Tone Monster
Well-known member
I vote C is the real amp. They sound very close though.
scottosan
Well-known member
IRs absolutely impose color on the tone. No 3rd party IR of a specific cab and speaker will sound the same as different third 3rd party IR of the same model cab and speaker. The differences between the IRS among 3rd parties is not subtle either. I would say it’s to most critical part of the tone. That said, he said he used the same IR for all 3 recordings, explains why they sound so similar. If he mic’d it it wouldnt be close. If the original maker of the IR mic’d it maybe it would be close.
Last edited:
They're different for the same reasons that you micing up a specific cab with a specific mic will sound different from me doing the same thing with the same gear. The mic and speakers aren't exactly alike, despite being the same model/make, the placement isn't going to be exactly the same, the room is going to be different, etc. I would be pretty damn shocked if anyone could reliably tell the difference between a mic'ed recording and a reamp of the same take through that same head with an IR captured in the same recording session with the exact same cab, mic, room, and placement.
LPMojoGL
Well-known member
With all due respect, dig your videos...
I supply the same signal to a cab mic'd with an SM57, and a Suhr RL going into the best IRs (York audio, ownhammer).
Always, no matter what volume the amp is is dialed at, the mic'd cab sounds more dynamic, and with a more realistic eq representation.
I always watch your videos with the knowledge that everything is being homogenized thru a reactive load and IRs.
Honestly, it's not unlike watching vids of different amps thru the same cab and mic. I do think the reactive loads and IRs funnel things into a closer sonic range, fwiw.
TheToneDig
Active member
I am wondering why 50% of the responses here won't answer A, B, or C.
ZEN Amps
Well-known member
I can't speak for anyone but myself, but for me it's because it's pure guesswork and the so-called results don't prove (or disprove) anything.
Bad analogy, but stay with me:
- find a Picasso your target audience is unfamiliar with (i.e. the player, guitar and riff)
- take a photo of it (the amp)
- get two talented artists to make forgeries of it, then take photos with the same camera, lighting and angle (the modellers)
- ask people to look at the three photos online and identify which is the original (the comparison video)
Now, if people guess wrong it could be naively claimed the forgeries are 'just as good' as the real thing, as 'no one can tell the difference'. This is a BS conclusion to draw, yet I've seen it numerous times on this subject.
This is not a criticism of the OP - I quite like his content. My point is that strong opinions shouldn't be drawn from the experiments of others - you have to do the work yourself and look at all the variables.
My experience with more emulators than I can count is that they simply don't sound or feel as good as a tube amp. They don't inspire me, and I don't have as much fun playing. Playing (or recording) a small amp through a 1x12 similarly leaves me wanting more. No video on the subject can ever change that. Rant over.
TheToneDig
Active member
It proves that if they sound the same then we have three co-equal ways of achieving the same result. One real deal amp and two different modelers through the same IR. So anyone claiming you need one of those ways, over any of the other two should be able to pass this test (and every other) and explain how they are doing it, so we can all replicate their ability. The fact we can't do this tells us that people are overstating the reality of how well they can differentiate between gear and the tone made from that gear under various conditions, like a recording.
ZEN Amps
Well-known member
I'm not sure you understand my view point at all, so I'm happy to agree to disagree. It doesn't prove anything to me in the slightest, for the aforementioned reasons.
Seems we have very different definitions of what constitutes 'proof'. The OP has provided some (limited) data, not irrefutable proof. Then you and I drew different conclusions, based on this data. If was the only one that thought this, you could write me off as an anomaly. However it seems many folks feel the same, and that is now the very definition of refutable.
A variable I didn't mention is how things feels to the player (touch, dynamics, tightness etc) - that is so obvious it shouldn't need explanation.
TheToneDig
Active member
Oh, there are many variables that make a tube amp different from a modeler emulating it, but that's not what the OP is about. The OP is about the end result of three different methods in a recording. Are they co-equal or not? That's all. There is no need to really make it more complicated than this.
They even did it both ways. Track isolated and in a mix to give people who claim this ability to distinguish an advantage by getting the isolated track. How lucky to even get that, because the real world is mostly guitars in some sort of a mix.
What people conclude is up to themselves but if anyone claims one system had an advantage over another in terms of the end result, they will have a hard time explaining why if they couldn't even segregate them out in blind tests like this one.
It really makes no sense to blame YouTube as some do just because of some bad apples. If we can't record good enough for YouTube with an amp, then I want the amps that are good enough to do those recordings because plenty people here reference YouTube videos all day long when it comes to showing us the bands they want us to hear, lol.
They even did it both ways. Track isolated and in a mix to give people who claim this ability to distinguish an advantage by getting the isolated track. How lucky to even get that, because the real world is mostly guitars in some sort of a mix.
What people conclude is up to themselves but if anyone claims one system had an advantage over another in terms of the end result, they will have a hard time explaining why if they couldn't even segregate them out in blind tests like this one.
It really makes no sense to blame YouTube as some do just because of some bad apples. If we can't record good enough for YouTube with an amp, then I want the amps that are good enough to do those recordings because plenty people here reference YouTube videos all day long when it comes to showing us the bands they want us to hear, lol.
My impression too. All 3 certainly sound good enough to be interchangeable for recording.
Btw, is that the main purpose here? ...to demonstrate that software/DAW can essentially duplicate the signal chains of the 70s & 80s recording studios at < 1% of the cost? Absolutely. Can software duplicate them live in a band? No. Steve Wilson (Porcupine Tree) a few yrs back said he records with software but requires real amps in concert.
SQUAREHEAD
Well-known member
It Proves the huge impact of an IR to make the real amp lose so much of its personality that it’s virtually indistinguishable from modellers.
D
Deleted member 27494
Guest
Here's the reveal guys:
DanTravis62
Well-known member
I thought the analogy was quite sufficient for expounding on your thoughts on the subject, as well as how many of us think about it.
To me, the main glaring thing that seems to be lost in translation with (some) IRs is the interaction of the transformer with the speaker. It's especially obvious in vintage amps where the transformer "gives" a bit at high volume/gain levels and high dynamics playing, like a tweed bassman or a bluesbreaker. But it's also audible in models of modern amps in certain situations. Different IR loaders and tech can be better or worse at this, it isn't a black and white thing, just a general issue. It doesn't stop me from using IRs when they are called for - they can be a great tool.
Whatever the reason is - and it could be because everyone uses the same IRs and types of IRs, or it could be because the IR technology hasn't quite gotten advanced enough yet, or it could be a myriad of other reasons............ it tends to make everything sound bland and "stock."
Some of these sounds are so "Stock" that they have literally become memes in guitar groups on facebook and other places.
(For example, the Fluff/Ola Mesa OS IR that literally everyone who plays modern metal uses. Agufish, etc, they all use it. Or, the "hair metal" axefx model with the friedman IR that Ben Eller, Robert Baker, and literally every youtuber uses when they do their requisite Nuno/Vitto/etc video.)
These handful of distinct IR sounds have become so pervasive in youtube videos (im sure for the ease of use and quickness of dialing in a solid sound) that people get ear/gear fatigue listening to them. And that's probably the number one place people watch gear demos and guitar related content.
That isn't to shit on OPs video at all (he seems to have high production values) or even to shit on the use of IRs (i use them all the time, if I just want to make a quick demo, or need a speaker's sound which I dont own) i'm just explaining why, to me, it isn't very interesting to try and guess with videos like this.
That's why (at least for me) its much more interesting/revealing to hear these types of tests through real speakers - whether miced, or a simple phone clip like @cardinal did a couple days ago. Those tones were very close, but there was a discernible difference. Even if they would have been indistinguishable, I was much more interested in listening to it as a comparison because of that.
For lots of people, it doesnt matter if models/amps are indistinguishable with the same IR - because using certain massive, wall of sound, overbearing 4x12 IRs can make a crate GX40 and a JCM900 nearly indistinguishable. So its kind of like, who cares that it can make a very close profile/model and a particular amp sound the same?
Spaceboy
Well-known member
Read my post again.