Jump to content
tourultimate

Why low and high cuts necessary?

Recommended Posts

I'm sorry if this is covered somewhere in another thread. I couldn't find anything.

 

I see that high and low cuts are highly recommended to the point that they basically seem necessary for the best tone.

 

The reason seems to be that our tube amps and guitar speakers don't normally produce those frequencies.

 

My questions:

 

1. why the modeler is producing these frequencies if the amps and cabs don't normally produce these?

 

2. Do other high end modellers have the same "problems"?

 

3. Can we trust the modeler if it can't get something loke this more correct?

 

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite frankly, I'd prefer to have more frequency range and have to dial it back to taste rather than it be artificially limited for me by default.  It gives tonal palette options beyond the limits of normal equipment.  Plus the Helix is designed to be used with more than just guitar (I run guitar, bass, vocals, and hardware synth through mine), so why limit its tonality? 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two reasons I can think of off the top of my head.....

1) As already expressed by tedulrich, no matter where Line 6 decided to arbitrarily make the lo and hi cuts, different users on both ends of the spectrum would wish they decided differently.

2) Perhaps more importantly, remember that Helix models the mic'd sound of the amp. That means that frequencies beyond the range produced by the cab are captured. Room reflections, added boominess from the cab sitting on the floor vs. raised on a stand, etc..... All of these tonal frequencies are captured by the mic.

So these frequencies are not problems or inaccuracies in the modeling. Line 6 accurately provides the full range of captured frequencies and lets the user decide where to cut based on their personal preferences. There's nothing 'incorrect' about what's captured by the mic.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I didn't realize that a mic would pick up frequencies so far outside the spectrum of what should be there, especially in the high end.

 

So these cuts might be necessary by FOH in a mic'd amp situation to get the guitar tone not sounding harsh?

 

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry if this is covered somewhere in another thread. I couldn't find anything.

 

I see that high and low cuts are highly recommended to the point that they basically seem necessary for the best tone.

 

The reason seems to be that our tube amps and guitar speakers don't normally produce those frequencies.

 

My questions:

 

1. why the modeler is producing these frequencies if the amps and cabs don't normally produce these?

 

2. Do other high end modellers have the same "problems"?

 

3. Can we trust the modeler if it can't get something loke this more correct?

 

Thanks!

 

 Check this thread from back in June 2016 for some insight about Global EQ.

http://line6.com/support/topic/21316-adjust-your-global-eq-you-may-be-surprised/

 

As for your questions:

 

1. Helix is a professional audio interface designed to work best with full range, flat frequency response equipment.

 

2. Yes, although it wrong to describe it as a problem. It's a normal thing for pro gear.

 

3. Yes, because as previously stated - it is correct.

 

To learn more about the frequency response of various instruments you could have a look at this:

 

Interactive Frequency Chart - Independent Recording Network

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I didn't realize that a mic would pick up frequencies so far outside the spectrum of what should be there, especially in the high end.

 

So these cuts might be necessary by FOH in a mic'd amp situation to get the guitar tone not sounding harsh?

 

Thanks!

 

Yes, the FOH sound guy will make these cuts as desired for any specific venue/situation.

 

Also, the 'spectrum of what should be there' is the full spectrum of the human ear's perception. It's not the 'spectrum' of what the cab produces. Whether the sound your ear hears is mic'd or not (i.e. the 'cab in the room') your ear (and the mic) perceives the full frequency range. Your cab will sound different to your ears in different rooms due to the room's acoustic dynamics. These sound differences are real, and 'should be there'. There's no absolute sound of the cab - it's relative to human/mic perception.

 

An analogy would be human vision and colour. I'm sure you've noticed how the colour of any object changes relative to the lighting in the room. Bright sunlight, cloudy daylight, electric lamp light - all of those affect the colour that your eye/brain perceives. Every time you see a shadow you are perceiving this. A shadow is essentially a perceived colour change due to the change in lighting (direct vs. indirect).

 

The object might have a very specific 'colour' as defined in scientific terms by the wavelength frequencies it reflects - but that's not what your eye perceives in all circumstances. The sound of a cab in a room, as perceived by a mic or your ear, behaves similarly. While the cab may have its scientific specification in terms of frequencies, that's not all that the mic/ear perceives.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite frankly, I'd prefer to have more frequency range and have to dial it back to taste rather than it be artificially limited for me by default.  It gives tonal palette options beyond the limits of normal equipment.  Plus the Helix is designed to be used with more than just guitar (I run guitar, bass, vocals, and hardware synth through mine), so why limit its tonality? 

 

 

Two reasons I can think of off the top of my head.....

 

1) As already expressed by tedulrich, no matter where Line 6 decided to arbitrarily make the lo and hi cuts, different users on both ends of the spectrum would wish they decided differently.

 

2) Perhaps more importantly, remember that Helix models the mic'd sound of the amp. That means that frequencies beyond the range produced by the cab are captured. Room reflections, added boominess from the cab sitting on the floor vs. raised on a stand, etc..... All of these tonal frequencies are captured by the mic.

 

So these frequencies are not problems or inaccuracies in the modeling. Line 6 accurately provides the full range of captured frequencies and lets the user decide where to cut based on their personal preferences. There's noting 'incorrect' about what's captured by the mic.

 

 

Precisely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Helix cabs and IRs model the sound of a speaker, cabinet and mic combination. The mic choice and where it is positioned with respect to the center of the cone (Cap, Cap-Edge, Cone, Cone-Edge are typical) and distance from the speaker will make a huge difference in the tone.

 

The reason high and low cut are needed is because you generally don't listen to a guitar speaker with you ear 1" away from the center of the cone. That would likely sound way too bright. Guitar speakers don't have a very high frequency response, and have a very narrow dispersion. So listening to a cabinet in the room will be very different that what the mic hears.

 

The best approach is to start with a mic you know and like. Then start with the mic position relatively close and at cap or cap-edge. This will pickup the broadest range of frequencies from the speaker. Then move toward cone edge to reduce high end, and move the mic away from the cabinet to reduce low end (reducing the bass boost caused by proximity effect and adding a bit more room). This is how guitar cabinets are mic'd in the studio and with live sound, and we can follow a similar process with Helix and IRs.

 

You can also close mic at cap or cap-edge and then use high and low cut to adjust the overall tone. Both approaches will produce similar results, but will sound different. You can also combine the two, getting close to the tone you want with mic choice and position leaving it a little too bright, then make smaller adjustments with high and low cut.

 

Note that we don't put the mic in the room where you would be listening to get the amp in the room tone because it would pickup too many room reflections that would get doubled on playback and sound bad. And we need to close mic in live situations to minimize bleed from other instruments.

 

These are all compromises, but its the compromises that sometimes result in the most loved tones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps more importantly, remember that Helix models the mic'd sound of the amp. That means that frequencies beyond the range produced by the cab are captured. 

 

 

I beg to differ Silver, let me explain.

 

If frequencies beyond the range produced by the cabs were captured by me, I could understand it. Small room, cheap $300 mics and knowledge base on IR capture a bit on the light side.  However, if a company say like Line 6 is doing this (to sell units like Helix with), done inside a nice studio worth its own salt, I highly doubt that the mic recordings (sounds) for Helix cabs were beyond the range produced by the cab itself... So why then the trimming?  And whether I can actually "hear" what the cabinet produces sound wise or not, should not reflect what the cabinet truly produces sound wise. ;) If I wanted inaccurate IR's suited to my tastes only (and hearing only), does not make for a real deal cabinets tone, does it? I've strived for the "holy grail" of tone for too many decades to do that. That's a foreign concept to me. I can work around a spot on accurate cab tone, but when I know that start with inaccurate sampled ones just because they may sound better to my ears, I feel I have cheated only myself in the long run. Is that what we are doing when having to trim both ends of our IR's here? My point is that it in being all over the table frequency wise, makes people mistrust IR's, in general, versus the real thing.

 

 

Ok so Maybe I just don't understand the trimming process of frequency on an IR capture, and that's ok with me. I don't know it all and never claimed I did.  There are many that can explain this out there. Let's see if we can get a guy like mBritt (or the like) or Line 6 even, to explain how it is that a cab mic'ed up for IR capture in a good (acoustically flat/neutral) studio produces frequencies into a good mic that is NOT coming from the cab itself? I can believe the edge versus the cone causing a tonal shift in tone, but I doubt extraneous frequencies are being added (from the cab or the mic in a good studio) only to be a burden for all to be removed later.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I beg to differ Silver, let me explain.

 Let's see if we could get a guy like mBritt (or like knowledge) or Line 6 even, to explain how it is that a cab mic'ed up for IR capture in a good (acoustic flat/neutral) studio produces frequencies into the mic that aren't coming from the cab itself? I can believe the edge versus the cone causing a tonal shift in tone, but I doubt extraneous frequencies are being added (from the cab or the mic) only to be a burden for all to be removed later.

Its not that sampling a speaker somehow creates frequencies that aren't there. Its that where the mic is positioned on the cabinet is in a place that picks up frequencies you don't usually hear because that's not where you listen to a cabinet.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not that sampling a speaker somehow creates frequencies that aren't there. Its that where the mic is positioned on the cabinet is in a place that picks up frequencies you don't usually hear because that's not where you listen to a cabinet.

 

Maybe the better way to say it is that it accentuates frequencies that aren't normally accentuated, and these can sometimes be pretty dramatic.

 

Lets face it, most people that have been using traditional amps and cabinets base their impressions of the sound based on where they're standing relative to the speaker cabinet.  That sound can change pretty dramatically if you stand off axis including left, right, or above the speaker if it's not tilted up toward your head.  Chances are these people would be quite surprised at the difference in tone of that same amp and cabinet once it's mic'd and sent through a flat EQ channel on the board.  But that, in effect, is exactly what you're listening to when going through a helix amp, cabinet and mic configuration.  Chances are if they only heard their rig through a PA, they'd likely be making the same kind of adjustments as you normally do on the Helix.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been so many good points made here including:

  1. The differences between the way a mic'ed cab and an a "cab in a room" sound.
  2. This is an important one. The inherent problems in limiting a cab/IR before the fact such that perhaps it sounds fine on an FRFR but not on a guitar cab or even some FRFRs. As has been said, it is easier to remove or attenuate frequencies than it is to add back in frequencies that are not there.
  3. The difference in what we are used to hearing depending on where we are in reference to the speaker, e.g. above the speaker, off to the side, farther, closer, etc..
  4. The difficulty in accounting for all of the variances in equipment out there and the impossibility of anticipating what someone will be outputting the Helix to. There are even substantial differences in FRFRs which you would think would behave fairly similarly to each other. Many do but there are still audible differences between various makes and models.
  5. Guitar tones that sound fizzy or appear to have too much high end when played without accompaniment can sound perfect in a mix with the rest of the instrumentation. This was demonstrated quite well in the video datacommado posted by showing how fizzy some of the classic solos played on famous records sound when broken out from the mix, and then listening to how well they work within the mix. Only problem with this theory is that when I truly get a fizzy sound I often/sometimes hear it on stage even with all the other instruments playing full bore. Not all fizzy sounds are created equally. This principle does not apply to every type of fizz and I don't think the maker of the video was trying to imply or claim that it does. Not every fizzy guitar sound gets masked properly or cuts through a mix without sounding brittle. Sometimes the fizz does not blend properly with the mix. There are also some substantial differences between stage and album mixes  The album mixes are the examples used in the video. Stage mixes can be significantly different then album mixes although his point is a good one and certainly applies to stage mixes to a great extent. Some things that may make it easier for a fizzy guitar to melt into or pop from the mix properly in a studio mix include the amount of final compression and other mastering effects used at the end of the recording process and anything else done post-production. Some of these are processes that are generally not applied at all or to the same extent to a stage mix.

It seems like it should be simpler to adjust for a great sound than it currently is and this may not be exclusive to the Helix. Maybe we could use a range of filters designed to be employed with specific types of equipment with some really well designed cuts in just the right places without neutering the high and low end. Essentially some parametric and graphic EQ presets that have been designed by the experts with cuts/boosts in just the right spots. Maybe dirt simple filter settings like "soft", "cut through", "heavy bottom", "airy", etc..  I know that I would like to be able to spend a little less time working on EQ just to get a preset that does not sound to boomy or brittle on the high end without compromising the beefiness of my tone by cutting too much. Maybe however there is no way to do this given the enormous options available for how to set each block and how it interacts with whatever equipment it is fed to.

 

As Spikey suggested you would think that a correctly designed amp combined with the right cab/IR would provide a great tone with no other tweaking required other than getting the settings on the amp block and effect blocks correct but I rarely find that to be the case. It is if often not enough to get the amp/effect settings right. Even though the virtual amp world offers you the additional ability to tweak the cab sound (something you can't do with old analog cabs) I often find I need additional EQ.  You also need to be careful using the cab's high and low cuts. Otherwise by the time I knock out the boom, mud, and the icepick my sound can end up being just a bit thinner than I would like.

 

It just feels like with great power comes great responsibility, maybe a little too much responsibility. I love the flexibility modeled sound offers but it could be a little easier to reach tonal bliss. You can't be lazy about it but it should not be a full-time job either. I understand with the huge array of equipment and varying levels of user expertise it is no simple challenge to deliver a classic guitar tone with minimal EQ'ing but I'll bet it could be made a bit easier than it is now. Disclaimer: The flexibility of the Helix is mind boggling and  I am getting phenomenal sounds out of it. The Helix just comes with the price of requiring some serious elbow grease. I am sure it requires less effort on some rigs than others.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It just feels like with great power comes great responsibility, maybe a little too much responsibility. I love the flexibility modeled sound offers but it could be a little easier to reach tonal bliss. You can't be lazy about it but it should not be a full-time job either. I understand with the huge array of equipment and varying levels of user expertise it is no simple challenge to deliver a classic guitar tone with minimal EQ'ing but I'll bet it could be made a bit easier than it is now. Disclaimer: The flexibility of the Helix is mind boggling and  I am getting phenomenal sounds out of it. The Helix just comes with the price of requiring some serious elbow grease. I am sure it requires less effort on some rigs than others.

 

I know for me it's taken the better part of a year, but I am settling into a routine of knowing components are necessary to get the sounds I want.  And that's after coming from using other modelers for the last several years.  It's not nearly as much work to find the right setups because I can more or less predict the effect or certain things in the signal chain.  I would agree it's still a bit of work because you setup the patch, leave it for a few hours, come back with fresh ears, and tweak it a bit more.  And that happens several times.  But that may just be my OCD coming through.

 

I'd still submit that after a while you get a feel for how to approach any given sound.  I'm still surprised when something isn't working the way I want it to, but I don't dwell on it for very long before changing to a different amp, cab or mic arrangement.

 

I'm not sure it's any more elbow grease than what we used to have to do in traditional old-school studios when trying to capture a specific sound.  Just less physical labor...   ;)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Guitar tones that sound fizzy or appear to have too much high end when played without accompaniment can sound perfect in a mix with the rest of the instrumentation. This was demonstrated quite well in the video datacommado posted....

 

 

Does anyone have a link to this video please?  I searched but couldn't even find the user.

 

Thanks

 

-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been so many good points made here including:

  • The differences between the way a mic'ed cab and an a "cab in a room" sound.
  • This is an important one. The inherent problems in limiting a cab/IR before the fact such that perhaps it sounds fine on an FRFR but not on a guitar cab or even some FRFRs. As has been said, it is easier to remove or attenuate frequencies than it is to add back in frequencies that are not there.
  • The difference in what we are used to hearing depending on where we are in reference to the speaker, e.g. above the speaker, off to the side, farther, closer, etc..
  • The difficulty in accounting for all of the variances in equipment out there and the impossibility of anticipating what someone will be outputting the Helix to. There are even substantial differences in FRFRs which you would think would behave fairly similarly to each other. Many do but there are still audible differences between various makes and models.
  • Guitar tones that sound fizzy or appear to have too much high end when played without accompaniment can sound perfect in a mix with the rest of the instrumentation. This was demonstrated quite well in the video datacommado posted by showing how fizzy some of the classic solos played on famous records sound when broken out from the mix, and then listening to how well they work within the mix. Only problem with this theory is that when I truly get a fizzy sound I often/sometimes hear it on stage even with all the other instruments playing full bore. Not all fizzy sounds are created equally. This principle does not apply to every type of fizz and I don't think the maker of the video was trying to imply or claim that it does. Not every fizzy guitar sound gets masked properly or cuts through a mix without sounding brittle. Sometimes the fizz does not blend properly with the mix. There are also some substantial differences between stage and album mixes The album mixes are the examples used in the video. Stage mixes can be significantly different then album mixes although his point is a good one and certainly applies to stage mixes to a great extent. Some things that may make it easier for a fizzy guitar to melt into or pop from the mix properly in a studio mix include the amount of final compression and other mastering effects used at the end of the recording process and anything else done post-production. Some of these are processes that are generally not applied at all or to the same extent to a stage mix.
It seems like it should be simpler to adjust for a great sound than it currently is and this may not be exclusive to the Helix. Maybe we could use a range of filters designed to be employed with specific types of equipment with some really well designed cuts in just the right places without neutering the high and low end. Essentially some parametric and graphic EQ presets that have been designed by the experts with cuts/boosts in just the right spots. Maybe dirt simple filter settings like "soft", "cut through", "heavy bottom", "airy", etc.. I know that I would like to be able to spend a little less time working on EQ just to get a preset that does not sound to boomy or brittle on the high end without compromising the beefiness of my tone by cutting too much. Maybe however there is no way to do this given the enormous options available for how to set each block and how it interacts with whatever equipment it is fed to.

 

As Spikey suggested you would think that a correctly designed amp combined with the right cab/IR would provide a great tone with no other tweaking required other than getting the settings on the amp block and effect blocks correct but I rarely find that to be the case. It is if often not enough to get the amp/effect settings right. Even though the virtual amp world offers you the additional ability to tweak the cab sound (something you can't do with old analog cabs) I often find I need additional EQ. You also need to be careful using the cab's high and low cuts. Otherwise by the time I knock out the boom, mud, and the icepick my sound can end up being just a bit thinner than I would like.

 

It just feels like with great power comes great responsibility, maybe a little too much responsibility. I love the flexibility modeled sound offers but it could be a little easier to reach tonal bliss. You can't be lazy about it but it should not be a full-time job either. I understand with the huge array of equipment and varying levels of user expertise it is no simple challenge to deliver a classic guitar tone with minimal EQ'ing but I'll bet it could be made a bit easier than it is now. Disclaimer: The flexibility of the Helix is mind boggling and I am getting phenomenal sounds out of it. The Helix just comes with the price of requiring some serious elbow grease. I am sure it requires less effort on some rigs than others.

Does anyone have a link to this video please? I searched but couldn't even find the user.

 

Thanks

 

-

I easily found Datacommando by searching BY MEMBER at the top of the forum page, if you are logged in. But I don't know specifically what you are trying to locate, I would give it another go, he has lots of content to sort thru...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone have a link to this video please?  I searched but couldn't even find the user.

 

Thanks

Well here I am!

Trouble is I don't recall a particular video example, although something similar about how guitar tone sits in a mix, is mentioned in the thread link which I posted above.

Maybe a slight confusion here guys, or perhaps H.O. could point you in the right direction for the vid?

 

 

EDIT: Glen DeLaune (gangsterusa) mentions this "fizz" in comment #26 on the other thread

Edited by datacommando

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I easily found Datacommando by searching BY MEMBER at the top of the forum page, if you are logged in. But I don't know specifically what you are trying to locate, I would give it another go, he has lots of content to sort thru...

 

I did search by member but got no result, maybe it's because I copied and pasted his name, IDK.

 

-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well here I am!

Trouble is I don't recall a particular video example, although something similar about how guitar tone sits in a mix, is mentioned in the thread link which I posted above.

Maybe a slight confusion here guys, or perhaps H.O. could point you in the right direction for the vid?

 

 

EDIT: Glen DeLaune (gangsterusa) mentions this "fizz" in comment #26 on the other thread

 

Oh well, thanks anyway.  Shame, sounds like an interesting video. 

 

-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh well, thanks anyway.  Shame, sounds like an interesting video. 

 

-

 

Ha ha ha, I also wish I had seen it.

I guess it was something to do with Glenn DeLaune, from when he's creating his Artist Tone Patches.

I think he has access to some of the the original audio stems, which allows him to analyse the tones in isolation, as opposed to the final mix.

Maybe someone will enlighten us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Does anyone have a link to this video please?  I searched but couldn't even find the user.

 

Thanks

 

-

 

 

 

Well here I am!

Trouble is I don't recall a particular video example, although something similar about how guitar tone sits in a mix, is mentioned in the thread link which I posted above.

Maybe a slight confusion here guys, or perhaps H.O. could point you in the right direction for the vid?

 

 

EDIT: Glen DeLaune (gangsterusa) mentions this "fizz" in comment #26 on the other thread

 

 

I guess it was not datacommando who posted this. Apologies for quoting the wrong source. Credit to whoever(?) posted originally. Here is the link regarding fizz that I was referring to.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottom line, with Helix, you can tweak the tone to sound whatever you want it to sound like within reason...  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not that sampling a speaker somehow creates frequencies that aren't there. Its that where the mic is positioned on the cabinet is in a place that picks up frequencies you don't usually hear because that's not where you listen to a cabinet.

 

I'm a little late to this thread but...

 

Here is part of a DVD I did for Yamaha many, many years ago where we show - in real time - how moving the mic around a speaker can affect the sound. This is somewhat of an exaggeration, but you get the idea for why you want to be able to have the High and Low cuts:

 

https://youtu.be/MChYalokpdU?t=9m9s

 

Yes... that's my old AxSys amp too and me BB (Before beard).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Btw, I don't generally find fizz as I define it (digital artificial sound impacting the mid to high end) to be a problem on the Helix, modeling has come a long way in this regard. It is taming the mids/highs surgically in the right spots that I find to be required with many presets and my particular rig. I used fizz somewhat synonymously with brittle highs somewhat in the spirit of this video to make a point even though I differentiate between the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it was not datacommando who posted this.

No problem about the confusion HO, but:

 

Nope, that ain't me, that's Chad B. I'm heavier and got a greybeard (old, miserable and cantankerous) and I don't think that Chas is any of those. 😆

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No problem about the confusion HO, but:

 

Nope, that ain't me, that's Chad B. I'm heavier and got a greybeard (old, miserable and cantankerous) and I don't think that Chas is any of those.

 

LOL  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted to also mention that besides the informative content of this video the most exciting thing to me was this - Enter the words "isolated solo" or "isolated guitar" into the search on Youtube and you will pull up a treasure trove of the original guitar solos that have been pulled out of the mix on some of rock's most famous tunes such that only the guitar is present. I would not be surprised if there are some other search strings that would yield these as well. That combined with Youtube's 'Speed' setting which allows you to slow down a video to as slow as 1/4 speed while staying at pitch provides an invaluable tool for learning your favorite guitar solos. Even if this video had sucked, which it most definitely does not, that piece of information alone would have made it worth the price of admission.

 

If you have not used the Speed setting in Youtube before it is located under the "Settings" icon which looks like a cog or gear.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys, sorry, a little late to the party. I've been away for a while. Yes I have been commenting on this "Fizz" issue since the X3 days. You guys are missing one important thing here, and I'll say it again, Tube Amps are fizzy!! I call it "Tube Sizzle". You can hear it in every professional recording and it's not a studio trick. That is how actual tube amps sound. Yes it's true I have access to a plethora of Isolated guitar stems from many many many professional recordings. Please don't ask me where I got them because I can't say. Anyway . .  here is an example of some of the best guitar tones from some professional recording you might recognize. These are unaltered, direct stereo guitar stems. I couldn't put this on YT because I didn't want to get flagged so I put it on my server.  

First up:  Eddie Van Halen, then Keith Nelson & Stevie D from Buck Cherry, then Joe Perry (Aerosmith), then K.K. Downing & Glenn Tipton  (J.P), and finally, Slash.

https://www.glenndelaune.com/guitar-stems.mp3

My point is this: if you would hear these guitar tones by themselves and din't know where they were from would you think they were good?? Don't get rid of the fizz guys!!

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely fascinating and incredibly helpful info, thank you guys so much.  thumbs-up.gif

 

-

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys, sorry, a little late to the party. I've been away for a while. Yes I have been commenting on this "Fizz" issue since the X3 days. You guys are missing one important thing here, and I'll say it again, Tube Amps are fizzy!! I call it "Tube Sizzle". 

^EXACTLY THIS^ 

 

Distortion/Overdriven amp/preamp circuits are designed to "fizz" or "sizzle". The sizzle it what gives the Mesa Rectifier series their distinct sound. You hear those distinct attributes in Helix very well because of they way they are being modeled: they model discrete circuit elements, and not just the end resultant signal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my younger days we had a record in a studio of a big radio station, where they normally recorded symphony orchestra, jazz and chamber music. The engeneer had no touch with rock music. My amp sounded good to me as well on stage and in the studio (it was an Acoustic G112T with EV 12L) but listening to the records made my ears bleed. I suppose the mic was placed on axis of the 12L, but i don't remember anymore as this was 34 years in the past.

 

So I understand the explanation for the fizz but not the reason why all amp/mic models should only have been modelled on axis? Are we shure that's the point or do we just suspect this?

 

So after all, i understand when line6 models cabs and mics on axis but please - not exlusivly :(. If there's no parameter to change the microphone angle (Position edge/center) i would prefer to have the choice between let's say 3 positions. Tweaking with the high cut comes sometimes close but it's not the same, as the radiation pattern of a 12" speaker is a bit more complex than this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my younger days we had a record in a studio of a big radio station, where they normally recorded symphony orchestra, jazz and chamber music. The engeneer had no touch with rock music. My amp sounded good to me as well on stage and in the studio (it was an Acoustic G112T with EV 12L) but listening to the records made my ears bleed. I suppose the mic was placed on axis of the 12L, but i don't remember anymore as this was 34 years in the past.

 

So I understand the explanation for the fizz but not the reason why all amp/mic models should only have been modelled on axis? Are we shure that's the point or do we just suspect this?

 

So after all, i understand when line6 models cabs and mics on axis but please - not exlusivly :(. If there's no parameter to change the microphone angle (Position edge/center) i would prefer to have the choice between let's say 3 positions. Tweaking with the high cut comes sometimes close but it's not the same, as the radiation pattern of a 12" speaker is a bit more complex than this.

It would be nice to have a way to virtually "move" the microphone, but I think at that point you're requiring more processing (or a series of microscopically different IR's) and it makes more sense to locate Impulse Responses that are more accurate to your preferred mic'ing method. The Studio Cat IR packs have center, edge, and cone mic positions at varying distances and give your the option of "moving" the mic around. I do think a less "clinical" approach to the L6 original cabs would probably yield results immediately that more people would be happy with. Instead of a perfect capture of a cabinet, get the right guitar sound out of it so its familiar sounding. But sizzle or fizz is almost a crucial part of a lot of guitar tones, and I push my low-pass up to around 12K when recording to have the option still there to use it if I need to.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather than messing with the Global EQ (I keep it flat), I just place an EQ block at the end of all my patches. I set it to knock the high and low end (110 Hz and 4500 Hz). So when I'm practicing at home, I engage it to remove the "fizz." In the mix with the band, it stays OFF to let the "fizz" come through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So after all, i understand when line6 models cabs and mics on axis but please - not exlusivly :(. If there's no parameter to change the microphone angle (Position edge/center) i would prefer to have the choice between let's say 3 positions. Tweaking with the high cut comes sometimes close but it's not the same, as the radiation pattern of a 12" speaker is a bit more complex than this.

 

I've proposed a solution for this here; https://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Variable-Mic-Axis-and-Position-options/872296-23508

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...... Impulse Responses that are more accurate to your preferred mic'ing method. The Studio Cat IR packs have center, edge, and cone mic positions at varying distances and give your the option of "moving" the mic around.

I did'nt know these IRs and just bought it. Thanks a lot for this hint, they seem to work fine for what i want.

Otherwise, i don't like IRs to much due to their limited flexibility compared to models and  the limited number of storable IRs. As a lot of comercial patches use certain IRs wich must be placed on certain slots, my IR banks are alreadey full. I won't need them all, but reorganizing everything wich concerns IRs would be a lot of work and i'm al lazy guy. So i still would prefer at least a vew Speaker models recorded off axis.

Anyway - i like the sound with my FRFR monitor AND my headphones with this IR pack and that's way more than i had before. So thanks again!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the statement "tube amps are fizzy and this is represented correctly by the Helix" is true, a tube amp powering directly a FRFR speaker should sound the same as the Helix powering the same Monitor but without cabsim and microphone or IR.

Is it really like this? I never got the idea to try this while i still had tube amps, now i've no more possibility :(

 

 

too late :D

made about the same proposition nearly one year before https://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Helix-Please-add-Microfone-angle-to-cab-parameters/817573-23508

But for the most people, still more amp and effect models seem to be more important. :unsure:

I did'nt search but i hope wo don't have 50 same ideas and each one has just a few votes, while the voters for the 3546th boutique amp are united in one idea ;)

Voted up your idea anyway ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the statement "tube amps are fizzy and this is represented correctly by the Helix" is true, a tube amp powering directly a FRFR speaker should sound the same as the Helix powering the same Monitor but without cabsim and microphone or IR.

Is it really like this? I never got the idea to try this while i still had tube amps, now i've no more possibility :(

I ran an old Carvin X100B FX send into a powered monitor (because I didn't understand how guitar speakers and power amps filter the sound and how proximity would change the tone) and it sounded pretty much would you think plugging headphones directly into a Metal Zone would sound like, lol. Honestly, the speaker is almost MORE important than the amp when it comes to the final tone because of how it filters out sounds and how most guitarists are used to hearing their tone (firing at the back of their legs from a loud cabinet). 

 

Glad those IRs are useful! I love that pack and use them on all my live heavy and clean tones. I've never bothered with commercial patches to I haven't had the storage/organization issues, but I only keep about 15 IRs on the Helix anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mikisb

And I uprooted yours... ages ago I guess.  I did a search before I posted my idea but didn't find any results but anyway...

Thanks for the up vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...