perfectly" when it was baked in?

Maybe you could define perfect mic placement.
Yeah, but I don‘t move it during the recording and the position is „baked in“ the recording no matter if I record a real amp or use an impulse response.

User avatar
sublunar
Posts: 377
Joined: 27 Apr 2017

15 Dec 2017

normen wrote:
15 Dec 2017
sublunar wrote:
15 Dec 2017

If something is not observable at a lower volume and it becomes observable at higher volume does it not "sound different"? You seem to be going at the question from a scientific definition, which is fine, but if something sounds different (reverb level, for example) at different volumes, does it not meet the definition of sounding different?
Less noticeable, not different. Like when you turn down the volume it‘s not different just because you don‘t hear it.
So a "noticeable" difference in the amount of reverb in a given sound doesn't "sound different" to you. Interesting.

User avatar
sublunar
Posts: 377
Joined: 27 Apr 2017

15 Dec 2017

normen wrote:
15 Dec 2017
sublunar wrote:
15 Dec 2017
As a recording engineer, have you ever moved a mic around on a speaker cab? If so, then you've noticed the HUGE difference in sound which TINY adjustments make. The mic position is baked into the sound of the emulation. But was it positioned "perfectly" when it was baked in?

Maybe you could define perfect mic placement.
Yeah, but I don‘t move it during the recording and the position is „baked in“ the recording no matter if I record a real amp or use an impulse response.
Yes but you no longer have the choice to position the mic differently. You only have the one, limited, version of a microphone placement upon a source. If you spend much time mic'ing cabs, you can hear when it's too far off the cone or too close or whathaveyou.

So to call it "perfect" is a bit of a stretch for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being that someone other than ourselves decided the microphone placement upon the axis of their choice.

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3396
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

15 Dec 2017

sublunar wrote:
15 Dec 2017
normen wrote:
15 Dec 2017


Less noticeable, not different. Like when you turn down the volume it‘s not different just because you don‘t hear it.
So a "noticeable" difference in the amount of reverb in a given sound doesn't "sound different" to you. Interesting.
Hm, do you really not understand? Or are you just trying to twist my words? I said LESS NOTICEABLE, because its at a very low volume, the mic will still pick it up and if you play it back loud you will still hear it in the same ratio as if the amp had been louder in the first place.

So to put it differently - when you stand in a room you might THINK that there is less reverb when the exciting sound is low volume. But that is just because the reverb tail is so silent your EARS don‘t hear it, but its still there at the same relative volume and will still be recorded.

User avatar
selig
Moderator
Posts: 6983
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

15 Dec 2017

sublunar wrote:
15 Dec 2017
normen wrote:
15 Dec 2017


Less noticeable, not different. Like when you turn down the volume it‘s not different just because you don‘t hear it.
So a "noticeable" difference in the amount of reverb in a given sound doesn't "sound different" to you. Interesting.
[EDIT: Normen posted above while I was writing this - still applies IMO]

I noticed you put "sound different" in quotes, but Normen never said "sound different", did he?

I could be wrong, but I believe the point being made is that things that are exactly the same WILL sound different at different levels. But that doesn't mean they ARE different.

For example, if you have subtle reverb that is 30 dB below the main signal, and then you lower everything by 30 dB, now your reverb is 60 dB lower. If your monitors aren't blasting, it's entirely possible the reverb will now be below the ambient noise level in your monitor environment, and you won't "hear" it - but it's still there, it's still exactly the same signal.
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3396
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

15 Dec 2017

sublunar wrote:
15 Dec 2017
Yes but you no longer have the choice to position the mic differently. You only have the one, limited, version of a microphone placement upon a source. If you spend much time mic'ing cabs, you can hear when it's too far off the cone or too close or whathaveyou.

So to call it "perfect" is a bit of a stretch for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being that someone other than ourselves decided the microphone placement upon the axis of their choice.
Thats exactly what I said, a perfect reproduction of ONE mic position.

That „perfect“ obviously doesn‘t refer to the decision of the mic placement but about the transfer function. If putting a sound through the cab/mic/room combo yields the same result as putting it through the impulse response of that setup then it‘s a perfect reproduction - which it is.

User avatar
Marco Raaphorst
Posts: 2068
Joined: 22 Jan 2015
Contact:

15 Dec 2017

And you can "move" from one impulse into another one by using 2 impulse responses. I guess because they are lineair. You need a few mic positions and will then be able to morph between them.
Marco Raaphorst

Music & soundware https://melodiefabriek.com.
Check out my new ReFill Rockmen: https://melodiefabriek.com/blog/rockmen ... available/

User avatar
sublunar
Posts: 377
Joined: 27 Apr 2017

15 Dec 2017

selig wrote:
15 Dec 2017
I noticed you put "sound different" in quotes, but Normen never said "sound different", did he?
normen wrote:
21 Jun 2016
Additionally, the "sound of a room" does NOT change with volume.

User avatar
selig
Moderator
Posts: 6983
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

15 Dec 2017

sublunar wrote:
15 Dec 2017
selig wrote:
15 Dec 2017
I noticed you put "sound different" in quotes, but Normen never said "sound different", did he?
normen wrote:
21 Jun 2016
Additionally, the "sound of a room" does NOT change with volume.
Looks like he said the exact opposite of what you quoted, according to what you just posted. He said it does NOT sound different, and you implied he said it did.

Just asking for clarity in what can become a confused and emotionally heated debated (I guess because our very lives depend so much on tone?!?). ;)
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
selig
Moderator
Posts: 6983
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

15 Dec 2017

Marco Raaphorst wrote:
15 Dec 2017
And you can "move" from one impulse into another one by using 2 impulse responses. I guess because they are lineair. You need a few mic positions and will then be able to morph between them.
I think eventually you need modeling. It's the same with sampling - you can sample every note at many different levels but you'll always miss "something" in between the levels. With many multiple impulse you can get closer, but with modeling (which is not quite "there" yet IMO), you get every possibility.
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
sublunar
Posts: 377
Joined: 27 Apr 2017

15 Dec 2017

normen wrote:
15 Dec 2017
That „perfect“ obviously doesn‘t refer to the decision of the mic placement but about the transfer function. If putting a sound through the cab/mic/room combo yields the same result as putting it through the impulse response of that setup then it‘s a perfect reproduction - which it is.
Your repeated use of the word perfect is quite curious. You obviously have very high opinions of the emulations and the people who set up the gear to make them for you.

Post Reply
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: winterdunkel and 10 guests