These forums are read only, please use our new forums here.

Main :: POD HD


Support forums for all POD HD products


Better than IR - Match EQ!
by mdme_sadie on 2011-05-22 17:03:58

So I sat here thinking to myself "Boy IR's really would be awesome in the Pod HD" when it caught me that this was merely competitive thinking.  I think that the Pod should have it because other hardware amp sim products do, like the AxeFX. But not because it's actually the most needed thing.

Then it came to me - Yes IR's would be nice to have, but what would be really useful to most people and not just the uber geeks is in fact an inbuilt Match EQ.

Thinking about it for a moment.  You're in a cover band, you need to nail "that" tone.  What's going to be more useful to you?  Being able to simply feed in a small snipper of the tune where there's not much but the guitars going on and build an almost perfect match, or finding out exactly what kit the band used, hunting down an IR on the net that most closely matches the cab/mic setup used and still not nailing the sound.

So while I'm not going to say we don't need IR support, because I'm a firm believer that we do.  I now think that what the pod needs that would truly set it apart from the competition in terms that the average guitarist could use, and be a huge advantage leapfrogging said competition is it's own Match EQ system.

In case anyone doesn't know what Match EQ is then it simply takes a source and destination sound file (in our case it would be the general tone/sound of a patch as the destination), compares them and creates a detailed EQ similar to an IR that makes the EQ's match between the two tracks when applied to the second track.   This is 99% of cab sound.  In fact you could turn match EQ's into IR's.  Check out this stuff http://support.apple.com/kb/TA23246?viewlocale=en_US and  http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xcirb9_logic-studio-how-to-use-the-match-e_school

For an example of exactly how Match EQ could be all you need using the HD500 check this thread by Clark Kent over at the AxeFX forums : http://forum.fractalaudio.com/lounge/32757-if-line6-pod-hd500-had-better-cabinets.html

This example uses a Match EQ to match tones and its' virtually identical between the HD sound and the original songs there.

The benefit to Line6 is that with their own Match EQ they could produce and distribute files that they have control over to generate new tones.  Or they could use IR's as the output and also support IR thus killing two birds with one stone and totally dominating this area of amp sim/tone creation.



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by mcolquitt on 2011-05-22 22:26:45

Wow this sounds amazing. I wonder what the cost of R&D would be? Honestly a great post; I love learning new things.



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by ozbadman on 2011-05-22 23:31:28

+1

Dang. More new stuff to learn. Where's the time man, where's the time??



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by mcolquitt on 2011-05-23 09:45:41

From what I am learning thanks to the links provided here as well as others, is that Ozone 4 has a type of match EQ. I am just amazed that I have never heard of this technology before this thread!



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by amgamg on 2011-05-23 10:17:56

Anybody notice there are two sliders used to fix the EQ match you just spent forever playing with?

Also the environment comment makes me wonder how many EQ matches....ummmm.... dont match up like you'd hope?

I like the EQ on cabs idea but would want a simple adjustment like if you just want to change the cabinet model.

This seems like a cool idea but it seems time consuming.



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by phil_m on 2011-05-23 10:33:11

Who wants to sound exactly like someone else? That's pretty boring. Develop your own sound that your comfortable with, and learn how to use your gear, and I'm sure you could play any cover song you wanted. I've never understood the point of covering a song to sound exactly like the original. Make it your own. If I wanted to hear something just like the original song, I'd just listen to the original song.



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by litesnsirens on 2011-05-23 10:52:47

I'm with you Phil as far as the general perspective goes, I only play covers anymore when I gig.  Original stuff is for my own fun recording at home.  Generally I want to get in the ballpark as far as the general tone ie: not gonna use a metal tone on a bluesy kind of tune, but from there I generally shape the tone to what I like, something that will serve me for a bunch of applications, as opposed to having a different sound for each song (god what a headache that would be).  That said I think there is some merit and fun in actually trying to nail a good guitar tone.  Heck, if I could nail EJ's tone in Cliffs exactly I would probably use it exclusively for almost every solo (maybe a little exaggerated).  What I am trying to say is it may not be that specific, maybe the sound of "that" guys cabinet in "that" song is what you think you need to get the sound that you want to use for certain applications. 



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by jasonbogen on 2011-05-23 14:00:45

The point is because that is what the people want to hear.  Hell, they get pizzed off when the actual band doesn't play it like the original.  That being said, I don't think it has to be perfect, but I try to get in the ballpark tone wise.  Believe me, I have been the drummer in bands where the guitar player plays everything in his style.  Not good.  If you are an original band covering a few songs in an original way ala old Van Halen that's cool, but as a cover band...not really



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by jasonbogen on 2011-05-23 14:05:37

I would also add by the way, that I don't think every tone has to be nailed.  A lot of songs use a very similar tone, I don't actually have a tone for every song, but I have a dual AC-30/Bassman with my Rick and Tele models for Petty.  However a bunch of my crunchy classic rock uses my Plexi tones. If there is a distinctive tone for the original that is what I try to nail in my settings.



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by mdme_sadie on 2011-05-23 14:16:10

phil_m wrote:

Who wants to sound exactly like someone else? That's pretty boring. Develop your own sound that your comfortable with, and learn how to use your gear, and I'm sure you could play any cover song you wanted. I've never understood the point of covering a song to sound exactly like the original. Make it your own. If I wanted to hear something just like the original song, I'd just listen to the original song.

Is that a serious post?  Match EQ doesn't magically alter your playing,

If you can't sound like yourself playing through anyone's rig then you just don't have your own sound in the first place.

Take a look at the huge "Custom IR" thread.  It's clear you're in a minority on the tone shaping side as the purpose of Custom IR's is to try and sound like something you've herad before.  Match EQ is just a stage further along from that technology in that it also takes into account the source material frequency spectrum to match the original output rather than just applying a single EQ curve regardless of the source.  It actually brings it that little bit closer.

Stop and think for a moment about this.  What if that someone else was yourself with a specific amp on a previous recording?  What if you're in a cover band?  What if you actually do want to nail someone elses sound?

The vast majority of guitarists out there are amateurs like me, not looking for anything more than to recreate the great songs that they love as perfectly as they can manage.  For them something like this would be a great boon.  FX unit manufacturors understand this, the majority of their premade patches are in fact designed to sound like other guitarists and tracks.

The ability to copy an existing tone is only one small part of what match EQ can be used for.  It's a tone shaping tool, you can use it for artistic effects there's no need to use a guitar as the input source, use a whole track, use a telephone message or megaphone to make a telephone speaker or megaphone speaker sim, use a saxophone, use anything!

You could abuse it for room tone and speaker removal (record your own speaker output, set as destination with the patch as source to get a true sound of how the actual cab models are meant to sound in neutral isolation), there's a lot of uses for it beyond doing covers and unlike IR's it's very easy to make matches yourself with any source.  If you can't think of good uses for this beyond poor mans Kemper Profiling amplifier then you've got to be creatively impared.



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by spaceatl on 2011-05-23 14:49:38

cab modeling has a long, long way to go I think...IRs are NOT the end game...too many other things going on in a speaker cabinet...

No EQ is NOT 99% of cabients' sound...You forgot all about Impedance and reactance...two things that change in real time as you play based on what you are playing and causes the amplifier to react differently...sorry, I just disagree with you on that generalization...I think cab modeling is in its infancy...just my opinion...

Ideally you would be able to change the type of wood the cab is made of, how thick it is, dampening inside...and that's just the atributes of the cabinet...Then we should be able the chaange the speakers, the impedance of the speakers, brand whatever...The cabinet it self will affect the impededance that the cabinet sees...If it is sealed the reactance will drop and impedance will go up a bit, and the tone will change in real time...it moves...This does NOT happen with IRs...They are static..While a lot of them sound good, they don't move like a real cabinet to me...But I bet one day we will have enough processing to really model a cabinet properly...In some ways I think the cab modeling itself, done right, would be more complicated and require more precessing than an amplifier model...



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by phil_m on 2011-05-23 18:39:37

Is that a serious post?  Match EQ doesn't magically alter your playing,

Well, you were certainly making it sound that way - just give the software a sample and have it spit back an impulse that lets you "nail" the tone.  I just think that there's so much more that goes into actually getting a good guitar tone - chances are that plugged into the same rigs as the people you're trying to emulate you wouldn't even sound like them.

What I'm looking for in modeling are good tones period. Tones that inspire me to play. I'm not looking for the perfect piece of software or hardware that will make me sound like a recording.

If you can't sound like yourself playing through anyone's rig then you just don't have your own sound in the first place.

I agree with this to a degree, but not very much. It really depends on what you're doing effects-wise and guitar wise. I know, too, that I would not sound like myself, per se, playing the Squier Bullet through a Frontman amp no matter how hard I try. My amp and my pedals are simply an extension of the instrument.

The vast majority of guitarists out there are amateurs like me, not
looking for anything more than to recreate the great songs that they
love as perfectly as they can manage.  For them something like this
would be a great boon.  FX unit manufacturors understand this, the
majority of their premade patches are in fact designed to sound like
other guitarists and tracks.

And that is why the majority of factory presets on multi-FX units end up being useless to a lot of people. They work under certain circumstances, but there's no silver bullet.



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by tommasi on 2011-05-24 05:56:59

I don't understand why there have been so many negative comments about this. It might be because match eq has been suggested as a way of "copying a tone" which may have rubbed people the wrong way, but in reality is only half the story. But for all intents and purposes I think this is not a bad idea, basing on these grounds:

  1. it would imply that a more complex, powerful EQ is added to the unit -- an EQ like the one on the XT/X3, for instance; many people requested this
  2. "matching EQ" can be simply a way to determine the setting of such an EQ automatically. It doesn't even need to be a facility available in the unit itself; it could be implemented into HD edit as a means to configure the onboard EQ (and besides, it might be tricky to put a sample onto the unit itself)

I think it has been established (in the IR thread and otherwise) that many adjustments could be achieved by way of a more powerful EQ, and requests for flexible EQs are consistent throughout the forum. Point 1 would take care of this. Point 2 might be useless for some and useful for others, but it wouldn't impact much on the unit itself.

Coverband tone-cloning aside, the implication being a fine-grained, powerful EQ, I'm all for it.



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by phil_m on 2011-05-24 08:11:10

I'm not trying to be overly negative - I'm just trying to inject a little perspective into the conversation. I think we all have a tendency to think that if we just get this next piece for our rig, it will sound great, and we will reach tone Nirvana. OK, I'm exaggerating, but while I think EQ is a very useful tool, I think it can also be crutch thatends up hollowing out your tone without you realizing. For a number of years, I felt I needed to depend on a EQ pedal in my rig, but them one day, I decided to turn it off, and it was like removing a blanket from my tone. I had forgotten what I was cutting and boosting. I just think that depending on it too much leads to very unnatural sounding tones, and if you're around them too long, you just get used to them. I do agree, though, that having better EQs available to us in the HD500 would be a help. But EQs should be used like a scalpel not like steak knife.



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by tommasi on 2011-05-24 08:36:44

I certainly can't argue with that! EQing to fix a bad tone means that the problem is elsewhere. The problem with the present EQs in the HD is that it doesn't lend itself too well for the tone surgery that many require.



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by mcolquitt on 2011-05-24 09:20:46

phil_m wrote:

Who wants to sound exactly like someone else? That's pretty boring. Develop your own sound that your comfortable with, and learn how to use your gear, and I'm sure you could play any cover song you wanted. I've never understood the point of covering a song to sound exactly like the original. Make it your own. If I wanted to hear something just like the original song, I'd just listen to the original song.

Why does someone always have to come in with this exact comment? I would like to know how this is NOT learning your gear. Learning anything new is good for to many reasons for me to bother listing.

If you don't understand something or someones desire to do something musically then just move on ffs.



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by phil_m on 2011-05-24 09:26:53

I'm not against learning something new. This particular idea isn't all that new. Har-Bal has been doing basically what the original post describes for eight years or so. I understand completely what he's talking about. I just think the concept is being touted as being more useful than it would be to most people. But, hey, I could be wrong.



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by amgamg on 2011-05-24 09:55:35

1mp3-player.jpg

Get one of these..its cheap..effectve...will sound exactly  like whatever you put into it. No one will ever say it doesnt sound exactly like the song its playing....best of all...just turn it on and go have a beer. No playing nessary



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by mtreehugger on 2011-05-24 10:24:28

"It doesn't even need to be a facility available in the unit itself; it could be implemented into HD edit as a means to configure the onboard EQ (and besides, it might be tricky to put a sample onto the unit itself)"

This makes the idea kind of a no-brainer IMO.  Any tone that would be matched would be a clip stored in one's computer anyway, so we'd just click on the Match EQ button in EDIT and then save the patch.  The restriction here is that the pod would need to be able to play what the computer determines as the tone, which might mean a new "Match EQ" effect (for lack of a more marketable term) for the HD is required in order to play back the tone.  Be that as it may, IMO it seems to make a lot more sense to do the actual matching in our computers rather than in our pods.



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by FrugalGuitarist on 2011-05-24 11:14:10

This type of tech has been around for a while and is a very usful tool for mastering engineers trying to ensure album EQ continuity. For me personally, I'm not interested in it for guitar usage as I don't spend any time at all trying to match specific artists. I don't even download patches off Custom Tone. I prefer simply dialing things until they meet my own personal tonal needs. But perhaps I'm in the minority on this one...



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by mcolquitt on 2011-05-24 11:17:43

phil_m wrote:

I'm not against learning something new. This particular idea isn't all that new. Har-Bal has been doing basically what the original post describes for eight years or so. I understand completely what he's talking about. I just think the concept is being touted as being more useful than it would be to most people. But, hey, I could be wrong.

Thats not even the parts that got me all puffed up its the comments about the cover tunes. I will tell you why... I was given some advice froma sales guy at guitar center in the late 90's when I bought a ton of gear and software. When I asked him what is the best way to learn the equipment I had just bought, he said simply "Try and forget about originals to start with, there is too much emotion that goes along with the production as it is your creation and you will get side tracked more easily from the task of learning about production. Try and recreate your favorite songs and get them to sound as close to the original recording as possible." And with that advice and a book or two it really helped me so much in such a short period of time I was truly grateful.



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by mtreehugger on 2011-05-24 13:09:28

Well said!  Emulating somebody else's tone is just like learning somebody else's licks, isn't it?  Imagine if you were talking about learning some songs by Clapton or SRV or anybody, and received an argument that you should instead entirely write and arrange your own original material.

Match EQ isn't a destination, it's a tool.



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by mdme_sadie on 2011-05-24 13:27:20

phil_m wrote:

I'm not trying to be overly negative - I'm just trying to inject a little perspective into the conversation. I think we all have a tendency to think that if we just get this next piece for our rig, it will sound great, and we will reach tone Nirvana. OK, I'm exaggerating, but while I think EQ is a very useful tool, I think it can also be crutch thatends up hollowing out your tone without you realizing. For a number of years, I felt I needed to depend on a EQ pedal in my rig, but them one day, I decided to turn it off, and it was like removing a blanket from my tone. I had forgotten what I was cutting and boosting. I just think that depending on it too much leads to very unnatural sounding tones, and if you're around them too long, you just get used to them. I do agree, though, that having better EQs available to us in the HD500 would be a help. But EQs should be used like a scalpel not like steak knife.

An EQ is merely a tone shaping device.  If you've created a speaker on blanket sound with it then that's hardly the fault of the EQ.  It's not entirely relevant to this discussion though.

An IR is only applied as a complex EQ for instance in order to simulate speakers.  Most speaker sims out there really are just EQ's, sure there's more to a speaker than it's tone curve, there's distortion, room, and mic to start off with however the vast majority of the sound is simply the tone curve so the vast majority of speaker sims are literally just an EQ.  I seriously suggest checking the links I posted in the beginning of the thread especially to Clark Kents examples on the Fractal Audio forum.  If you're grasping at the term EQ and "copying a sound" from all this and claiming they're bad then you clearly missing the point (even more so if you're going to attempt to argue that theyre' bad things, you may as well argue that amp sims are bad things here).

The thread and idea really doesn't need much perspective of the kind you're offering, it may need "is it feasible" and "what would it mean we lost in terms of development time" also questions such as "how processor intensive would it be" and "how would you make it so that it can work without HD Edit for those not using the computer link" etc are far more prescient and worth discussing than weak strawman arguments trying to say that of all things after many years of use in the recording and guitar playing worlds EQ is bad and that somehow being able to duplicate a tone curve is also bad.  It's arguing the toss without any understanding at all and absolutely ridiculous.  I mean seriously, if someone said "Air, it's good innit?" on the internet would you feel the urge to lend your perspective?

Match EQ is simply a useful tool.  IR's are also useful and much requested.  Line6's competition has and uses IR's.  An IR is for all intents and purposes simply a complex EQ curve, nothing more, no distortion, just a copy of the tone curve for a particular signal path, signal->amp->speaker->environment->mic->mic pre->convertor->desk, the most colored part of this usually being the amp, enironment and mic.  A Match EQ is a step further on from IR's, the competition (apart from the as yet non-existant Kemper Profiling amp) doesn't have this yet.  A Match EQ is of more use to more people than only being able to use snapshots other people have created which don't take into account your own signal path.  With a Match EQ you get to shape your own tone far more.

And seriously, if you guys can't sound like yourselves when emulating anothers sound then why are you using an amp sim?



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by phil_m on 2011-05-24 14:09:46

So much sanctimony and bravado have coalesced around this issue, it's really quite funny.

Everyone's ideas are great and should never be questioned! Does that make you feel better?

I didn't just fall off the guitar apple cart yesterday, you know. And I don't appreciate being talked down to like I'm a moron. I've engineered and produced albums before, and I've played with plenty of talented people on some decent size stages. I've been around the block a few times gearwise, and I've learned a few things about what works and what doesn't.

I listened to the samples, and frankly, I wasn't overly impressed with any of them. I try not to talk badly about other people's stuff, so that's why I hadn't commented before.

The whole idea I am reacting against is the one you originally put forth in this thread - that having a match EQ tool would enable people to "nail the sound" they are trying to emulate. That may or may not be true - it's probably the latter. It may help you get there, but there are a number of other tools that will help you get there as well. And where did I ever say that EQ was bad? I simply didn't. I don't even know if you know what you're really arguing for or against anymore.



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by mdme_sadie on 2011-05-24 17:32:04

phil_m wrote:

So much sanctimony and bravado have coalesced around this issue, it's really quite funny.

Everyone's ideas are great and should never be questioned! Does that make you feel better?

I didn't just fall off the guitar apple cart yesterday, you know. And I don't appreciate being talked down to like I'm a moron. I've engineered and produced albums before, and I've played with plenty of talented people on some decent size stages. I've been around the block a few times gearwise, and I've learned a few things about what works and what doesn't.

I listened to the samples, and frankly, I wasn't overly impressed with any of them. I try not to talk badly about other people's stuff, so that's why I hadn't commented before.

The whole idea I am reacting against is the one you originally put forth in this thread - that having a match EQ tool would enable people to "nail the sound" they are trying to emulate. That may or may not be true - it's probably the latter. It may help you get there, but there are a number of other tools that will help you get there as well. And where did I ever say that EQ was bad? I simply didn't. I don't even know if you know what you're really arguing for or against anymore.

Huh?  No, every idea should be questioned.  But all you're attempting to do is OT the thread and say "Look at me everyone!'.

You haven't actually posited any questions, only seeming random statements phrased as if they were actual legitimate counterarguments (what to is anyones guess).  In discourse we call this a strawman argument, anyone looking at them in the cold light of day would only say "meh" and "irrelevant".  Now you're attempting ad-hominem (also baseless unless you were only reading your own posts which do sound pretty sanctimonous) together with what's called a plea to authority which isn't very impressive.

The only relevent thing you've brought to this thread (after much pressing) is that you aren't impressed with the examples posted.  I get the feeling though you probably didn't listen to them till now as it's taken you this long to get on point.  The thing is that's the only interesting thing so far.  I mean I'd love to know exactly what you didn't like about them that's actually relevent to this thread and Match EQ, they sounded pretty much spot on in terms of tone to the originals played at the ends of the tracks for the most part, unless you're going to start admitting that Match EQ doesn't stop you sounding like yourself now.  It's no skin off my nose if you go to town on em, I had nothing to do with them.  This is an area I'd like to discuss and expand on in the thread (and I'm sure others would too), not the other halfbaked stuff.

Of course I do have access to a Match EQ though and I'd be happy to make more using any source and desination you care to offer and Logic's Match EQ if you want to hear what it does, what it's limitations are etc.

Lets go over your various statments/arguments and hopefully put this sideshow to bed:

1) My statement : Match EQ allows you to match an existing eq curve, it makes it easy for a coverband to nail that tone.  Your argument : Copying an existing tone is bad, you wont sound like yourself.

Not only is your argument not really relevant to the former but neither of your statements actually makes any sense, nor are they backed up by anything other than "I say it so it must be true".

First off, in the context of the original statement if you're in a cover band then sounding like someone else is kinda the point, i.e. fundamentally not bad but the actual goal of the exercise.  Secondly it's bloody hard not to sound like yourself no matter what you go through, let alone a subtle EQ effect.

It's like someone saying "So you need vanilla to make this vanilla ice cream." and you going "No!  Vanilla is bad, if you add vanilla it wont taste like cream anymore.".  Not only is it completely missing the point, it's just so flawed and incorrect there's no way to even begin to answer that, it's off the map in some completely different conversation.

Second applying a tone curve is no different to using the inbuilt speaker sim, and far less drastic than applying any one of the FX blocks which are all attempts at copying existing equipment.  I've never yet been accused of not sounding like myself no matter how many layers of FX I've added not even when emulating Robert Fripp.  Everyone sounds like themselves no matter how they play and what they play and even what they play through, your body is your own it has it's own breath, it's own rythm, it's own temprement.  I don't feel that I sound like John Williams when I play a classical guitar even though I've totally nailed his signal chain, I doubt you would either.  You hav to resort to likeminded hyperbole to even get into the ballpark with what you're claiming.

Third copying is not a bad thing.  Where on earth did you get the twisted idea that it was?

Copying is how evolution happens, more importantly it's how you learn.  New ideas and musical styles don't pop into existence out of nothing, they the evolution of existing ideas and sounds that people copy, for example You Really Got Me came from Ray trying to play Louie Louie.  It's how Hendrix learnt from Bach and Muddy Waters.  It's how music stays alive and relevant and doesn't go up it's own jacksie.  Music should inspire people to want to move their feet and want to pick up that guitar.  The motivation is always to sound like that cool thing you heard.  It's normal, it's natural, it keeps things fresh, it stops it from having to start all the way back at the beginning again with 'bang rock on other rock make sound good ug ug ug'.

So lets scale things down a little and look at copying an existing tone.  This is at heart what the Pod HD is there to do.  You can use it however you want but each effect, each amp is an attempt at copying something else.  Even the amps it copies are in fact copies of other amps, mostly the fender bassman circuit.  So far I've not seen many complaints on this forum of people fretting over how they no longer sound like themselves when using the Pod.

Lets play the game and make the assumption that you're right and no-one could in their right mind ever want to play covers - Why would someone still want to recreate the sound of another guitarists setup on an album?  It doesn't take the most creative person to come up with 'Because they like the sound and want to use it as a starting point for their own music'.  I've also stated a whole slew of other creative uses for a Match EQ in an earlier response to you (that you ignored), I don't think it needs to be repeated.

2) My statement : It's called Match EQ, Your argument : EQ is a crutch (i.e. bad) and broad EQ shouldn't be used, Match EQ is like a steak knife.

I really don't know where to begin with this one (post 13 in the thread).  It's like you attempted and failed to attack the "Match" part of the name, so now you attack the EQ part?  I'm really scratching my head at this luddite behavior.  I mean if you want to know or understand more about what it is then feel free to ask, but just coming out with random negative statements that aren't even relevant to the thread makes little to no sense to me.

Hey it's the internet, but jeez, please stop trying to derail, you can always make your own threads you know?

Match EQ wont make you sound like Clapton just like playing a classical guitar wont make you sound like John Williams even though you've totally nailed his signal chain  It's just a tool as others have explained.  It can help you nail a tone but it's gonna leave you as far away from nailing a style, riff or song as when you started.  It's also a useful creative tool, just like every other FX block on the Pod HD.  If you personally can't think of uses for it then instead of making obviously uninformed definitive statements that "it's not useful" try asking others for examples of how it could be useful.  That's a legitimate way to question or counter argue (if by that point you feel you know enough to have a valid informed oppinion).  Otherwise you'll just come across as ignorant.

If you need to know more about Match EQ, want to argue with me that it can/can't be done on the HD because X, that Match EQ sucks and Y would be better or even want to hear what it sounds like with different bits of music then there's plenty of room for that, be prepared for a counterargument though that you should also question your own ideas, I love a good disussion with plenty of intelligent back and forth and learning going.  But if you're just going to post barely relevent stuff, grabbing on to random phrases that pop out at you from the miasma in the hopes of showing the world you have an opinion then please, just go elsewhere, and lets get this thread back on track and topic.



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by spaceatl on 2011-05-24 22:40:09

The jist of your thread was that a Matched EQ could replace an IR or supplement one...An IR isn't really anything more than that...A static response curve...I posted my thoughts...You did not repsond...oh well...Two static filters in a chain does not a cabinet make...no reactance, no impedance shift changing the power amp model in real time...Take a look at how speakers work and how tube amps change tone with impedance...There is a lot missing from your solution...I even took the time to tell you what you are missing...

EQ is not the end game for a cabinet...there is a lot more going on in that than an EQ curve...EQ curves actually have detracting effect...phase...does not matter if is analog or digital either...the more you attenuate, the more the phase goes to shiot...All decent sound engineers know this...Like Phil, I have done this sorta thing too...Not that your idea is bad...A great way to figure out where one might need to go in selecting speakers for example so the curve could be less radical...I respect your passion, but man please...enough with the nit picking...



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by mdme_sadie on 2011-05-25 00:06:45

spaceatl wrote:

The jist of your thread was that a Matched EQ could replace an IR or supplement one...An IR isn't really anything more than that...A static response curve...I posted my thoughts...You did not repsond...oh well...Two static filters in a chain does not a cabinet make...no reactance, no impedance shift changing the power amp model in real time...Take a look at how speakers work and how tube amps change tone with impedance...There is a lot missing from your solution...I even took the time to tell you what you are missing...

EQ is not the end game for a cabinet...there is a lot more going on in that than an EQ curve...EQ curves actually have detracting effect...phase...does not matter if is analog or digital either...the more you attenuate, the more the phase goes to shiot...All decent sound engineers know this...Like Phil, I have done this sorta thing too...Not that your idea is bad...A great way to figure out where one might need to go in selecting speakers for example so the curve could be less radical...I respect your passion, but man please...enough with the nit picking...

You're absolutely right that an EQ curve is only one part of a speaker simulation but I did in fact respond in another post to this.  The main thing is that while there are other factors EQ is still the vast majority of the tone of a speaker cab/mic sim to the listener, speaker distortion and "air" which is really room and cabinet resonance and reflections don't actually contribute all that much when tracking at normal volumes and mic proximity.  However having said that of course it would be great to also simulate those things, but most likely for an addition effect

The point is Match EQ is a great tool that can do rather more than just speaker simulations, it's tone shaping to match yes speakers but also other things such as other patches, recordings, telephones, whatever sound you fancy, maybe even a mic pre if you want, you can use it to cancel out factors in your own signal chain.  It's not just speaker simulation, which is the problem with IR, which really is just speaker simulation and youre' dependent on some other guy to make them because they're a bit of a pain to set up and do.

The real problem with IR's compared to Match EQ is that it's a preset shape.  It doesn't take into account what you're putting through it, match EQ does though and the result is that what you get actually sounds like the original source as intended rather than just a veneer.

As for the phase issues for EQ yes some EQ's phase if they're based on comb filter (most in fact), but there is also what's known as "Linear EQ" which doesn't result in phasing artifacts, it is more processor intensive and the benefits are arguable but it's possible.  The thing is it's not that big of a deal in real world usage, e.g. all the HD Cab sims are shaping the tone somehow, probably an IR of some kind and while they do have their problems not many people seem to care about phasing issues with them, or indeed the existing EQ's in the Pod.

Now the real problem with match eq is the whole setup side.  Potentially a match could be based on a white noise passed through the patch up to the match EQ, or it could try to work in realtime, which would be much more processor intensive.  Or you could play in a short section for it to "match to" with the sampler button held down, or maybe use the HD edit to send source/destination audio to the Pod.  In fact you could even have a seperate Line6 Match EQ app that just churned out IR's based on files and in the HD simply have an IR effect that can read the matched IR's.

The point is to me that giving match EQ to users in whatever form and allowing the results to be used in a patch would open up a lot of artistic potential and go beyond IR's alone in terms of useability for most folk.  It would take it from the ream of techie advanced user to something anyone can use and find a use for, it's a symbiotic next step for an IR.  IR 2.0.



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by spaceatl on 2011-05-25 00:23:43

This had the makings a cool thread...But you have already drawn your own conclusions so I see no need to participate any further...bye...



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by mdme_sadie on 2011-05-25 00:28:01

spaceatl wrote:

This had the makings a cool thread...But you have already drawn your own conclusions so I see no need to participate any further...bye...

Huh?  All I did was respond to your post and address your concerns in a civil way.  Or did I miss the point of what you were saying?



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by SWoRd on 2011-05-25 01:30:34

I think you both have a valid point. A static filter would not be as accurate as an algorithm that can also model the dynamic effects of loading the amp output with reactive components like coils and capacitors, but the question is where should you stop. I suppose you could make 3D mechanical models of cabinets and model the air-flow solving Bernoulli equations to get a representation of the speaker baffle struggling with air movement, and you might even include barometric pressure and moisture into your model ... the point is that no matter how detailed a model you're making you can always include more, but it's a matter of diminishing returns and you have to stop somewhere.

A static filter won't give you the dynamic effects but then again you are going to get them at some point anyway. They might not be accurate to the ultimate detail of the speaker you are going to emulate, but even if you're going directly to the board and through the PA, at some point the Front-Of-House sound is going to involve real speakers moving air at substantial volume, and thus include some of the effects we are talking about here. I realize that a FRFR PA system is not going to have the exact same dynamic characteristics as a guitar amp, but if you can get close with a dynamic amp model and some accurate EQ, then it might be "good enough for rock'n'roll".

As for the phase issues for EQ yes some EQ's phase if they're based on comb filter (most in fact), but there is also what's known as "Linear EQ" which doesn't result in phasing artifacts, it is more processor intensive and the benefits are arguable but it's possible.

I don't agree that linear phase response requires a lot of DSP power. A simple FIR filter (only multiply-accumulate calculations) can implement any arbitrary amplitude and phase response. It can be a linear phase response, or it could be a non linear phase response to perhaps compensate for other non linear phase responses of some of the physical components in the signal chain. This is one of the huge benefits of digital FIR filters compared to analog hardware filters using resistors, coils and capacitors - you have complete freedom to chose any arbitrary amplitude and phase response. I have been working with this professionally when we implemented a modem in a DSP. We used an adaptive FIR filter to create the inverse amplitude and phase response of the communication channel, so that the combined system response was flat amplitude and linear phase response. This enables a higher communication speed when you have a perfect communication channel.

The beauty of the FIR filter is that you get a very high resolution EQ - a bit like a 31 band graphical EQ where you can adjust both amplitude and phase response with high resolution. The IR will provide this functionality with very little DSP load (basically just a FIR filter). The Match EQ is a design tool on top of this and could be viewed as an automatic IR generator. I realize that modeling of dynamic effects would add further to the details of cab modeling, but IMO it would be sad if the best solution should be the worst enemy of a good solution.

Best regards

Soren



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by mtreehugger on 2011-05-25 07:30:00

Spaceatl,

I thought your comments in your 1st post were great!  Sorry nobody followed up on them.  But regardless of whether the hd's eventually get more in-depth speaker modeling, the truth is that we don't have this now, and a lot of guitarists' ears are picking up on the cabs as the weak point in the signal chain.  If Line 6 could/would do what you suggest, IMO that would be the best possible scenario proposed thus far, but it seems pretty clear to me that this would take a lot more R&D than providing a match eq function.  Moreover, having both what you suggest and match eq would be better than having either (IMO of course), so in that vein the merits of match eq still stand.



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by mtreehugger on 2011-05-25 07:50:14

One of the things I see in these forums is that the experts view themselves as just regular forum participants, but most other participants do not see them that way.  To the rest of us, the experts are as close to an actual contact with Line 6 as we get in the forums.  So when experts post their opinions--like it or not--they carry a certain weight that other posts do not.  I've heard that some experts never sought to become experts, but that still does not alter the inherit perception of the community that is married to an L6 emblem.

Experts, IMO, need to be more aware than when they play the devil's advocate, when they find fault in an idea, point out weaknesses, provide counterpoint, or generally disagree with an idea, it's like Line 6 just came in and said no.  As much as they may wish to be ordinary forum participants simply expressing their views, the L6 emblem has basically taken that away.

Guitarists are artists, and tone is crucial to the passions and feelings that artists try to evoke.  Therefore, passion is a natural byproduct in a discussion over tone.  (I basically just paraphrased a post by spaceatl last month).

I believe the very substantial effort donated by the OP here is a direct result of (and a demonstration of) the typical reaction that the average poster experiences when experts disagree and/or challenge an idea.  I believe that if these forums are to become less combative, the burden is on the experts to adapt to the reality of their status as experts and their L6 badges.



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by phil_m on 2011-05-25 08:13:42

I hear what you're saying, and it makes sense, of course. I think the fact that Line 6 changed the badges to say "Expert User" rather than simply "Expert" was an effort to make it look less like we were official Line 6 spokesmen or something. I don't think any of the ideas posted here were bad. I guess because I'm an engineer in real life, I just tend to approach technical claims with a large degree of skepticism. Because, let's face it, there are lot of people making claims that they can't back up in the real world. I'm not saying that the original post does that.

This whole match EQ stuff is useful as a studio tool, but I don't know how useful it would be to a guitarist playing in a band - even in a cover band. For one thing, even though the tracks that were presented may match up very well with the album tracks, that's not necessarily the goal playing in a live situation. A guitar track being matched from an album willl have undergone who knows what in the way of post-production and mastering, so to me, the tracks that were presented sounded rather processed, and not what I'd expect a good raw guitar tone to necessarily sound like. Did anyone else notice that the audio files looked pretty much like a solid block and sounded pretty compressed? That's why I say it's not necessarily a good thing to try and craft a raw guitar tone to match a mastered one. Mastering is bound to take something away that you probably would want in a live situation or in the actual raw tracks prior to mixdown.



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by mtreehugger on 2011-05-25 09:48:16

Great points!  Actually, a potential drawback of match eq just occurred to me, i.e. the scenario where hd owners are now making posts that when they use the function it sounds like crap.  And in reality, this kind of result from match eq will probably be the rule rather than the exception.  No doubt Line 6 would include disclaimers that the function may be unpredictable or whatever, but not everybody is going to understand the tool, how to use it, or what to expect from it.

Now I realize that the argument I just made is kinda pathetic, but it is a real-world thing that Line 6 would have to deal with.  However, the success of deep edit parameters given in v1.31 I think is evidence that the majority would have no problem with match eq.



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by SWoRd on 2011-05-25 11:46:32
This whole match EQ stuff is useful as a studio tool, but I don't know how useful it would be to a guitarist playing in a band - even in a cover band. For one thing, even though the tracks that were presented may match up very well with the album tracks, that's not necessarily the goal playing in a live situation.

I agree that it's not critical to have a mach EQ function implemented directly on the HD500 unit. This could work just as well if you have this function in a separate PC program. The important thing is to have the option to upload an IR to the unit, and thus be able to use the results of a match EQ program. If you don't like the match EQ method you can use some of the many other options of getting an IR that fit your needs and preferences. The main thing is that you have a way to implement the resulting IR filter on the HD500.

Best regards

Soren



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by meambobbo on 2011-05-25 12:05:54

I have PAINSTAKINGLY tried to match EQ all the onboard 4x12's on the Pod (except the Hiway) using the Pod's onboard EQ's to the closest RedWirez equivalent cab mic'ed with "CapEdgeOffAxis" at 1/2".  I did this for both the SM57 on axis and SM57 off axis mic positionings on the Pod.  I have also given myself a constraint of doing so using 4 EQ's or less.

Tonight I will finish this process - just need to refine the Blackbacks.  Then I'll pair each set of 12 match EQ'ed patches with a different high gain amp and fill a setlist.  So the 5 high gain amps will each have 12 patches.

I'll post the setlist either tonight or tomorrow.  Unless you need those effects blocks, you will not be disappointed.  I'll settle for this until we get custom IR's, or otherwise better cabs.



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by mtreehugger on 2011-05-25 12:10:35

Geez!  You're an ANIMAL (workhorse)!!!  Are you manually tweaking the eq's and then making comparisions, or using a match eq app somehow?



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by SWoRd on 2011-05-25 12:13:02

Great ... I'm looking forward to trying out your improved EQ's on my setup.

Best regards

Soren



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by meambobbo on 2011-05-25 12:37:00

Here's the process:

First I recorded raw guitar signal playing low E power chords directly into my audio interface.  I turned that into a high quality mp3 and uploaded it to my phone.  Then I ran my phone's 1/8" out jack into the Pod HD's guitar in jack.  So I'm ensured that there are no differences due to playing or other normally-variable conditions.

So then I recorded the Pod's output via SPDIF using that file's playback as input.  I always used the Uber amp sim with all dials set to 50% except drive which was set to 55% and ER set to 0%.

I first recorded with "no cab" selected.  Then I applied the RedWirez IR to this track in software, and recorded the output to a separate track for each IR used.  So then I had 6 IR tracks for each cab.

Then I recorded each cab/mic pair on the Pod enabled.  So I'd record one at a time the Uber On Axis, Uber Off Axis, Mesa V30 On Axis, Mesa V30 Off Axis, etc.

Then I'd pan the Pod-cab tracks to the left and the IR tracks to the right.  I'd set a matching set to solo output, so the only thing being output was the Pod track panned left and the IR track panned right.  I used the software mixer to level the tracks, then I'd record this output into a new stereo track.  So I'd end up with 12 stereo tracks.

The reason I recorded it into a stereo track is because this was the easiest way to get Voxengo Span to display both frequency responses simultaneously in the same window for easiest comparison.

I visually compared them using Span, then I'd adjust the Pod's EQ's to try to get the Pod's frequency response equal.  Then I'd save the Pod HD patch as V2, V3, etc.

Then I'd re-record the Pod tracks and recompare...and repeat.  Once I found a more-or-less solid match, I'd leave it out of the next cycle.

I'm up to version 7 on comparisons.  Most took 3-4 versions to get to the point where I said "close enough".  The Blackbacks have eluded me still, but I think I really messed up going from V2 to V3, and now I can't find my V2 tones.  I only have a few minute changes left to make.

And finally, once I had the EQ's matched, I would move one of the Studio EQ's in the chain to the end of the chain, and use the "gain" parameter to level all the output.  So it not only match EQ's to a specific IR output, but it has consistent levels across all cabs.



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by ClarkKentJob on 2011-05-25 13:10:23

Sorry guys but I have to ask you: Have you ever done EQ matching?

I've done it a lot and EQ matching cabinets is a HARD THING to do. Not because of the technical stuff but it basically means that you should have the same guitar, same guitar amp and same picking style as the track you are matching. Then you need a reference clip to match EQ stuff. How do you put reference clips inside the POD HD?

I'm not saying it's impossible but it's pretty complicated and I've done it quite a lot. I do have like 30 match EQ Petrucci IR's BUT the way they work is that I have to have the same amp model (Recto) with all knobs at noon and that's when I get those exact tones with my POD into my DAW.

ATM my friend is recording an EP with his band and all guitars are John Petrucci - Damage Control tone.

But hey CUSTOM IR is a simple thing that could easily be in the next firmware update. MATCH EQ... I don't think it can be done. Sorry but I think it's impossible because not everyone can match EQ stuff. It took me two weeks of hard work to get my first working match EQ'd IR.



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by mdme_sadie on 2011-05-25 13:23:58

Clark are you talking about manually matching an EQ curve by ear?  Because that's not really what Match EQ (as a tool) is.  With Match EQ you just give it some source material (a small clip of sound), and a destination clip (a little bit of your patch sound) and it calculates a difference for you automatically, matching the EQ between the two tracks.  I know you like to have totally flat EQ response, Match EQ can get you that if you don't give it a source at all or use white noise as the source.  It should normally take about a minute to do.

I'll see about making some examples.



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by ClarkKentJob on 2011-05-25 14:02:49

I know what EQ matching is. I use Ozone 4 for EQ matching. Here's one I did with my friend: http://soundcloud.com/clark-kent-job/pod-vs-constant-motion-ir

Please tell me how you plan to get source material into your POD HD.

How many people would go through the trouble of finding source material?

How many people can play a destination clip as tight as the source material?

There are so many things that can (and most likely will) go wrong if an unexperienced EQ matcher (lol) would try it out.

I've done this for months and it takes a lot of work. I don't understand how this could be done inside a POD?



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by meambobbo on 2011-05-25 14:34:01

Clark is right - I have difficulty antipating how well a match EQ would work in the Pod.  I suppose it could work, but I see a lot of user error occuring.

There are ways I could see it implemented, but all them are way over the average user's head.



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by ClarkKentJob on 2011-05-25 14:52:19

I don't mean to bash an idea. It's a good idea but it's impossible.

HOWEVER: Once they make CUSTOM IR's possible I promise to MATCH EQ 50 IR's! I'm taking requests when it happens. It'll be a thank you to this community for making custom IR's possible.



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by johnnyayyy on 2011-05-25 14:58:19

ClarkKentJob wrote:


Please tell me how you plan to get source material into your POD HD.

CD player output to HD500 input? Press play on CD payer and engage Looper on HD?

Two thoughts:

1. Match EQ for HD500 would probably have to be done on a computer with HD Edit or maybe a separate program.

2. Cool as it would be Match EQ is probably never going to be available for the HD series from L6.

Q. Clark, I believe you said in the clips you made you used a Redwirez IR then made your own Match EQ IR, so the tone we are hearing is run through 2 IRs one after another, correct?

Q. Is there any way to make a single composite IR from these two IRs with the reactance and impedance shift from the Redwirez IR and the added EQ curve of your Match EQ IR? Any IR morphing/modification program available?  If so all that would be needed to do what we are talking about (custom EQ'ed IRs in a live application) would still be custom IR implementation on the HD, right?



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by mdme_sadie on 2011-05-25 15:00:43

Well getting source in could be as simple as sending via USB, or via the normal inputs.  Personally I'd opt for using an external app.  I don't think it would be any more complex than finding IR's, after all everyone actually listens to music, i.e. source material.  Source is everywhere, plug in your iPod even.

So all you'd need is something that loads the standard file formats MP3, AIF, WAV, or rips a section from a cd or records data from the inputs on the HD.

I see source material as being much more readily available than IR's, and more users accessing this.  After all all you use is ordinary audio, while with IR's you have to hunt throughthe internet and never really get to hear how they'll sound relative to your own stuff.  Everyone already has and listens to music, you only need to slap an appropriate guitar only segment of the music through to make a match to that guitar tone.  While with IR's you're dependent on someone else having made a matching IR (pretty unlikely) and finding that (even more unlikely).

You don't need to play a destination clip tightly to match, just play a chord and you can make a match.  Match EQ just gives you a tone curve.  Maybe I'll have to slap together a little audio demo.



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by johnnyayyy on 2011-05-25 15:15:03

mdme_sadie wrote:

Maybe I'll have to slap together a little audio demo.

Please do!



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by ClarkKentJob on 2011-05-25 15:29:54

This is the way I see it guys. Custom IR's seem to give Line6 a hard time to accomplish. However adding it into the POD is like a million times easier than coming up with a match EQ system that only 5% of POD HD users know how to or can use.

There's no way it'll be there. I know it would be great but the idea only sounds great.

AND!!! Having match EQ would require having custom IR support in the POD HD.



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by johnnyayyy on 2011-05-25 16:04:33

ClarkKentJob wrote:

This is the way I see it guys. Custom IR's seem to give Line6 a hard time to accomplish. However adding it into the POD is like a million times easier than coming up with a match EQ system that only 5% of POD HD users know how to or can use.

There's no way it'll be there. I know it would be great but the idea only sounds great.

I agree. I posted 2 questions for you earlier but I think they got lost in the shuffle...

Q1. Clark, I believe you said in the clips you made you used a  Redwirez IR then made your own Match EQ IR, so the tone we are hearing  is run through 2 IRs one after another, correct?

Q2.  Is there any way to make a single composite IR from these two IRs with  the reactance and impedance shift from the Redwirez IR and the added EQ  curve of your Match EQ IR? Any IR morphing/modification program  available?  If so all that would be needed to do what we are talking  about (custom EQ'ed IRs in a live application) would still be custom IR  implementation on the HD, right?



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by kdog on 2011-05-25 16:07:45

FWIW, from a theoretical standpoint, a convolution impulse response algorithm is in essence a super complex EQ matcher. It just uses a well understood, well documented, and (somewhat) easily reproducable method that mathematically, produces exact duplication of a speaker, mic (and sometimes room) combination with an arbitrary degree of accuracy.

So, from a cabinet modeling perspective, unless you could dynamically adjust the IR (I think the AxeFX II has some clever features along this line, swapping IRs in and out) there is basically nothing that is "better" at cabinet modeling a specific speaker cabinet + mic than a convolution IR cabinet modeler, because a speaker cabinet is a linear time invariant system: the convolver completely reproduces the response of the measured system to an arbitrary level of accuracy. This is a well researched area of signal processing.

So, in terms of cabs, anyway, you guys are ignorant if you think additional EQ > custom IRs for getting good cabinet modeling (which is KEY to a good guitar sounds, IMHO). An IR basically gives a perfect EQ for a speaker+mic setup with the minimal effort.

What you REALLY WANT for total flexbility is custom IRs + sufficient additional EQ to tweak and nuance the base tone provided by the modeled amp+cab system. Fractal's stuff (the AxeII really has a lot of niceties for this kind of thing wrt 3rd party IRs) and the Eleven Rack have both of these with sufficient power to provide the kind of flexibility I'm talking about, as do most of the VST based software modelers.

Soft IR cab models are HUGE. L6 REALLY missed the boat on that (to date, anyway, hopefully it'll be an update) in this go around. If I were designing @ Digitech, Peavey, Roland or another competitor, that would be at the top of my list for key features to differentiate any new competing products.

Like most creative artists, I don't want a dead bang copy of someone else's specifc sound. I want a genuinely accurate and authentic modeler that sounds and feels like a real collection of amplifiers.



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by johnnyayyy on 2011-05-25 16:11:57

kdog wrote:

What you REALLY WANT for total flexbility is custom IRs + sufficient additional EQ to tweak and nuance the base tone provided by the modeled amp+cab system.

Yes. That.



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by ClarkKentJob on 2011-05-25 16:12:10

Q1. Clark, I believe you said in the clips you made you used a  Redwirez IR then made your own Match EQ IR, so the tone we are hearing  is run through 2 IRs one after another, correct?

Q2.  Is there any way to make a single composite IR from these two IRs with  the reactance and impedance shift from the Redwirez IR and the added EQ  curve of your Match EQ IR? Any IR morphing/modification program  available?  If so all that would be needed to do what we are talking  about (custom EQ'ed IRs in a live application) would still be custom IR  implementation on the HD, right?

The matched IR's that I've made didn't have Redwirez in them. It's just comparing the NO CAB signal with a real recorded signal. Simply (guitar+amp+cab) - (guitar+amp) = cab That's the strategy. About those programs... I don't know. I use Ozone 4 for EQ matching and Voxengo Boogex as a program that runs the IR's.

A friend of mine is using a laptop on gigs and he is running his guitar signal through a John Petrucci - Damage Control IR. That's one way... but how long will it take until his laptop gets beer on it... not long.



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by meambobbo on 2011-05-25 16:18:46

I could be wrong, but an IR isn't an EQ curve - it's much more than that, emulating how speakers can fall out of phase at certain frequencies as opposed to others and other natural forms of tone-shaping that comes from the intricate imperfection of a certain type of speaker.

A match EQ is not an IR - it merely performs a frequency analysis on a source material and then does the same thing to the target material, then subtracts the curves and makes that an EQ.  If Clark is creating a new IR by recording the RedWirez IR through the Match EQ, then it should sound no different than if he were using the RedWirez IR + the match EQ.  He is not physically recording a speaker output that is playing back an IR.  He is recording the IR + Match EQ output directly to a new audio track inside his DAW, then performing deconvulution on the result.  So the RedWirez gives the speaker characteristics, and he's just adding EQ to it.



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by johnnyayyy on 2011-05-25 16:35:16

meambobbo wrote:

I could be wrong, but an IR isn't an EQ curve - it's much more than that, emulating how speakers can fall out of phase at certain frequencies as opposed to others and other natural forms of tone-shaping that comes from the intricate imperfection of a certain type of speaker.

Yes, this is as I understand it also.

meambobbo wrote:


If Clark is creating a new IR by recording the RedWirez IR through the Match EQ, then it should sound no different than if he were using the RedWirez IR + the match EQ.  He is not physically recording a speaker output that is playing back an IR.  He is recording the IR + Match EQ output directly to a new audio track inside his DAW, then performing deconvulution on the result.  So the RedWirez gives the speaker characteristics, and he's just adding EQ to it.

that is what I thought he said he was doing originally, but his post above explains there was no Redwirez cab involved, only the HD500 with "no cab" selected match EQ'ed to a recording of the real amp he is emulating. In this particular case it seems the IR IS a simple EQ response curve with no phase/impedence shift etc. as would be found in a normal speaker IR like Redwirez etc.



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by mdme_sadie on 2011-05-25 18:42:55

johnnyayyy wrote:

mdme_sadie wrote:

Maybe I'll have to slap together a little audio demo.

Please do!

Hi sure, sorry been a busy day at work.  I just knocked this quickly together to demonstrate it.

It's really dead simple.  Feed in audio track 1 set as the target sound, play a couple of chords while it monitors for "source" sound.  Then apply the match and you get an end result.  More or less it's an IR.

So lets go over what you're hearing with the attached .WAV file.

1) Original

2) Treadplate

3) Treadplate with match

4) Twin using Treadplate match IR

5) Original

6) Twin

7) Original

8) Twin with match

9) Twin

10) Twin with match from random chords

11) Random chords used for Twin match.

In more detail :

1) A small snippet of a wall known track, this is what I want things to sound like at the end so it's my "target sound", time to setup about 5 minutes including cutting this bit down, in a dedicated peice of software you could make the workflow much faster.

2) To show just how drastic an effect we can get I'm gonna just slam through a low gain treadplate just quickly knocking through the same riff.  This was then set as the "source" sound because it's how things sound now.

3) Same treadplate patch with match eq applied.  Even with this drastically different a source tone it's surprisingly close.

4) Now to show the dangers of using a static IR and why they're just wrong because you'll never hear it as it was originally intended.  This is the same "match" IR but applied to a Twin vibe channel.  Nasty huh?  Nothing at all like the source.

5) Now back to the original source materials to clear our palettes

6) Twin vibe original source which

7) Again the original source so you can compare against the next clip

8) Twin vibe using correct match eq, tone is pretty darn close, would take only a couple of minutes to set this up on a Pod with a decent GUI.

9) And to compare this is that same twin again, but without the match, quite a difference.

10) Here's the same twin vibe, this time the point being that I just played random chords in as the source sound.  Doesn't need anything tight yet it sounds pretty much identical.

11) And here's the random chords used for matching.   If I had a white noise generator I could probably slap that through the patch too and the result wouldn't have been so dramatically different.

Note that all patches just use used the inbuilt speaker sims on the Pod and the match was applied to the end result.



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by mdme_sadie on 2011-05-25 18:44:58

meambobbo wrote:

I could be wrong, but an IR isn't an EQ curve - it's much more than that, emulating how speakers can fall out of phase at certain frequencies as opposed to others and other natural forms of tone-shaping that comes from the intricate imperfection of a certain type of speaker.

A match EQ is not an IR - it merely performs a frequency analysis on a source material and then does the same thing to the target material, then subtracts the curves and makes that an EQ.  If Clark is creating a new IR by recording the RedWirez IR through the Match EQ, then it should sound no different than if he were using the RedWirez IR + the match EQ.  He is not physically recording a speaker output that is playing back an IR.  He is recording the IR + Match EQ output directly to a new audio track inside his DAW, then performing deconvulution on the result.  So the RedWirez gives the speaker characteristics, and he's just adding EQ to it.

Sadly no.  An IR file really is just the static response curve.  It's the same as an EQ (only linear like match eq) there's absolutely no time delta to it, no distortion, no phasing, no anything but cutting of certain frequencies.

A Match EQ performs frequency analysis in a different way to one that an IR normally is calculated with (i.e. actual audio source and destination rather than neutral sine sweep or white noise), however the end result can be the same, you can essentially build a response curve that's applied very much the same way.  There's no reason a Match EQ couldn't export/import IR's if it supported the file format.

The benefit of Match EQ is that it's much more accesible, you can put whatever you want through it as target sound shape and provided you give it a decent source sample it should actually sound as originally intended, i.e. negating the differences in signal chain to an extent.

Neither Match EQ nor IR's will give you a complete picture of a real speaker/room/mic combination, but they'll give you the tonal shape in terms of frequency.  Obviously we'd all like a true simulation system, but I think a lesser thing such as Match EQ/IR is sufficient to be getting on with in this generation of modelers for a start.



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by meambobbo on 2011-05-25 18:59:31

I don't want to start a debate, but this is what wikipedia says under "impulse response":

Loudspeakers

An application that demonstrates this idea was the development of impulse response loudspeaker testing in the 1970s. Loudspeakers suffer from phase inaccuracy, a defect unlike other measured properties such as frequency response. Phase inaccuracy is caused by small delayed sounds that are the result of resonance, energy storage in the cone, the internal volume, or the enclosure panels vibrating. Measuring the impulse response, which is a direct plot of this "time-smearing," provided a tool for use in reducing resonances by the use of improved materials for cones and enclosures, as well as changes to the speaker crossover. The need to limit input amplitude to maintain the linearity of the system led to the use of inputs such as pseudo-random maximum length sequences, and to the use of computer processing to derive the impulse response.[2]



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by mdme_sadie on 2011-05-25 20:34:19

Within that context "Phase Smearing" is another way of saying non-flat response, i.e. doing what a comb filter EQ does.

EQ works by phase smearing different frequencies.  As you know when you sum two waveforms of the same frequency together they will when in phase amplify that waveform and when out of phase gradually cancel each other out.  This is the basis of standard non-linear EQ, you shift the signal out of phase with itself by the frequency you want to cut.  Speakers being what they are, i.e. not completely rigid materials combined with an enclosure usually designed to cut down on specific reflections and enhance others end up with a number phase issues inherent to their design, the sound just bounces off the interior and comes out a fractional amount after the sound from the speaker is released.  By measuring the frequency response you can see where the phase issues are as well as the mechanical accuracy of the unit.  You can then quite simply adjust the materials used and the internal measurements of the enclosure to improve the response with the aim of getting a flatter result.  Normally of course you don't actually want totlaly flat, but a "musical" response.  With guitar speakers and enclosures though things are a little more rough and ready.

Impulse Responses were used to measure the speaker response across the audio spectrum, that's literally what they are, an impulse (driver usually a sine wave) and measured response.  That's all they can measure, nothing time based, not phasing as you might be considering it (like a phaser).

A normal EQ basically does the same phasing trick.  You can build one yourself with a very very very short delay.  It's what a phaser does only with a constantly moving phase shift.  That's why you get that frequency sweep sound.  IR's would measure it as a drop in frequency because the phase is canceling out said frequency.

The thing is IR's are applied for speaker simulation using FIR filters and linear EQ, this means you don't in fact get the same phasing as the original speaker, just an aproximation of it's responsiveness in the frequency domain.  i.e. EQ curve.



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by SWoRd on 2011-05-26 00:35:59

I will have to agree with meambobbo on this one. An IR can measure/define both the amplitude response and the phase response of a system, and unlike a conventional analog EQ the amplitude and phase response is not linked, but can be measured/defined separately. You can make an all-pass filter with completely flat amplitude response and a non linear phase response, affecting only the timing (delay) of the different frequencies. Such a filter playing through a perfect FRFR system would have the following effects:

- A slow sweep of a single frequency pure sine wave would not be affected and the combined amplitude response would be flat.

- If you play something other that pure sine waves - a signal/pulse that contains several different frequency components, the signal/pulse would be distorted due to the non linear phase response. Some of the frequencies in the signal/pulse would be delayed more than others and the signal/pulse shape would be distorted.

Another detail is that you don't want a flat phase response but a linear phase response. You might want a flat delay response which is the first derivative of the phase response. I think you agree with me on this and it's just a small definition inaccuracy - an example: you want to delay a 1KHz component the same amount of time as a 3KHz component to keep the same shape of a pulse containing both, so if the 1KHz component is delayed one cycle or 360 degrees you'll want the 3KHz component to be delayed for 3 cycles or 1080 degrees.

If you want an IR filter to correct or counteract non linear phase responses introduced by other components in the system, you can certainly do that without affecting the amplitude response. You can also implement non-linearities if you want to model a system that has these. The main thing is that you have total freedom to define both amplitude and phase response separately in a digital FIR filter (as opposed to a typical analog filter EQ).

I agree that if you want to model dynamic effects you'll need an adaptive filter where the filter characteristics changes dynamically, and this is a bit more complex.

Best regards

Soren



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by ClarkKentJob on 2011-05-26 00:51:42

I'm pretty sure it's just an EQ curve.



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by SWoRd on 2011-05-26 01:21:22

If you by "just an EQ curve" mean just an amplitude response, then you might be right from a user point of view. I don't know the particular program they're talking about, but the program developer might have chosen to hide the complexity of phase response from the user and just display the amplitude response?. That doesn't mean that there is no phase response associated with the IR, but merely that they do not display this part of the filter response to the user.

IMO the phase response of a system is very important as we seldom play with pure sine waves. The attack / punch / percussive tone elements are such an important part of the signature sound, so it would be very nice to have full control of this aspect. IR's will give you that. :)

Then we can deal with the dynamic effects and adaptive IR's at a later stage ... you know, crawl before you walk and all that.

Best regards

Soren



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by meambobbo on 2011-05-26 07:48:28

I really don't know what I'm talking about as far as how an IR actually works or how phasing works etc.  I just know that wikipedia says that creating IR's to emulate loudspeakers was an application of IR's because speakers had phase inaccuracy which was not represented in a frequency response - ie, traditional EQ.

From all the work I've done, that would seem to be true.  I can match up the EQ response for two different cab sims on the Pod HD, and they still sound different.  You can particularly tell that a cab using the SM57 on axis sounds different from the same cab and mic but off axis, even when you match up their EQ.

So Clark, are you actually not using an IR at all but are just applying an EQ curve to the Pod signal without cab/mic simulation?  I am curious to know what that sounds like.



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by johnnyayyy on 2011-05-26 10:33:10

ClarkKentJob wrote:

I'm pretty sure it's just an EQ curve.

There is a pretty clear explanation here on the tab "What is an IR":

http://irlibrary.org/

All of the IRs I have examined so far are .WAV recordings of a sound source played through the device or in the space the IR is meant to emulate and recorded by a microphone. The convolution program in your DAW then applies the exact response of the device/space/mic modeled in the IR to whatever signal you are running through it, in our case amp models.

So while it is possible to make an IR that is a simple EQ curve (by running a tone through an EQ and recording the results then using that recording as the IR in your convolution plugin),  it would seem there is more to most IRs than a simple EQ curve, the first thing that comes to my mind that would be lacking when applying an EQ vs. a proper cabinet IR is resonance...other things mentioned are impedence reactance at the power amp sim

On the other hand it may be true, as Madame Sadie wrote: "while there are other factors EQ is still the vast majority of the tone of a speaker cab/mic sim to the listener"

The Irotlas clips here http://line6.com/community/thread/55813 which as I understand it were recorded with no cab sim and EQ matching sounded really REALLY great and would seem to be strong support for this argument.



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by ClarkKentJob on 2011-05-27 04:39:03

I've known Irotlas since I was 8 years old. He's a friend of mine and I just came from his apartment. I'm the one who told him all about match EQ. After we match EQ'd those clips it didn't take me too long to sell my Axe-Fx.

Trust me... I know A LOT about match EQ. I've also done IR capturing of real amps and cabs. All I know is that IR's don't capture dynamics. Only the EQ spectrum. Phasing... I dunno how there could be phasing after convolution. I know two IR's can be in phase with each other but not a single IR. Anyways... it doesn't affect the IR sound.



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by mtreehugger on 2011-05-27 07:22:23

Supes, you're a big proponent of IR's for the HD's.  Mind if I ask a simplistic question?  If the hd's could do anything--in the digital realm, that is--is there some option that you could imagine that would be better than either match eq or ir's?  What I'm thinking of is what spaceatl alluded to earlier in this thread (but fell short of suggesting as an outright feature request), which is speaker cab modeling similar to the amp modeling we currently have.  I don't have as firm of a handle on the technical aspects of these discussions as some others do (such as yourself), but my take on it is that both IR capability and Match EQ fall short of what true cab modeling might deliver.

So:

1) would you concur that this would be a better feature (nevermind that it would take more r&d or may be impossible with the current hd's)?

2) and/or is there another way, in your opinion, to improve the speaker cab function in the hd's that might be even better?

Thanks!



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by johnnyayyy on 2011-05-27 12:22:33

ClarkKentJob wrote:

I've known Irotlas since I was 8 years old. He's a friend of mine and I just came from his apartment. I'm the one who told him all about match EQ. After we match EQ'd those clips it didn't take me too long to sell my Axe-Fx.

Yes, I knew you were involved with those clips, originally I almost wrote CKJ" clips then I remembered you had pointed out they were Itorlas'. I should have probably said "Irotlas/CKJ clips"

ClarkKentJob wrote:

Trust me... I know A LOT about match EQ. I've also done IR capturing of real amps and cabs. All I know is that IR's don't capture dynamics. Only the EQ spectrum. Phasing... I dunno how there could be phasing after convolution. I know two IR's can be in phase with each other but not a single IR. Anyways... it doesn't affect the IR sound.

Yeah the sound of those clips tells me you are probably right.



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by johnnyayyy on 2011-05-27 12:35:44

ClarkKentJob wrote:

I've known Irotlas since I was 8 years old. He's a friend of mine and I just came from his apartment. I'm the one who told him all about match EQ. After we match EQ'd those clips it didn't take me too long to sell my Axe-Fx.

Trust me... I know A LOT about match EQ. I've also done IR capturing of real amps and cabs. All I know is that IR's don't capture dynamics. Only the EQ spectrum. Phasing... I dunno how there could be phasing after convolution. I know two IR's can be in phase with each other but not a single IR. Anyways... it doesn't affect the IR sound.

So CKJ, when you did the clips with Irotlas you used no cab sims in the HD with EQ matching simulating what the cab would do.

And when M Sadie did the clips provided he or she used the stock cabs with EQ matching.

Which way is best?

Sadie's is a clean tone and Irotlas is heavy, does that make a big difference in which method is preferable?

It seems it would sound more realistic using the cab sims then using match EQ as you would be getting whatever impedence reactance effect and other stuff a proper cab sim adds to the sound, though with the heavy tone maybe it doesn't work as well CKJ?

Did either of you try it both ways? And if you did what was preferable about the method you went with for the clips?



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by meambobbo on 2011-05-27 14:26:21

Here the thread with the setlist, where I tried to Match EQ the Pod HD's cabs to the RedWirez IR's:

http://line6.com/community/thread/64575



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by ClarkKentJob on 2011-05-28 01:11:05

Well if we're just talking about the POD HD then IR's would be the easiest way to get amazing tones and I could see custom IR's happening in the near future or POD HD. I'm pretty sure match EQ won't be a part of POD HD... at least any time soon.

About clean/distorted EQ matching: Clean sounds are harder to match EQ. Personally I wouldn't even try it since cabs don't make a big difference in clean tones since you can control it better with the amp EQ controls etc. Distorted tones are easier to match EQ because if you match EQ a section with chords you will most likely be using almost the full spectrum. This means that you can match EQ a cabinet out of a 1 second clip and it will be spot on.

The reason why I wouldn't match EQ Line6 stock cabinets is because they have some frequencies cut out and sometimes match EQ doesn't sound natural if it has to EQ drastically.

But hey... try what works best for you.



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by joehelias on 2011-06-03 07:56:01

A standard IR's is a static snapshot. Its linear and un-dynamic. I think of it a single picture giving a 2D representation of a 3D object in motion. Yeah you can tell what it is but all the depth and motion is not captured.

Real cabs have changing frequency, phase and distortion characteristics based on the harmonic content and volume of the signal passing through it. This is a non-linear response. The only way to duplicate this digitally is with dynamic convolution. This is a much more processor intensive technology that takes multiple snapshots and morphs them together to create a much better representation of things that change over time. The analogy here is a movie (as opposed to a snapshot).

If you want to hear dynamic cab sims check out nebula. http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb08/articles/nebula3.htm

Now you can (and many have) argue the relative merits of dynamic convo versus static - such as whether or not it makes an audible improvemnet. I think the jury is out when it comes to cabs (the nebula EQ's and analog saturation clearly sound better than anything digital I've ever heard IMO) but as processor power increases I think everything is headed this way anyway.

As for match EQ. I think its a great tool to get modeled tones as close as possible to already recorded tones. This is a good thing in my book but I don't see it being implemented in the HD. You can do it easily enough in the DAW of your choice.

With regard to the HD I would love more/better cab sims and/or 3rd party IR support.  But at the very least we need a MUCH better EQ option than the crap EQ's we currently have. Ideally I'd like a single global EQ with HI/LO filter or shelf (switchable), at least 2 parametic  bands, numeric display of cut, boost, Q, and frequency(!) and a graphical  interface in L6 edit - you know like the one we had in the XT and X3 but with better sound quality.



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by litesnsirens on 2011-06-03 08:21:35

I think the jury is out on whether there is an audible difference because for a select few there is an audible difference.  Everyone likes to think they have the ears of a mastering engineer, but select few do, that's why those guys get the job and why the the rest ( the smart honest ones anyway) send their mixes out of house to be mastered.  The placebo effect can do amazing things for us, "wow this extra processing sounds way better".  In reality some advancements in technology make a big difference some don't.   Some you will come to appreciate over time.  But despite the 2D effect as you put it ... Alot of that can be made 3D by the fact that the music we play through that sim is dynamic and flowing like a movie, so it would take real critical ear to hear the subtle changes in phase etc, especially when not beside an actual cabinet spitting out the same material.



Re: Better than IR - Match EQ!
by joehelias on 2011-06-03 08:32:37

For the cabs I agree. There was a lengthy discussion about the merits of Nebula dynamic cabs versus Static IR's in one of the forums. The guy responsible for some of the AXE-FX and Redwirez cabs (who is definitely a heavy hitter when it comes to all things speaker related) made the argument that static IR's are fine and that the dynamic cabs didn't really impress him.Then again I doubt the nebula folks went into as much detail with their dynamic IR's as, say, redwirez did with their static IR's. So maybe the comparision isn't truly apples to apples.

Now if we are talking about EQ and analog saturation.. well... Nebula is getting ALOT of well deserved attention in this area. I don't think the improvementt over algorithmic based plugins is negligible. Nebula sounds clearly better (much closer to analog gear) to my ears and I believe that it or something like it will be the future of digital simulation for all things analog.




The information above may not be current, and you should direct questions to the current forum or review the manual.