'amp in the room' setting

[hideout]

My take on all of this is that certain groups have a very hard time moving on toward something different than what they've always known.  Change is hard, but as Frank Zappa said, "change isn't just inevitable, it's necessary".

 

Guitar players and drummers seem to be that the top of the list for such things...drummers probably even moreso than guitar players.  And there may be some truth to the idea of a tactile visceral thing going on in both cases.  I can't say I've ever experienced it, and maybe that's why i've never been put off by actually seeking a more "studio" sound than "amp" sound in live gigs.  What drives and excites me is achieving a really well articulated, precision sound in a live environment...one that competes pretty effectively with a polished studio sound.  But I do agree that's a pretty scary leap for some people which makes it hard for them to embrace it.

 

I do think we're just at the beginning of performers at the upper end of entertainment echelon making that transition, which will probably help alleviate the fear of it from people in the trenches.  It's interesting to me to note how many of the drum kits used in big name bands are really driven by triggers through sampling machines nowdays, and we're even seeing the beginnings of this same type of transition with some bigger name bands and guitar players.  In those cases they've pretty much had to do it in order to have a competitive sound with the bands that have embraced it...and in the end that may have been what Uncle Frank was referring to as being necessary.

 

 

I'm in agreement. Truth be told, I do not prefer playing through a tube amp over most modelers I've ever used, and I prefer using a powered speaker to a cabinet. I started using modelers pretty quickly after I switched from acoustic to electric guitar, so I guess I never got used to playing through a traditional tube amp, at least not an expensive one.

 

 

Gotta echo these sentiments. 

Even though I grew up playing through amps (tube and ss), I was never ever satisfied with the sounds I got.  The sonic and practical limitations really bugged me and as I grew older, the weight of tube amps really started to matter. As young player, I'd ask older more experienced players how the pros got the sounds they got on recordings and got the same tired answers; "Oh you gotta have a Marshall or a Fender to do that".  I had access to a Fender Twin in high school and had tried Marshalls at the local music store (even though I couldn't afford them) and was puzzled for years as to why none of them could sound anything like what I heard on recordings. A few years went by before I understood the complexities of how they got those sounds on albums and later CDs.

Then it dawned on me... I've never given a rat's patootie about getting good amp sounds. I wanted the sounds I heard on recordings.  Those were my holy grail. 

[mileskb]

Then it dawned on me... I've never given a rat's patootie about getting good amp sounds. I wanted the sounds I heard on recordings.  Those were my holy grail. 

 

 

I think that sums this whole topic up !!!!   99% of people who are looking for their "holy grail" sound... have NEVER heard it, from an amp.   

 

But wait... I saw SRV live... I know what he sounds like.. BZZZZZZZT!  WRONG... NO YOU DON"T... You know what SRV's amp via a MICROPHONE AND CABLES AND SNAKE AND PREAMPS AND SPLITTERS AND MIXER AND PROCESSORS AND AMPS AND PA SPEAKERS sound like, unless you got on stage and sat in front of his amp.

 

Ok... let me back down a notch or two...   You just want that really cool full, shake your insides sound you get when you jam on your - insert your favorite amp/speaker here -

Well THAT's not going to happen with ANY PA speaker, because guess what...  that Fender Twin sound...  is not just a speaker.  It's a cabinet too.  The sound is coming not only from the speaker but it's radiating off the sides of the cab, and through whatever it's sitting on.  Same for your mesa cab and your Marshall cab and whatever..  

 

So here's my suggestion... You want "amp in the room sound from the helix"..  get an amp and speaker, and put it in a room.  

 

The closest you can get with the helix, as example of a Roland JC 120 in a room...  is...  Set the Helix to JC120 mode but don't use the cabs.  Take the line out and run it into effects return of a JC120.   It will sound like a JC120 in the room.

 

(sorry... my head was about to explode, I had to let it out).

[mileskb]

.....  and while I'm at it... that Kemper "Pure Cabinet" function is marketing spew for adjusting early reflections and global eq.   

 

They can make all the demos in the world... they still sound like they are coming out of the speakers I am playing them through.

[buddachile]

A perfectly flat measurement type mic?

 

 

You can only model what you can measure. I think the key to modeling a signal capable of producing an authentic "amp in the room" experience (not sound, experience!) when feeding a linear amp connected to a cab in the room is to devise a device for accurately measuring the vibrations of the speaker(s) in the cab of the rig you're trying to model (without significantly altering said vibrations as it measures them). Microphones measure compression/rarefaction of air, i.e. sound waves, which is an outcome of the speaker movement in the context the speaker is moving in. The problem is that depending on where your microphone is placed, even a perfectly flat mic, the sound it captures will be different for the same speaker vibrations. If instead you had an accurate measurement of the speaker movement you could amplify that signal (linearly) and reproduce those vibrations on the speaker(s) of the target modeling rig to create an authentic "amp in the room" experience.

[mileskb]

You can only model what you can measure. I think the key to modeling a signal capable of producing an authentic "amp in the room" experience (not sound, experience!) when feeding a linear amp connected to a cab in the room is to devise a device for accurately measuring the vibrations of the speaker(s) in the cab of the rig you're trying to model (without significantly altering said vibrations as it measures them). Microphones measure compression/rarefaction of air, i.e. sound waves, which is an outcome of the speaker movement in the context the speaker is moving in. The problem is that depending on where your microphone is placed, even a perfectly flat mic, the sound it captures will be different for the same speaker vibrations. If instead you had an accurate measurement of the speaker movement you could amplify that signal (linearly) and reproduce those vibrations on the speaker(s) of the target modeling rig to create an authentic "amp in the room" experience.

 

"You can only model what you can measure." another great take-away !!!   

 

In reality, another way to describe what you are talking about, it creating a room, maybe a 10' x 12' size...  have the walls ceiling and floor covered in sensors...   somehow "float" as best as possible the speaker cabinet in the center and then create a model at all frequencies based on those sensors.

 

When re-played through an FRFR rig, it should somewhat sound like the "amp in the room"  but again... it would just be that room the test was done which really isn't realistic.

 

I'm not sure how many people realize the classic recordings were made in studios chosen for their sound.  Record Plant, Sun, Abbey Road, Sound City etc all have a "sound".  They color the instrument.  

 

If you ever get to Sun studio in Nashville, the original one, you can play a few notes on the piano or guitar or sing a few notes, and you "hear" the sound that's on every recording made there.  It's freak'n eerie to be honest.  And that is the ONLY place it will sound like that.  You can do the same at the Old Ryman Auditorium.  I only mention these places because they are accessible.  In the Ryman, on "the spot" your instrument or voice takes on a sound that is very distinct.  

 

Frankly I think most people who are looking for "amp in the room" would be happy to just hook up a "buttkicker" to their amp system that transfers the lower frequencies to the structure (room) so you actually get that "in the room" amp feel.

 

http://www.thebuttkicker.com/

 

[buddachile]

In reality, another way to describe what you are talking about, it creating a room, maybe a 10' x 12' size...  have the walls ceiling and floor covered in sensors...   somehow "float" as best as possible the speaker cabinet in the center and then create a model at all frequencies based on those sensors.

 

When re-played through an FRFR rig, it should somewhat sound like the "amp in the room"  but again... it would just be that room the test was done which really isn't realistic.

 

What you described is more along the lines of a room IR. I'm thinking

about something different.

 

My idea has as its goal eliminating any contribution of the environment

(room) an mic from the model.

 

Current amp modeling incorporates the amp, speaker/cab and mics into

the model. The mic picks up air vibrations which are going to vary

based on the nature of the room involved. This effect is mitigated

by close mic'ing. The closer the mic is to the speaker the less room

color is captured. But in addition to the room color the position and

physical/electronic nature of the mic is going to color the captured

signal too. These colors are what I intend to eliminate from the model

by capturing the vibrations of the speaker in a direct/neutral fashion.

This is a challenge (for me at least) as I don't know how to accurately

capture the vibrations of the speaker. I don't know of a device that can

do this well enough, but I'm sure given sufficient resources it could be

devised.

 

Assuming an appropriate speaker vibration capture device is available,

once you accurately measure how the speaker vibrates to a given signal

then you can model that. Once that is modeled, the signal from the

modeler can be amplified by a linear amp to feed a speaker cabinet

with a speaker capable of accurately reproducing the vibrations of the

original (modeled) speaker. Once the modeling rig's speaker is vibrating

with no room/mic color you're reproducing the experience of playing the

original rig in whatever space you are playing your modeler in.

 

I think this is the "amp in the room" experience some guitarists who

cannot adapt to modelers are looking for. In other words, they want to

take their lightweight/flexible modeling rig anywhere, plug it in and

have the same experience as if they had brought all the original rigs

with them.

 

Of course there are other factors/details that would need to be

considered/worked out, but this is the general idea.

 

[mileskb]

What you described is more along the lines of a room IR. I'm thinking

about something different.

- EXACTLY !!!

 

My idea has as its goal eliminating any contribution of the environment

(room) an mic from the model.

- I BELIEVE the "ENVIRONEMENT" is exactly what they are trying to create.

 

In other words, they want to

take their lightweight/flexible modeling rig anywhere, plug it in and

have the same experience as if they had brought all the original rigs

with them.

EXACTLY....   If they brought the original rig with them, it would sound like the room it's in BECAUSE of the bounce, radiance and reflations of the cabinet.   Unless you can apply those elements to the model, it ain't gonna happen....   Physics.

 

 

I think we are thinking the same idea, unless one models MORE than the speaker and amp.  However, the only person that really hears more than the speaker and amp, is the musician.  

 

Yes another way to look at it.... is...   Now that I have a modeler, why would I want to bring a cabinet and set it on a wobbly hollow stage, and have some 20 year old beat up microphone hung on it?  Yeah... there would be "in the room sound" but I don't want "that" room as my sound.    Not when I can get that "mic'd" sound and just give it to the sound man directly.

 

Good conversation...  as someone said... there are many "definitions" of in the room.

[buddachile]

Given the development of a device for accurately measuring the vibrations of a speaker directly all you really would need is to use that device instead of a microphone to create an impulse response.

[DunedinDragon]

I think you guys are overlooking a wide range of factors that go into what constitutes the sound of a given cabinet.  It's not just the speaker, it's also the design of the cabinet, the way the cabinet is constructed, the materials used in the cabinet.  And although early reflections can be a factor in terms of mic placement, there are also off-axis and distance differences in tone that are part of what you're hearing and vary from speaker to speaker.

 

The real question in all of this is, is it really worth it?  Ultimately whatever sound you produce on stage is simply going to be projected to the audience via the FRFR speakers of the PA...the same as it is today whether it's a mic'd cabinet or a modeler with IRs.  As I said earlier, this amp in the room thing is really only a benefit the the guy on stage.  The audience won't hear it, won't notice, nor will they care.  In fact in all likelihood they've never heard it.  It's not present in any recorded material, or in any live concert they've listened to.  How big is the market for people that would want such a thing?  They can get pretty darn close with one of the many FRFR cabinets available on the market.

[Inerzia]

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=146368&gclid=CLyfxaDcoM4CFYGEaQodriYNIQ&is=REG&ap=y&c3api=1876%2C52934715962%2C&Q=&A=details

 

Anyone got a spare 8000 dollars.... this could probably get us the "Amp In The Room" IRs

First thing that crossed my mind. One day I'll have one (not necessarily to record guitars with) but, in the meantime, I'd love to hear what this puppy has to say about high gain guitars.

[Inerzia]

I have less noise, less maintenance, and less crap to drag around. I couldn't care less that it doesn't sound identical to my old Marshall 4x12...

I don't think that was the main point in this thread, but the need to tame some frequencies when using headphones. It's not about sounding like some specific piece of gear (or signal chain), it's about recreating the sensation of air moving between the speaker and your ears, a sensation that gets inmediately lost when you use (or try to, as I did some time ago) headphones.

[cruisinon2]

I don't think that was the main point in this thread, but the need to tame some frequencies when using headphones. It's not about sounding like some specific piece of gear (or signal chain), it's about recreating the sensation of air moving between the speaker and your ears, a sensation that gets inmediately lost when you use (or try to, as I did some time ago) headphones.

As loathe as I am to resurrect an 8 month old conversation, I gave things a quick re-read, and I think I grasped the substance of the conversation just fine. I was responding to a post lamenting the lack of the "amp in the room" sound that seems to be an insurmountable hurdle for some who attempt the transition to modeling. With that in mind, I'm content to stand by what I said.

[mileskb]

I think you guys are overlooking a wide range of factors that go into what constitutes the sound of a given cabinet.  It's not just the speaker, it's also the design of the cabinet, the way the cabinet is constructed, the materials used in the cabinet.  And although early reflections can be a factor in terms of mic placement, there are also off-axis and distance differences in tone that are part of what you're hearing and vary from speaker to speaker.

 

The real question in all of this is, is it really worth it?  Ultimately whatever sound you produce on stage is simply going to be projected to the audience via the FRFR speakers of the PA...the same as it is today whether it's a mic'd cabinet or a modeler with IRs.  As I said earlier, this amp in the room thing is really only a benefit the the guy on stage.  The audience won't hear it, won't notice, nor will they care.  In fact in all likelihood they've never heard it.  It's not present in any recorded material, or in any live concert they've listened to.  How big is the market for people that would want such a thing?  They can get pretty darn close with one of the many FRFR cabinets available on the market.

 

 

Nailed It !!!

[amsdenj]

We also think of the contribution of mic choice, placement, angle, and the IR capture process as a negative - something that takes away from the "amp in the room". But that need not be the case at all. Any post processing done in a recorded or live mix can produce a positive impact if done right. There's a lot of stuff you can do to the output of a guitar cabinet that isn't necessarily all bad.

 

I think of this as the contribution of the whole signal path - from pick and string to FRFR/PA speaker motion. With Helix we have a lot of options for managing that signal chain from start to finish. Now we can all dream about the small Blues Club environment where a Fender Deluxe with a Les Paul, Hammond organ and Leslie speaker, Fender Rhodes piano, Precision bass and SVT with 8x10s (I don't know about drums), is providing us with direct stage sound with the PA only addressing vocals. That's pretty awesome, but not realistic much of the time. What I love about Helix is that we can get to the 90-95% case, with a very convenient solution. That's pretty nice. We can leave the other 5% to the pros.

[buddachile]

I think you guys are overlooking a wide range of factors that go into what constitutes the sound of a given cabinet.  It's not just the speaker, it's also the design of the cabinet, the way the cabinet is constructed, the materials used in the cabinet.  And although early reflections can be a factor in terms of mic placement, there are also off-axis and distance differences in tone that are part of what you're hearing and vary from speaker to speaker.

 

The real question in all of this is, is it really worth it?  Ultimately whatever sound you produce on stage is simply going to be projected to the audience via the FRFR speakers of the PA...the same as it is today whether it's a mic'd cabinet or a modeler with IRs.  As I said earlier, this amp in the room thing is really only a benefit the the guy on stage.  The audience won't hear it, won't notice, nor will they care.  In fact in all likelihood they've never heard it.  It's not present in any recorded material, or in any live concert they've listened to.  How big is the market for people that would want such a thing?  They can get pretty darn close with one of the many FRFR cabinets available on the market.

 

I agree.

 

Firstly, you're right that I didn't even bother to gloss over the speaker cabinet factors but I am aware of them. My thought is that if you capture the IR of the movement of a speaker in a cab of certain dimensions and materials the speaker of the modeling rig could reproduce the original experience when placed in a cabinet of the same dimensions/materials.

 

Secondly, for my money accomplishing this goal has little to no value to ME. I'm happy to play through FRFR because it can sound great and offers the player more control over what the audience hears. That is, with FRFR what you hear is what the audience hears. This is not true with a conventional rig which means you can sound great to yourself and not so great to the audience (or vice versa).

 

My purpose is to engage in a thought exercise on how one might combat the prejudice of anti-modeler tube rig aficionados of which there are many. My perception is that the "amp in the room" experience is the last frontier for these folks because it cannot be successfully argued that people can discern the difference between modeled and real amp tone in recordings.

[rzumwalt]

[...] My thought is that if you capture the IR of the movement of a speaker in a cab of certain dimensions and materials the speaker of the modeling rig could reproduce the original experience when placed in a cabinet of the same dimensions/materials.

 

[...]

 

Hate to reply on a dormant thread, but ... I wonder if this would satisfy what you proposed. Suppose we modeled the amp in Helix, but without the cabinet model, output that signal to a perfectly neutral solid state amplifier designed to bring your level up to the output of a physical guitar amp, and then output that signal to a physical cabinet of the player's choice? So you would theoretically have all the character and dynamics of the modeled amplifier itself, going into an actual cab in an actual room. It would basically be a way of taking the modeled microphone out of the equation.

If Helix modeled the guitar amp perfectly, and the theoretical solid state amplifier doesn't color the signal in any way, wouldn't the sound produced be indistinguishable from the same sound through physical versions of both the amp and cab?

So, next we would see if we could accomplish the same thing by using your proposed speaker vibration measurement tool, let's call it a "Vibroscope" just for fun. If we took the Vibroscope measurements and made them into an IR, I guess by subtracting out the amp signal from the total signal, we could use that instead of a cab model.

Finally, to reproduce the cab sound with all the "in the room" nuance possible, we would set up our Helix to play through a powered cabinet designed to work like a middle of the road cabinet. Whatever your interpretation of that is. The idea would be to get that cabinet's speakers vibrating the same way they would if hooked up to a physical guitar amp, like we measured with the Vibroscope. You are still at the mercy of the room you are in and the particular characteristics of the cabinet, but I would think that, at that point, even the most ardent "amp in the room" guys would have to admit that this is true of physical amps as well, assuming the our theoretical modeled amp is perfect.

Now, I think we'd also have to admit that there would still be no way to get a PA type amplifier speaker to do the same thing. Even if we took the Vibroscope readings and played them back through the PA exactly as recorded--that is, as a recorded track rather than an IR--the PA still would not project like a cabinet or have the same final sound just due to the physics of it. But I like the idea of offering guitarists who reject the move to a miked sound an option to produce the sound they are expecting to hear, while being able to use the full amp models rather than just preamps going through a physical guitar amp's power amp section per 4CM. If they want to suffer the headache, noisy stage, hearing loss, and inconsistency of physically miking their cabinet at every venue, why should we stop them?

[DunedinDragon]

Hate to reply on a dormant thread, but ... I wonder if this would satisfy what you proposed. Suppose we modeled the amp in Helix, but without the cabinet model, output that signal to a perfectly neutral solid state amplifier designed to bring your level up to the output of a physical guitar amp, and then output that signal to a physical cabinet of the player's choice? So you would theoretically have all the character and dynamics of the modeled amplifier itself, going into an actual cab in an actual room. It would basically be a way of taking the modeled microphone out of the equation.

If Helix modeled the guitar amp perfectly, and the theoretical solid state amplifier doesn't color the signal in any way, wouldn't the sound produced be indistinguishable from the same sound through physical versions of both the amp and cab?

So, next we would see if we could accomplish the same thing by using your proposed speaker vibration measurement tool, let's call it a "Vibroscope" just for fun. If we took the Vibroscope measurements and made them into an IR, I guess by subtracting out the amp signal from the total signal, we could use that instead of a cab model.

Finally, to reproduce the cab sound with all the "in the room" nuance possible, we would set up our Helix to play through a powered cabinet designed to work like a middle of the road cabinet. Whatever your interpretation of that is. The idea would be to get that cabinet's speakers vibrating the same way they would if hooked up to a physical guitar amp, like we measured with the Vibroscope. You are still at the mercy of the room you are in and the particular characteristics of the cabinet, but I would think that, at that point, even the most ardent "amp in the room" guys would have to admit that this is true of physical amps as well, assuming the our theoretical modeled amp is perfect.

Now, I think we'd also have to admit that there would still be no way to get a PA type amplifier speaker to do the same thing. Even if we took the Vibroscope readings and played them back through the PA exactly as recorded--that is, as a recorded track rather than an IR--the PA still would not project like a cabinet or have the same final sound just due to the physics of it. But I like the idea of offering guitarists who reject the move to a miked sound an option to produce the sound they are expecting to hear, while being able to use the full amp models rather than just preamps going through a physical guitar amp's power amp section per 4CM. If they want to suffer the headache, noisy stage, hearing loss, and inconsistency of physically miking their cabinet at every venue, why should we stop them?

 

 

Aside from this imaginary vibroscope, it seems like this is an awful lot of work for the 1 or 2% of the people that simply HAVE to have an amp in the room sound.  Not to mention that much of what you're talking about can already be accomplished by combining IRs using mic'd and ambient room IRs.  The only difference being that, unlike the amp in the room, the sound will be the same even if you're off-axis by standing up, sitting down, or standing to one side.  If your ability to play guitar effectively is that dependent on the amp in the room sound then (as Peter Hamm often points out), get an amp and get a room.

[mystic38]

This of course is a bad analogy.. it is perfectly possible to listen to a guitar amp/cab without using a microphone.. after all..."if you want to hear a guitar amp buy a microphone" said nobody ever.

 

Modeling a guitar cabinet without including a microphone is like trying to take a photograph without using a camera. It just doesn't work that way!

 

and specifically when you use the word "model" rather than "profile" or "record"..

 

If you are modeling a system, then you are mathematically constructing the individual elements and hence a CAB/no mic option is straightforward...just dont model the mic.

 

If however you are not really modeling, but recreating a likeness, like profiling, or recording, or emulation, you are producing more macro models, ie in a more limited way deriving your models from other data that is somewhat correlating to the elements to be modeled eg a CAB/MIC IR.. In this case it is still straightforward, its just more work,  to produce a CAB/no Mic model, given that the data set of mic IR's for a single cab would be sufficient enough to mathematically correct for the mics.

 

A mic is a relic of analog sound reinforcement and needs to bite the dust. It is simply not needed in a modern system and the focus needs to be put on systems that allow a FRFR modeling system to sound EXACTLY like the amps do... to you..standing 10ft in front of that 412... and the cab/no mic model is it.

 

mic drop (pun intended)

[cruisinon2]

If you are modeling a system, then you are mathematically constructing the individual elements and hence a CAB/no mic option is straightforward...just dont model the mic.

 

That's all well and good, but it seems to me that in order to create a modeling algorithm, the sound you're interested in modeling must first be captured. I've tried fishing nets, mousetraps, nothing works. You ever hear an old couple argue?...sound can even escape a marriage. ;)

 

I think we're stuck with mics for the time being...

[gunpointmetal]

Having this same discussion on TGP. That "in the room" sound will be HP/LP and EQ'd within an inch of life a by any FOH or recording engineer that is more worried about the overall mix than just what the guitar sounds like. I think it would be cool to have that "room" sound available, but in reality it would rarely be useful (or more useful) than a close-mic'ed sound because ultimately, its not about how the guitar sounds by itself, its how the guitar sounds mixed with all the other instruments. If that was the "ideal" FOH sound, there'd be be amp cabinets in every decent sized venue with some flat stereo mics five and half feet off the ground, ten feet away from the cab, facing away from the cab to capture the sound as the guitarist would like to hear it.

 

 

A mic is a relic of analog sound reinforcement and needs to bite the dust. It is simply not needed in a modern system and the focus needs to be put on systems that allow a FRFR modeling system to sound EXACTLY like the amps do... to you..standing 10ft in front of that 412... and the cab/no mic model is it.

 

[mystic38]

..and agreement with that.. the sound engineer is responsible to adjust our tone to sit in the mix.

 

though I do not agree that a cab/no mic model would rarely be used though.. I suspect the vast majority of users do not play out beyond their studio space and those would actually be able to get an idea of what an amp/cab combination actually sounds like.. , rather than that amp, cab and that mic..:) 

 

My point is that a mic was an integral and required element in sound reinforcement...and now it isn't. So, given i believe it is mathematically possible to eliminate the mic from the digital modeling path, then we should.. as it serves no purpose whatsoever, other than to color the sound of our tone.

 

..and yes, the sound engineer will still HP the crap out of the tone but hey..at least what is left will sound like an amp/cab

 

Having this same discussion on TGP. That "in the room" sound will be HP/LP and EQ'd within an inch of life a by any FOH or recording engineer that is more worried about the overall mix than just what the guitar sounds like. I think it would be cool to have that "room" sound available, but in reality it would rarely be useful (or more useful) than a close-mic'ed sound because ultimately, its not about how the guitar sounds by itself, its how the guitar sounds mixed with all the other instruments. If that was the "ideal" FOH sound, there'd be be amp cabinets in every decent sized venue with some flat stereo mics five and half feet off the ground, ten feet away from the cab, facing away from the cab to capture the sound as the guitarist would like to hear it.

[mystic38]

Yes indeed.. to capture the sound and establish the data array of output data for input data for a particular model yes... but its simply a question of the math.. given enough different mics being used, with already well defined properties, then there is sufficient raw data to create the mic model, and then to subtract it.. leaving cab/no mic..

 

hmm just found this..

 

https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/SphereL22

 

 

So it appears you can now buy a mic that will exactly model a dozen different types... and if you can do this, then you can remove the mic altogether.. so its clearly possible.

 

That's all well and good, but it seems to me that in order to create a modeling algorithm, the sound you're interested in modeling must first be captured. I've tried fishing nets, mousetraps, nothing works. You ever hear an old couple argue?...sound can even escape a marriage. ;)

I think we're stuck with mics for the time being...

[redmonda]

A mic is a relic of analog sound reinforcement and needs to bite the dust. It is simply not needed in a modern system and the focus needs to be put on systems that allow a FRFR modeling system to sound EXACTLY like the amps do... to you..standing 10ft in front of that 412... and the cab/no mic model is it.

 

Hopefully this doesn't come across as argumentative, just food for thought:

 

This is a problem of physics, not a limitation of modelling. An FRFR monitor CANNOT possibly sound like a 412 cabinet. It moves air differently. The cabinet resonates and has all sort of physical effects in how the sound is actually produced that can ONLY be created by using that cab.

 

Does your 1x12 sound like your 4x12? Would you expect it to? Why would you expect an FRFR monitor (which is really just a different kind of cab/speaker combination) to sound like any other cabinet? 

 

Put 2 "FRFR" monitor brands next to each other - they will sound different. Even though they're both "flat", any physical difference in any speaker combination will affect sound by the nature of how sound is generated.

 

All that to say, it's not a matter of modelling in my opinion.

[rzumwalt]

Yes indeed.. to capture the sound and establish the data array of output data for input data for a particular model yes... but its simply a question of the math.. given enough different mics being used, with already well defined properties, then there is sufficient raw data to create the mic model, and then to subtract it.. leaving cab/no mic..

 

hmm just found this..

 

https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/SphereL22

 

 

So it appears you can now buy a mic that will exactly model a dozen different types... and if you can do this, then you can remove the mic altogether.. so its clearly possible.

Point taken. But none of this changes the fact that the sound emanating from a PA or FRFR speaker is different from the sound emanating from a cabinet. As demonstrated here repeatedly by people smarter than me, once the sound leaves the speaker, it does so very differently from a FRFR than from a cab. You might be able to get some kind of raw amp signal into your PA or FRFR speaker, but that signal would be transformed by your PA or FRFR speaker anyway. If it were theoretically possible to hone in on one model of FRFR speaker and make the proper adjustments to simulate the in room sound, and I doubt it is, how many different speakers would have to be separately modeled for that adjustment? Any model that can work as an amp in the room would still have to at least have a cab in the room.

And if you're going to buy a cab, why not buy an amp you like and play it or use Helix in 4CM?

[DunedinDragon]

Just a question here.  What do you think is the reference sound used by 99.9% of the world's population when comparing it to the sound they hear live?  It's certainly not an 
"amp in the room", because they've likely never heard that.  What they've heard in every recording, every radio broadcast, every TV appearance, and even every concert is an electric guitar and amp captured by a microphone.  Chances are, were they to actually compare an amp in the room sound to a professionally mic'd sound in a double blind test they would likely prefer the mic'd sound because that's what sounds "normal" to them.

 

The reality is that the only ones in the world that ever seem to care about the amp in the room sound are guitar players who are used to standing in a room with the amp.  Of course that sound itself varies considerably depending on where the person stands in relation to the amp since the sound changes dramatically once you move off-axis to the cabinet.  Wouldn't that be an interesting artifact to make an audience member endure in a live or recorded performance!!!  Don't worry, it'll sound great as long as you stand RIGHT HERE and don't move off to the side!!!

[gunpointmetal]

Exactly.

Guitarists often forget that MOSTpeople couldn't give a flying F about how we hear our sound. 

[rzumwalt]

[...]

 

Wouldn't that be an interesting artifact to make an audience member endure in a live or recorded performance!!! Don't worry, it'll sound great as long as you stand RIGHT HERE and don't move off to the side!!!

Yeah. Or only do concerts to audiences standing in long hallways and turn your cab to exactly 12.7 degrees off center.

[GeorgeVW]

Point source vs. environment. And a transducer is a transducer is a sensor is a rose is your ears mounted on the side of your head. You're asking for a unicorn. The sound of an "amp in a room" is requisite on having a) an amp and b )  a room. And no matter how you measure it, what you're always going to end up with is the sound of _that_ amp in _that_ room because you can't stop that butterfly from flapping it's wings halfway around the world. 

 

This debate meets the original definition of "moot point" i.e. one which is subject to endless debate without every reaching resolution. 

[gunpointmetal]

But err'body wants their 1x12 PA speaker with a horn to accurately recreate the feel of the position of a  4x12 cabinet exactly 9.3' away and 3' off axis with room reflections of their specific space they like the sound of their amp at the exact volume they really start to "feel" it.

That doesn't seem unreasonable or pointless at all........(heavy sarcasm, in case there was any confusion)

[PeterHamm]

As the poet Montgomery Scott once mused: "I canna change the laws of physics"...

[mystic38]

oh no..all is good.. :)

 

The cab models are there to mimic the cab and produce that 412 equivalent tone out of a perfect FRFR  monitor (which as we can agree is neither FR not FR).. however that is a cab model issue, nothing to do with mics at all. 

So, taking a point source reading from a position of (lets say from an above post ) 5.5ft up and 10ft in front of that speaker in an open space.. a 100% cab model into a theoretically perfect FRFR should and would sound the same.. otherwise the cab model is wrong...no?

 

Now as FRFR monitors have differing responses, for sure we need to add a couple of EQ blocks.. one to tune/compensate for an individual "FRFR" and  also a global final EQ for room acoustics..

 

and of course there is room effects to consider, hence the open space reference above, but still, at the point of users attempting to create sonically accurate presets, eliminating the mic from the equation can only improve our chances, as well as add to originality...put it this way.. at the most simplest level, the cab is an EQ curve, the mic adds an EQ curve and your FRFR is an EQ curve.. ONE EQ *should* be pretty close (the cab) leaving 2 EQ curves for the user to correct for.. eliminate one and chances go up no?..

 

 

Hopefully this doesn't come across as argumentative, just food for thought:

 

This is a problem of physics, not a limitation of modelling. An FRFR monitor CANNOT possibly sound like a 412 cabinet. It moves air differently. The cabinet resonates and has all sort of physical effects in how the sound is actually produced that can ONLY be created by using that cab.

 

Does your 1x12 sound like your 4x12? Would you expect it to? Why would you expect an FRFR monitor (which is really just a different kind of cab/speaker combination) to sound like any other cabinet? 

 

Put 2 "FRFR" monitor brands next to each other - they will sound different. Even though they're both "flat", any physical difference in any speaker combination will affect sound by the nature of how sound is generated.

 

All that to say, it's not a matter of modelling in my opinion.

[mystic38]

in bold..those are precisely 100% of Helix, Fractal, and Kemper customers... so again.. given we KNOW that audience tolerance for tone is at least 10 times wider than our own.. why are we spending thousands on gear to NOT sound like amps?.. just a question :)

 

Just a question here.  What do you think is the reference sound used by 99.9% of the world's population when comparing it to the sound they hear live?  It's certainly not an 
"amp in the room", because they've likely never heard that.  What they've heard in every recording, every radio broadcast, every TV appearance, and even every concert is an electric guitar and amp captured by a microphone.  Chances are, were they to actually compare an amp in the room sound to a professionally mic'd sound in a double blind test they would likely prefer the mic'd sound because that's what sounds "normal" to them.

 

The reality is that the only ones in the world that ever seem to care about the amp in the room sound are guitar players who are used to standing in a room with the amp.  Of course that sound itself varies considerably depending on where the person stands in relation to the amp since the sound changes dramatically once you move off-axis to the cabinet.  Wouldn't that be an interesting artifact to make an audience member endure in a live or recorded performance!!!  Don't worry, it'll sound great as long as you stand RIGHT HERE and don't move off to the side!!!

 

and i simply do not understand the angst at all.. we currently send a feed to foh that is cab+mic, which then gets doctored by the sound engineer, why is is such an issue that the feed be simply a more authentic sounding cab model / no mic only?... the sound engineer will still EQ to fit the mix...yes the person who will tell the difference is the guy that bought the gear in the first place.. isnt that a win? :)

[gunpointmetal]

"Amp-in-a-room" is an ever-moving target that varies greatly from person to person. Some people like the sound of an Orange 4x12 coupled to floor at full-volume, but they only like that sound when they can stand 10' in front of it. Some people like the sound of a 1x12 on a stand on one side of the stage pointed directly at the side of their head...other people like four 4x12 running at moderate volumes each, but only if they can stand 25-30 degrees off-axis. I personally don't like the sound of any of those things. I didn't get into guitar because I heard my neighbor jamming through his garage door with a loud-lollipop stack, I got into guitar because I liked a sound I heard on a record. Point being, everyone's idea of "cab in a room" is different, even when people are referring to the same pieces of gear, even in the same room. If you really want your FRFR rig to sound like a 4x12 on stage.....just take a 4x12 on stage and let the sound guy mic it up (effectively eliminating the "amp in a room" sound from the FOH anyways...)

 

People get overwhelmed by the amount of IRs available....image if every version of "amp in a room" was available....

[redmonda]

oh no..all is good.. :)

 

The cab models are there to mimic the cab and produce that 412 equivalent tone out of a perfect FRFR  monitor (which as we can agree is neither FR not FR).. however that is a cab model issue, nothing to do with mics at all. 

So, taking a point source reading from a position of (lets say from an above post ) 5.5ft up and 10ft in front of that speaker in an open space.. a 100% cab model into a theoretically perfect FRFR should and would sound the same.. otherwise the cab model is wrong...no?

 

Now as FRFR monitors have differing responses, for sure we need to add a couple of EQ blocks.. one to tune/compensate for an individual "FRFR" and  also a global final EQ for room acoustics..

 

and of course there is room effects to consider, hence the open space reference above, but still, at the point of users attempting to create sonically accurate presets, eliminating the mic from the equation can only improve our chances, as well as add to originality...put it this way.. at the most simplest level, the cab is an EQ curve, the mic adds an EQ curve and your FRFR is an EQ curve.. ONE EQ *should* be pretty close (the cab) leaving 2 EQ curves for the user to correct for.. eliminate one and chances go up no?..

 

The issue is in the implementation.  In order to capture the cab info, you need a "flat mic" (to capture what your 'ear' truly hears). You'd also need an anechoic chamber (which is quite difficult to do in practice) to prevent any effect of the room. You also need a sophisticated enough monitor/playback system that can meet the needs.  Even then, it is going to 'feel' different depending on how close to the cab you were standing.  Should I capture at 5'? 10'? etc.

 

In theory, they could truly "model" a cab rather than capture an IR, then use this "modeled" cab simulation to generate IR's as the user desires. This would likely be an external application rather than built-in due to the processing required to perform this.

 

If you acoustically model a cab, speakers, materials, etc and then pick a simulation point (i.e. x,y,z coordinates where your ear is located relative to a reference point in the cab) then you can spit-out simulated IR's.  This would have to be a pretty involved tool in and of itself to allow the user to determine their configuration to get the right IR.  This would obviously also not account for the room that you are accustomed to listening in.

[datacommando]

in bold..those are precisely 100% of Helix, Fractal, and Kemper customers... so again.. given we KNOW that audience tolerance for tone is at least 10 times wider than our own.. why are we spending thousands on gear to NOT sound like amps?.. just a question :)

I really cannot comprehend which bit of this you do not understand!

As pointed out by " DunedinDragon" above the average audience member, be it live or recorded, has no concept of the "trouser flapping, amp in the room" tone you expect. Fractal, Kemper, Helix and all other modelling systems don't work like that. They give an approximation of a mic'ed cab being monitored in a studio control room environment, along with all the Pro production toys, compression, eq, chorus, delay, reverb or whatever. If you want the sound of a cab in the room simply buy an amp an a cab an sit in the room with it! But remember, when the record company guy turns up with the contract to record - your guitar sound will never be the same as you expected. What ya gonna do then?

Get real!

[amsdenj]

I've spent my career modeling things from paper machines, to power plants, to software engineering systems. We call this the Digital Twin - a digital representation of something in the real world that we can analyze, modify, or exploit in ways that are impractical or impossible to do with the real system.

 

Getting an amp in the the room sound out of a model could in theory be done if we could model the speaker without using an impulse response. It wasn't that long ago that we didn't have very good software models of simple non-linear electronic components like tubes. We have those now, and maybe someday we can analyze and model the magnet, voice coil and cone of a speaker to reproduce what it actually does. That could be a ways out, speakers are very complex physical things. There's art in creating them.

 

In the meantime we have impulse responses which are essentially "profiles" created impirically using a speaker, cabinet and mic. This will never sound like an amp in the room because of the mic and the FRFR playback system. These add their own color and can't be removed.

 

However, amp in the room was something that evolved over may years. Who's to say that amp models and impulse responses won't eventually become so commonplace that they'll be on recordings we come to love and their tone will become the new standard?

 

The point is tone for the song, not amp in the room. We need to shift the focus of this discussion from reproducing something we had to something new that's different, maybe sometimes better, and like all models, lets us do something that wasn't practical with guitar amps - like playing in small clubs.

[HonestOpinion]

...

 

In theory, they could truly "model" a cab rather than capture an IR, then use this "modeled" cab simulation to generate IR's as the user desires. This would likely be an external application rather than built-in due to the processing required to perform this.

 

If you acoustically model a cab, speakers, materials, etc and then pick a simulation point (i.e. x,y,z coordinates where your ear is located relative to a reference point in the cab) then you can spit-out simulated IR's.  This would have to be a pretty involved tool in and of itself to allow the user to determine their configuration to get the right IR.  ...

 

Interesting post. I have to think this is where at least some IR creation is headed.  I can easily see IRs in the future that are completely modeled and not a bit of them will be captured from real speakers and real mics.  You will select the speaker type, mic type, axis, distance etc., and every bit of it will be virtual. Not sure how Line6 does their mic type and mic distance parameters but we may be part way there already.

[datacommando]

Interesting post. I have to think this is where at least some IR creation is headed. I can easily see IRs in the future that are completely modeled and not a bit of them will be captured from real speakers and real mics. You will select the speaker type, mic type, axis, distance etc., and every bit of it will be virtual. Not sure how Line6 does their mic type and mic distance parameters but we may be part way there already.

HonOp,

Some guys that I know about are messing with the science behind IRs used for reverbs.

Have a look at this:

http://www.openairlib.net

It's mainly reverb impulse stuff at the moment, but they have an anechoic chamber to check you own sounds.

I have used a stack of their reverbs in Logic - excellent stuff.

[TheDaveDaveDave]

A perfectly flat measurement type mic?

I've been thinking the same thing - something like an Earthworks M30. Of course, it would hurt like all heck for anyone to choose it while wearing headphones, or going to a PA, but I wonder how close an FRFR would work with a modelled cab and a properly modeled reference mic for the AItR scenario....

 

DI, Frank, can you guys comment on any research you've done with this, beyond "cannot confirm nor deny"? ;)

[HonestOpinion]

HonOp,

Some guys that I know about are messing with the science behind IRs used for reverbs.

Have a look at this:

http://www.openairlib.net

It's mainly reverb impulse stuff at the moment, but they have an anechoic chamber to check you own sounds.

I have used a stack of their reverbs in Logic - excellent stuff.

 

I love this site, it is actually the first one I posted when I started a thread for free IRs.  

http://line6.com/support/topic/17076-links-for-free-impulse-responses-ir-here/?p=125873

 

The problem is right now the Helix and probably most other modelers don't accept IRs large enough to be properly used for reverb although this site does have a few that are short enough.  I definitely think the next generation is going to allow much larger file sizes for IRs. This would allow not only reverb IRs but more detailed and complex cab IRs as well. Maybe there would be a way to do it now with a firmware revision but it does not seem to be a high priority.