fletcher munson impulse response ?

[borgis]

Greetings 

 

Is it possible that someone has made an IR so you can get close to band volume tone response when using headphones?

 

A room emulator?

A band level emulator?

 

Maybe an IR / block that simulates a 50 watt on about 8 or a 100 watt on about 7.

 

Is this a dumb idea?

[brue58ski]

I find it intriguing,  although I'm going to guess that because of room differences, it may not work as hoped. Absolutely worth a try,  I think.

[DunedinDragon]

23 minutes ago, borgis said:

Greetings 

 

Is it possible that someone has made an IR so you can get close to band volume tone response when using headphones?

 

A room emulator?

A band level emulator?

 

Maybe an IR / block that simulates a 50 watt on about 8 or a 100 watt on about 7.

 

Is this a dumb idea?

 

That's going to depend on how the IR is shot as far as number of mics and mic placements, or alternatively how different IRs might be combined together to achieve at least the room affect.  Band level is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to IRs because the difference is due to the behavior of the way humans percieve volume and you can't simulate that in something like an IR without having an adverse effect on all other volume levels.

[borgis]

Yeah, maybe ir isnt the correct term. Maybe someone can map the munson curve in such a way to approximate the effect 

[bassbene]

As far as I understood IRs, they just capture the reaction of a "system" (room, cab...) to a defined impulse. You can't cover the Fletcher/Munson curve with this, because the "system"  - the EQ curve in this case - is based on the volume. You could only cover an IR/Correction curve for one specific level... ending up as a simpel EQ.

Possible Workaround to get in the direction:
- Measure the level in db you use to rehearse with your band

- Measure the level in db you use at home
- Lookup the EQ curves for these levels in the Fletcher/Munson chart

- Substract them from each other lower-level minus higher-level

- Mimic that curve with an EQ Block.
... Hm, could be covered by some excel-sheet or online tool, let me think about it ;)

[borgis]

Yeah thats what i mean, surely it could be implemented in an eq block that one could set a certain db value to automate the values 

[qwerty42]

You can absolutely make IRs straight from EQ curves, without anything else. It's an interesting idea for sure. The method would be like @bassbene just described. I think the simplest implementation would be a set of IRs for different SPLs... eg, 85, 90, 95, 100, 105, 110, and so on. Then you could just select one of these IRs for the end of your signal path (where each one is just an EQ curve transformed into an IR, based on F-M curves for those values). If I have some time to kill this week I'll see if I can find an easy reference to create the curves. I'm sure it still won't be 'perfect' for matching a live venue (since the room effects, reflections, etc. of the real place will also contribute), but I think it could get you into the ballpark.

[SaschaFranck]

While being backed up pretty well scientifically, the numbers regarding possible Fletcher Munson compensation are in no way universally valid, a lot of all this is still bound to individual, different perception. In our use case, it also seems to be largely depending on the kind of patches we're dealing with.

So, while you might be able to come up with an IR that's working for a certain patch at a certain level (vs. the patch at another level without that IR), it might as well just not work for another patch or when varying any of the two levels we're comparing (loud level vs. lower level, one of them IR compensated). So you'd either need to make that the two situations (one of them IR-compensated) are always identical or come up with several IRs. I would suspect this to be pretty much impossible.

 

What I do is to utilize the global EQ. I have a rather broad mid band prepared that I can boost to my likings whenever it seems necessary. Right now it sits at a center frequency of 755Hz, which is possibly somewhat too low to be kinda truly Fletcher Munson compliant, but it seems to work fine in case I even use it (fwiw, Q is set to 0.7). Btw, occasionally I use an additional low cut there as well - but usually it's off.

Working values might be different from person to person, they're also pretty much depending on your monitors, overall levels, "average" kind of patches, etc.

 

Anyway, things work fine for me that way and I absolutely don't feel like making more fuss about it. Fwiw, pretty often I even just don't use the global EQ. But I always check my homebuilt patches at gig-worthy levels.

[codamedia]

IMO... there is no measurement to how a human will perceive these differences. A a generic "loudness" control like home stereos used to have might work but I wouldn't trust that for preparing presets... it just might make an existing stage preset a little more lively at lower volumes.

 

My way of dealing with Fletcher Munson is to take my "stage proven tones" and get used to hearing those tones (without adjustment) at lower levels in my home studio. Once you are aware of the differences you can work with them, but I can't imagine actually attempting to simulate those differences without creating an environment that is even more misleading. 

 

It's an interesting concept, I'm just sharing my 2 cents....

[HonestOpinion]

Interesting video on Fletcher Munson and the Helix. He has a CustomTone preset you can download down in the comments section.

 

 

[SaschaFranck]

4 hours ago, codamedia said:

My way of dealing with Fletcher Munson is to take my "stage proven tones" and get used to hearing those tones (without adjustment) at lower levels in my home studio.

 

That's what I'm usually doing as well - but as I spend more time playing at home, I try to manage dealing with sounds the other way around. For me, the global EQ sometimes helps quite a bit with that.

 

Needless to say, but all that was way less of an issue back until around a year ago when I had my own kinda project studio alike rehearsal room (had to move out there as the landlord needed it for something else), which was my main workspace (even doubled as my office), allowing me to turn up things as much as I liked 24/7. So once I was done creating sounds at ear friendly levels, when it was time to take them to a gig, I would always test them at proper levels before packing. Quite obviously the best way to deal with the issue. These days, I bring my "new" sounds (they're not really new but usually variations of older themes...) straight from home to stage, which is raising the issue again. Fortunately, I have quite some tried and trusted patches that I can use as a reference, but in case I'm going for something pretty different, Fletcher Munson sometimes feels like striking back. Once that damn Corona thing will be over (fingers crossed...), I will defenitely look for a new space allowing me to regularly turn levels up a bit more.

 

Fwiw, for us guitar players, it's not only Fletcher Munson, IMO physical feedback plays an almost as important role, even in two areas:

 

1) The obvious kind of feedback from your cab/monitor into your guitar. Even without directly noticeable feedback, this will do something, usually enhancing sustain and possibly some overtones as well (the extreme being the typical audible "Santana"-esque feedback). The lack of sustain caused by feedback is likely responsible for us to dial in more gain (or compression on some clean sounds) at home friendly levels for compensations sake.

 

2) If you like the feel of moved air or whatever you may call it (and who doesn't, when banging some thick riffs?) but can't get it through actual air movement (plus perhaps some resonating floor), you may feel tempted to compensate by dialing in more low (or low mid) end. At least that's what I noticed for myself. And it's quite a different thing from Fletcher Munson.

[borgis]

So if i follow you would i use the global eq for getting close to the loud response and then turn it off when playing in a live setting?

 

Im not looking for a silver bullet but i have wasted hours tweaking a loud sound quietly to arrive at rehearsal with an elaborately eq'd can of cold dog meat.

 

@SaschaFranck

 

I totally agree with your last 2 points 

[SaschaFranck]

11 minutes ago, borgis said:

So if i follow you would i use the global eq for getting close to the loud response and then turn it off when playing in a live setting?

 

I'm doing it the opposite way, pretty much because even if I'm playing live for a living (well, not these days, argh....), the vast majority of my playing time is spent at home, listening at pretty conservative levels. So I want my sounds to be great in these situations, using the least EQ-ing possible. I am then using the global EQ to adjust things live. And I'm always only gradually dialing things in, so I don't overdo it. When I switch it on, the global EQ usually is flat, it just has a preconfigured mid-band which I may then dial in. Ah well, I may also engage some low cut, in case I fell for (2) of my previous post.

[cruisinon2]

On 9/13/2020 at 6:30 PM, SaschaFranck said:

the numbers regarding possible Fletcher Munson compensation are in no way universally valid, a lot of all this is still bound to individual, different perception. In our use case, it also seems to be largely depending on the kind of patches we're dealing with.

So, while you might be able to come up with an IR that's working for a certain patch at a certain level (vs. the patch at another level without that IR), it might as well just not work for another patch...

 

This right here is all that needs to be said on this topic... the magical shortcut that we'd all love to have ain't coming, folks. Actually doing the work... which is tweaking your patches with the intended output (headphones, PA, whatever), and at the the volume at which you intend to use them...is the closest thing to a "shortcut" that there will ever be. Perception is entirely subjective, and FAR from universal, and that's the way it will always be...making any one-size-fits-all algorithm to solve this problem a pipe dream.