Helix HX Cabs vs IR's

[roscoe5]

Preface

I've been reluctant to post this knowing how some of these types of threads can go, but the issues have been burning in my mind and I am now fully vested in Helix as the main part of my musical process.  I only have positive intent and mean this to be constructive for Line 6.

 

Helix HX Cabs seem to have been created using IR's, with likely some other proprietary algorithms for the "Hybrid Cabs" lower DSP usage.  Let me also say that I would MUCH prefer using Helix HX cabs over 3rd party and my own IR's.  I am sure that Line 6 has the knowledge, experience, ability, and resources to create superior cabinet simulations...and the iron is hot with Helix.

 

Helix blog, Helix Hybrid Cabs http://line6.com/helix/blog.html

"...speaker cabinet emulations that are created using impulse responses (like the ones in Helix)..."

 

Observations

In researching 3rd party IR's, my experience with Amplitube and Eleven Rack, creating some homebrew IR's, and further researching the Helix HX Cabs, I am noticing some differences in methods and functionality of the HX Cabs.

 

1. HX Cab Distance control seems to only move the mic away from the grille, not horizontally across it like 3rd party IR's.  I'm finding in Ownhammer, Redwirez, my own IR's. and Amplitube, moving the mic horizontally across the the "face" of the speaker grille makes very usable alterations in tone and frequency.  Now it does seem to require separate IR's for each horizontal distance increment.

 

2. The Helix HX mic distance starts at 1" from the speaker grille.  Some of the best usable live sounds I am getting from 3rd party IR's, my own IR's, and Amplitube are mic ON the grille.

 

Helix Manual, Cab Settings, p.28

"Distance: Sets the distance (1 inch to 12 inches) between the mic and the speaker grille."

 

Helix Hybrid Cabs Blog http://line6.com/helix/blog.html

"...a hybrid cab allows you to move the microphone from directly on the grill to up to 12 inches away (in .5 inch increments)"

 

3. What sort of amplification was used in creating the Helix HX cabs? There is a certain tone and frequency response from the HX Cabs that drove me (and maybe others) to preferring IR's.   Ownhammer V4 IR's (maybe previous) are using a "secret" neutral tube amp.  Rewirez uses an impedance cure to simulate a tube amp "shaping" a speaker's frequency responsne.  My personal IR's sound best to me when I run the impulse signal through my tube power amps.

 

http://forum.fractalaudio.com/threads/ownhammer-v4-impulse-response-libraries.112901/

All of the V4 guitar cab libraries are driven by a neutral tube amp, using a BAE 1073mp mic amp, Vovox cables, and Prism Orpheus conversion.

 

http://www.redwirez.com/free1960g12m25s.jsp

We've added IRs of the G12M's impedance curve at varying degrees of prominince. These can be used to capture the effect of a tube amp interacting with the speaker. In general, tube amps have a higher output impedance than solid-state amps. As a result the speaker's frequency response is shaped to varying degrees by it's own impedance curve. All of our cabs will be getting this update in the near future. 

 

4. Avid Eleven Rack had a cool "Speaker Breakup" control on their cab models (a slider on the cab in the computer editor).  Now I couldn't tell you how this was modeled or how authentic it is, but it was very useful. See attached pic.

 

Conclusion

I realize Helix was 5-6 years in the making.  I truly believe that the Helix amp models are leading edge.  IR creation methods and usage have changed a lot in that time period, and many users prefer 3rd party IR's over Helix HX Cabs.  Other IR companies were started, and even on version 4 within this time frame.

 

Is it possible that the Helix HX cab modeling is one of the older components in Helix?  

 

Does it need a refresh incorporating some the best methods and features from competitor products, as well as some industry-leading Line 6 innovation(s)?

 

 

 

 

[mikisb]

Hi roscoe,

 

thanks for all the research you've made and for sharing the results - your own IR's and your conclusions.

 

I fully agree with all conclusions you made.

 

For my taste, many of 3th party IR's sound better and more authentic than the modelled cabs. But why? The cabs are more convenient for me as i'm able to change some important parameters. If i could change even the mic's angle, it would be great as i think this would make them much more realistic. Using IR's is cool but not convenient for me, as i loose myself in thousands of IR's with less possibilities to modify

 

Remember: A mic (or ear) direct in front of the speaker(0°) is just one of many vectors. It is not the mayority of the sound dissipating into a room, but a minority, as you habe 1 vector at 0° and many vectors at 15° for exemple. So for my taste, the frequency response exactly on axis was always overweightet for my taste.

Speakers dissipacion changes a lot with the angle. In average, a angle of 15 to 30° corresponds much more to what we hear in a room than the one angle of 0°. I think this could be the reason why often the cabs sound harsh to me and i have to use the highcut. The highcut should be used to do some fine tuning, but it should not be necessary to make a cab sound about like a real cab with guitar speakers.

 

So i think, adding different angles to the cabs (as parameter as the distande) would probably result in more convenient sound and would'nt destroy all patches still made as the 0° angle would still exist. Changing the cabs completly would do this and we all had to modify all existing patches based on those actual cab models.

 

So i think adding the option of different mic angles could be the best solution for all.

[fastnloud]

well 4 years in the making with no editor at launch..lol

 

still limited amp sims, cab sims not very good compared to 3rd party IR's , no upgrades to speak of since matchless amps and channel switching issues with lots of user amps including both of mine,and zero support for a correct fix from line 6 for this.

 

I am starting to wonder if I made a mistake buying it. at least my fractal gets upgrades, has strong support, and tons of great amp/cab sims.

 

Its true the helix is very easy to use and has some great features like routing but is failing in a lot of other areas, support and cab sims noted in the above post included.

 

Just my opinion take it as you will.

[njglover]

So i think adding the option of different mic angles could be the best solution for all.

 

That would actually be a really elegant solution. Angles or even just a second distance parameter, distance from center. It's annoying to me that, in order to make the cab sound "real" I have to use the low and high cuts (though even on the IRs I use I'm using the high cut, but in that case just to tame some fizziness) and the room tone option. But the more annoying thing is that, even after I do that, I can get really close to where I want to be, but just moving the mic a little farther off axis would get me that last bit and then I wouldn't need to bother with all these IRs.

[mikisb]

All right - as i did'nt find something similar in ideascale, i posted this as a new suggestion here: http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Helix-Please-add-Microfone-angle-to-cab-parameters/817573-23508

[roscoe5]

I'm choosing to have some faith in Line 6 and not looking to other solutions.

 

They nailed the hardware spec, form factor, and flexibility. Any other solution would be a compromise for me.

 

Models and software can evolve and be released, as shown by Fractal, Ownhammer, and Amplitube. I'm sure Line 6 has awareness of the market, users, and it's products.

 

With the number of units sold, we are certainly showing our interest and support, and likely funding further development. I would be curious on some stats of Helix units sold vs other manufacturers.

 

I've also seen that they value honest user feedback and ideas, which also reinforces my decision to stay with Line 6 and Helix as my solution.

[roscoe5]

All right - as i did'nt find something similar in ideascale, i posted this as a new suggestion here: http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Helix-Please-add-Microfone-angle-to-cab-parameters/817573-23508

Voted.

 

I found an idea titled "Mic Distance" that asked for a parameter to move the mic from cone to edge, and cited for that too. It was back from Nov 2015.

 

On my phone and can't grab a link.

[roscoe5]

Oh, and an idea I submitted about adding a speaker breakup slider quickly went to In Review status with almost no votes. So I don't know if this is an indication it may already be in the works, but it was encouraging.

[Lachdanan0121]

Oh, and an idea I submitted about adding a speaker breakup slider quickly went to In Review status with almost no votes. So I don't know if this is an indication it may already be in the works, but it was encouraging.

I couldn't find it, however if I did, I would have voted for it. That would be a nice feature adopted from the 11R.

[roscoe5]

I couldn't find it, however if I did, I would have voted for it. That would be a nice feature adopted from the 11R.

I think once the ideas go to In Review, you cannot vote anymore.

[mjorden]

I have recently started using Ownhammer IRs and have had the same experience. The IRs feel more realistic, dynamic and alive. However, unless it is my imagination, they seem to eat up more DSP resources which limits what can be done in some patches. Would love for the stock L6 cabs to sound as good. I would even buy a cab model pack for the convenience factor.

[roscoe5]

I have recently started using Ownhammer IRs and have had the same experience. The IRs feel more realistic, dynamic and alive. However, unless it is my imagination, they seem to eat up more DSP resources which limits what can be done in some patches. Would love for the stock L6 cabs to sound as good. I would even buy a cab model pack for the convenience factor.

 

Yeah, even Line 6 says IR's use more DSP and say that their HX Hybrid Cabs use less.

 

I bet Line 6 hears us though.  The additional mic position and angle options could help.  Maybe remodeling/re-IR'ing their cabs wouldnt take much effort for them if they need to do it.

[zooey]

Agreed that horizontal (really radial) distance from the center of the cone is an incredibly important aspect of mic-ing a guitar cab, and that adding a parameter for that would vastly improve the accuracy and usefulness of the built-in cabs. Voted and commented on that in Ideascale, hard to believe it's the first request.

 

In the Amplitube patch thread I posted a one with the IR you made from my Amplitube patch, and my not-final-but-after-some-work built-in-cab+EQ version as an alternative. The built-in one w EQ isn't bad, but there's an undeniable thickness to the IR version that doesn't strike me as purely EQ.

 

Can a cab IR affect more than pure frequency response and reflections, like distortion and/or compression? I thought not, but I haven't researched it.

[jeremyn]

No, a single linear IR can't model compression or distortion. But, those extra 'reverb reflections' can add quite a bit of body to real signal that a simple EQ can't.

 

A guitar speaker is naturally non-linear once you start getting 'loud'. The magnet starts to saturate, and the cone starts to breakup and gets harder to 'push' as the sound gets louder and the speaker reaches its physical limits. This isn't just the Fletcher-Munson curve that you're hearing (which is also non-linear), but the actual physical effects of the speaker/cabinet running outside of its linear response.

 

So if you like clean guitar sounds, where the speaker is still very linear, then an IR can capture 99.9% of whats going on in the real world.

 

But, if you want great distorted tone (ie. the sound a real amp can only make when you crank it up loud), then modelling the speaker non-linearities becomes critical. Without these (ie. if you just use a linear IR), the final result won't quite sound completely 'real'.

 

I assume the Helix amp models are also modelling the non-linearities of a tube amp's output transformer into a 'typical' reactive speaker load. But, the cabinet model sounds like it's missing much of the non-linear magic that a real speaker cabinet provides.

[zooey]

Ideally I'd actually measure the frequency response of the IR, then try again to match that with the built-in cab and EQ, see how that does. The AT patch isn't bad with the built-in version, but the IR one definitely sounds better to me.

[cornerstonetom]

well 4 years in the making with no editor at launch..lol

 

still limited amp sims, cab sims not very good compared to 3rd party IR's , no upgrades to speak of since matchless amps and channel switching issues with lots of user amps including both of mine,and zero support for a correct fix from line 6 for this.

 

I am starting to wonder if I made a mistake buying it. at least my fractal gets upgrades, has strong support, and tons of great amp/cab sims.

 

Its true the helix is very easy to use and has some great features like routing but is failing in a lot of other areas, support and cab sims noted in the above post included.

 

Just my opinion take it as you will.

 

I don't know what your idea of support looks like exactly. I do know that there have been 19 various updates/fixes posted on the "Downloads" section for Helix (Win10), not including the Beta version of the desktop editor, from 7/23/15 to present. 20 updates over nearly 9 months. That's an average of just over 2 per month (2.222222222 to be exact). It could also take quite some time to deliver on all the "best" requests posted on IdeaScale.

 

I would like to see more versatility in the cab/mic department along with a few other things posted online.

 

I do know this device is better than the X3 Live I had.

 

I have a feeling more will be revealed. I also have a feeling that what will be revealed will take some time. While I would have liked it to have been perfect/complete from the start, I realize that this is a fairly complicated device. I expect there to be a whole bunch of updates and incremental improvements.

 

I still have my analog pedalboard however... but overall, I'm pretty satisfied.

[roscoe5]

No, a single linear IR can't model compression or distortion. But, those extra 'reverb reflections' can add quite a bit of body to real signal that a simple EQ can't.

 

A guitar speaker is naturally non-linear once you start getting 'loud'. The magnet starts to saturate, and the cone starts to breakup and gets harder to 'push' as the sound gets louder and the speaker reaches its physical limits. This isn't just the Fletcher-Munson curve that you're hearing (which is also non-linear), but the actual physical effects of the speaker/cabinet running outside of its linear response.

 

So if you like clean guitar sounds, where the speaker is still very linear, then an IR can capture 99.9% of whats going on in the real world.

 

But, if you want great distorted tone (ie. the sound a real amp can only make when you crank it up loud), then modelling the speaker non-linearities becomes critical. Without these (ie. if you just use a linear IR), the final result won't quite sound completely 'real'.

 

I assume the Helix amp models are also modelling the non-linearities of a tube amp's output transformer into a 'typical' reactive speaker load. But, the cabinet model sounds like it's missing much of the non-linear magic that a real speaker cabinet provides.

 

 

Yeah, I couldn't get the Helix HX Cabs to breakup or distort when playing through only a cab block.  You should try it sometime if you're curious.

 

Eleven Rack is the only think i have ever seen with speaker breakup, but I'm not sure if it authentic speaker breakup or a distortion type effect.  Sounds cool and makes a difference.  I think Eleven Rack was ahead of it's time and processor technology.  It's still a good piece of gear and a solid, stable interface.

[mikisb]

as far as i know, "speaker breakup" is in general a function of the frequency, not of the level. In their normal working range, speakers behave the same relativly independent of the level. When a cone breakup appears at 115 dB, it usually appears at 90 dB to, cause its usually the frequency where the piston stops to work as a piston and gets into partial vibrations, wich is sen in the frequency response. If you compare this response at 80 dB and at 110 dB, you will hardly note a difference (if the speaker is'nt crap and its maximum level is above the 110 dB.)

 

Thermal compression is another thing and mechanical limits at low frequencies just another thing, and these both are level dependent. But i'm not shure if we really want to hear this. Modelled voicecoil crash or deformation? No thanks :)

The easiest way to get it would probably be making IRs not only at different mikrofone angles and distances but at different levels to. So we could easily get hundrets of IRs just for one cab - who will keep the overview and wich device will manage this amount? ;)

[roscoe5]

Great info and thoughts mikisb!

 

I need to pull out the eleven rack again and play through only a cab and mess with the speaker breakup.

 

Heck, I will probably IR the Eleven Rack cabs just for learning and concept development. I'll post em up if anyone else is curious.

 

I'll do some more research and experimenting with speaker breakup.

 

 

 

I like your idea about IR'ing really pushed, possibly power amp distorted speakers.

 

Trying to get my hands on a good real ribbon mic too so I can do more real cab IRs.

[mikisb]

humm - there are some effects when driving a speaker really to it's limits:

 

Speaker:

- as already said thermal compression and voice coil destruction

- distortion is rising too at the top end - don't know if the amount is bif enough to be heard with a overdriven guitar.

- on some speakers, distortion is also rising at really low levels

- Limits of the suspension just in the moment before the speaker dies ;)

- voicecoil damage

 

Amp:

- Overdrive of the poweramp (modelled in Helix by master volume)

 

Ears:

- psychacoustical effects 1, as  the sensitivity vor frequency ranges changes with the level

- psychacoustical effects 2, as the feeling of sound pressure adds to what we hear

I thing both effects can't be reproduced at lower levels

 

Hope i did'nt forget something?

[jeremyn]

Total speaker breakup at stupidly high volumes where the magnet crashes out is way outside any tonal sweet spot anyway. However, the model should include the nonlinearities of the speaker before it gets to the extreme points. This is fairly loud in the real world, but not stupidly so for most typical guitar speakers. The other thing is the doppler shift distortion of higher frequencies that is dependent on the movement of the cone caused by lower frequencies. As the volume goes up, all these distortions increase.

 

Having a complete series of IRs taken at various dynamic levels doesn't help if Helix can't dynamically choose the appropriate sequence on a sample by sample basis. This is how the Kemper profiler works. It takes a series of IRs that it uses to interpolate between when generating the output waveform based on the level of the input samples. No reason why Helix can't do this too, but Line 6 has chosen the modelling approach where it tries to determine and algorithmically simulate all the physical parameters that have a significant effect on the tone.

[miguel_lopez]

oh men!!! I totally understand your concerning about Cab simulation... I used to be totally satisfied with PODxt cabs work, but when I started to use my own REAL cabs-mics relationship in my studio recording work I was SURPRISED how real sounds the real and how digital sounds simulation sources, but sadly I found more flexible the digital simulation when finally I mixed the rest of the recording sources: drums, voice, bass and other stuff

 

do you really guys notice such a GREAT difference between real deal and simulation when the drummer smashes all the mix???

[jeremyn]

oh men!!! I totally understand your concerning about Cab simulation... I used to be totally satisfied with PODxt cabs work, but when I started to use my own REAL cabs-mics relationship in my studio recording work I was SURPRISED how real sounds the real and how digital sounds simulation sources, but sadly I found more flexible the digital simulation when finally I mixed the rest of the recording sources: drums, voice, bass and other stuff

 

do you really guys notice such a GREAT difference between real deal and simulation when the drummer smashes all the mix???

 

Like anything, if you're listening for it - especially if you're the player - then you do notice it. A third party listener that is hearing the entire mix, not so much. The digital cabs don't sound bad, but you can hear a difference when you're A/Bing two mixes, one done with a digital cab and the other a real recording. It's not huge, but then neither is the difference between modelled amps and a real amp.

 

But, since the Helix is all about striving to reproduce a real setup, there's no reason why Line 6 shouldn't at least be trying for the next level of speaker cab emulation.

[miguel_lopez]

also a matter of "feeling"

 

there is a sensation you perceive when you hear LOUD your part, there is something I can't describe... please try to understand me =) 

 

I've worked with so many different cabs (not the guitar cabs for guitar amps, but cabs to monitor myself) and I've realized that some frequencies are impossible to perceive with the human ear, but you can "FEEL" something else; I'm NOT sure what it is (!!!) but there's something there you make a difference, and also the audience notice IT.

[njglover]

I messed up the order of my IRs yesterday and had to start messing around again, so out of curiosity I loaded up some of the Helix cabs for comparison. I live in an apartment so I'm usually listening on headphones, but I finally had a chance to play theough my FRFR and it's a whole different beast. While the IRs I so painstakingly picked out sounded great in headphones, I actually prefer some of the built-in cabs through the FRFR. The IR Recto 412 was noticeably muddier and thinner while the Cali 412 model was full and really clear. I suspect that when I record I may still want the IR, but live the Helix cabs often seem the better choice.

[duncann]

I often find good results with combining Helix's cabs, even more than one at a time, with an IR. Uses a little more dsp, but if it's there and not being used for anything else, why not?

[klangmaler]

[...] While the IRs I so painstakingly picked out sounded great in headphones, I actually prefer some of the built-in cabs through the FRFR. The IR Recto 412 was noticeably muddier and thinner while the Cali 412 model was full and really clear. I suspect that when I record I may still want the IR, but live the Helix cabs often seem the better choice.

 

I guess that the L6 team spent a whollotta bunch of time in finding the right combination(s) of amps & cabs for even different purposes...

 

The 'search for the right IR' ends up very often in going back to the included cabs - that's my experience with Helix (for about 6 month).

 

Of course every combination of amp / cab / real speaker / room is different -

 

but I'm very happy that I don't have to change permanently IR's (because they did such a good job) !!!

 

Tweaking the global EQ does it for me almost every time...

 

And: I have so much more time to play :D

[Lachdanan0121]

When it comes to sound design, which shaping a guitar tone is... Especially working in the digital realm. The ends justify the means. Meaning that if you have a good sound as a result then the route you took to make it worked. 

 

Trying to stay steadfast to arguably arbitrary rules limits one of the great things the digital realm has given us access to. 

 

I say if you have and idea/goal (as long as it is somewhat reasonable) then go for it... That is the only way progress has happened. 

 

 

also a matter of "feeling"

 

there is a sensation you perceive when you hear LOUD your part, there is something I can't describe... please try to understand me =) 

 

I've worked with so many different cabs (not the guitar cabs for guitar amps, but cabs to monitor myself) and I've realized that some frequencies are impossible to perceive with the human ear, but you can "FEEL" something else; I'm NOT sure what it is (!!!) but there's something there you make a difference, and also the audience notice IT.

 

This isn't far fetched at all.  Your ears aren't the only part of your body that senses "broadcasts." For instance the hair on your body feeling a certain frequency of resonance.  Your brain also can receive broadcasts. (and I don't mean pick up TV channels lol) Your brain even sends waking impulses throughout when the body is exposed to blue light.  

 

Sound itself, and the vibration in which causes it can be more powerful than people realize.  For instance you can suspend a liquid like water in mid air using sound.

[klangmaler]

[...]

Sound itself, and the vibration in which causes it can be more powerful than people realize.  For instance you can suspend a liquid like water in mid air using sound.

The esoteric part(y) has just begun :D .

 

I like to play in my bathtub - wow, what a broadcast :lol:

[Lachdanan0121]

The esoteric part(y) has just begun :D .

 

I like to play in my bathtub - wow, what a broadcast :lol:

:) I take that as a compliment.

 

However, I was sincere.

http://www.geek.com/news/water-droplets-suspended-in-mid-air-with-sound-1531435/

[klangmaler]

... that's what I apprehended :P

 

All right, when I listen to music, there is of course a different 'feeling', when I hear something louder, deeper, harsher, [...]

 

I did a lot audio engineering and believe me - for every 'feeling' you will find an explanation that has to do with

 

physical laws.

 

Even for the ostensible mysterious feelings in a bathtube ;) .

[Lachdanan0121]

... that's what I apprehended :P

 

All right, when I listen to music, there is of course a different 'feeling', when I hear something louder, deeper, harsher, [...]

 

I did a lot audio engineering and believe me - for every 'feeling' you will find an explanation that has to do with

 

physical laws.

 

Even for the ostensible mysterious feelings in a bathtube ;) .

Oh I couldn't agree more! :)

Even for things that can't be explained presently doesn't mean that it will always be that way.

[klangmaler]

...yeah, brother...

[miguel_lopez]

since music is ART, and ART is all about make the audience "FEEL" emotions/sensations-reactions, well, that would be the GOAL: to make feel

 

how many times people have said to me: oh man! that song you played! you almost make cry...!  so to say

 

but science and music are always working together

 

I have a friend, he is a book writter, he told me once how easy was to achieve emotions and sensations thru words... but that was NOT easy to do the same with music and sounds

 

then I got obsessed with this subject and trained myself in music to understand how it really works, I mean, the emotional part you can manipulate with sounds(theory of music is NOT enough, neither PSYCHOLOGY)

 

at the end, I realized that technical knowledge is ALSO as important as music itself!

 

then, IR's, which is the subjet in this thread is part of the ingredients we need to achieve that Artistic GOAL: to make feel the audience that miraculous reaction you can only make possible with music

[roscoe5]

With all of the message boarding and tone chasing...I spent a couple of hours today soul searching and revisiting my physical Mesa Recto amp through my Recto 212 to settle what it was that I thought I was missing.  I mic'd up the cab with an SM57 and moved the mic around different positions, angles and distances until I had what I perceived to be the best headphone and recorded sound that was matching my amp in the room sound without headphones.  To closely match amp-in-room in this particular room in my house, the mic was about 1" from the cap edge, off axis into the cone.

 

I then proceeded to take an IR of the setup.  I put that IR back into Helix with the Cali Rectifire amp model made some minor adjustments on the amp model. Voila! It was soooo close to my real amp in room sound.  The sound was thick, deep, and ballsy.

 

Now what actually sounded even better, albeit not true amp-in-room sound, was putting the Helix HX Cali 412 in parallel with the new IR.  I have tried all HX cabs, mic types, and positions, dual HX cabs, other IR's, etc.  But the IR + HX Cab to me is the best sounding option so far...at the expense of processing power I'm sure. 

 

Anyway, for me now, I'm starting appreciate the value of Amp Matching, Tone Matching, Profiling, etc. of Fractal, Bias, and Kemper even though I don't own one.  It seems you get 90% of the way there with preset hardware models, then finish up with a matching process to your / a physical amplifier/cab.

 

I'm still not compelled to change from Helix as it does so many things so well and fits nicely into my rig and workflows.  Native IR capture and matching would be less than 5% of the overall value to me.  I've seen and voted on similar amp/tone matching requests and IR utilities for Helix in IdeaScale.  Maybe some of these will be future features to keep with the competition.

[Lachdanan0121]

Hmm, I will have to keep in mind the IR + HX cabs route once I get my Helix in, and see how it works for me.

[roscoe5]

Here are a few of the real Recto amp and Recto 212 cab IR from today's efforts.  These are my personal favorites out of everything I have done so far.

 

Updated Files...I had grabbed the wrong ones earlier.

MesRec212AmpNorm.wav

MesRec212AmpBright.wav

MesRec212AmpDeep.wav

MesRec212AmpNeutral.wav

[HonestOpinion]

since music is ART, and ART is all about make the audience "FEEL" emotions/sensations-reactions, well, that would be the GOAL: to make feel

 

how many times people have said to me: oh man! that song you played! you almost make cry...!  so to say

 

but science and music are always working together

 

I have a friend, he is a book writter, he told me once how easy was to achieve emotions and sensations thru words... but that was NOT easy to do the same with music and sounds

 

then I got obsessed with this subject and trained myself in music to understand how it really works, I mean, the emotional part you can manipulate with sounds(theory of music is NOT enough, neither PSYCHOLOGY)

 

at the end, I realized that technical knowledge is ALSO as important as music itself!

 

then, IR's, which is the subjet in this thread is part of the ingredients we need to achieve that Artistic GOAL: to make feel the audience that miraculous reaction you can only make possible with music

 

Nice sentiments and the intersection of music theory and the human response to it is heady stuff. I have to disagree with your author friend on one point. I think it can be easier to have an emotional impact with music than with words alone. Songs can not only include words (lyrics) but have the added advantage of whatever psycho-mathematical components music brings to the table and the effects they have on the human brain. Think how many songs with absolutely dirt simple or even terrible lyrics have the capacity to move you in some way. A song does not even need to be in a language you understand and it can still evoke a response. Good songs are often cross-cultural and appeal to incredibly diverse populations across the spectrum; a feat also accomplished by some books but one that is arguably as or even more difficult.

[miguel_lopez]

this may be interesting to share with you guys:

 

many years ago I saw a Video about three guys with such extraordinary abilities:

 

1.- A man who had memorized all sacred books(and how they were the same thing)

2.- A man who knew all chess secrets and possibilities(he was not even a multi-winner awarded for his abilities, this guy only knew all the detailed chess possibilities)

3.- A man who could understand ALL languages(he was from Portugal): CHECK THIS OUT!!!:

 

this man said he went touring for holydays to weird places with her mother when he was 9 years old

 

he thought it was pure imagination he understood all the people he could hear talking and translate during his tour

 

many years later he realized it was not fantasy but real deal!!! he could actually translate EVERYTHING!!! but the magic in here was not the grammer itself, he was unaware of this fact, he could only know what was the meanning of all those phonetic articulations

 

In the video there were several people around the world who spoke portuguese(and his birth language) to prove his ability and they were incredibly surprised how even local expressions were "translated" to understand their meannings

 

so I think it was NOT a matter of language BUT comunication

 

this man turned on some switch in his brain we all human must have set OFF to activate the comunication capacity we all human beings have

 

so, words and sounds may be the equivalent of language material and expression and reaction may be the equivalent of comunication

 

what about the other arts??? paints, sculptures, films, theatre, dance, literature...

 

but since words are more intellectual material is not that spontaneous as sounds(and even the same as movements)

sounds and movements are more primitive