Originally posted by beaubrummels
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
For Those Who Don't Embrace New Tech (iR vs Mic'd Speakers)
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by GuitarStv View PostIRs make a great (indistinguishable?) copy of the real thing.
I suspect that the main reason to go with a tube amp these days is repairability. I've happily used tube amps that were 60 years old and still doing their thing perfectly. It's unusual for me to use software that is even just twenty years old, and modern hardware to run the IRs certainly doesn't seem to be built to last.
In 15 years - will that hardware, with your tone-o-the-gods even be functional? Because that 80's Marshall and pedal will be....Originally posted by Bad City
He's got the crowd on his side and the blue jean lights in his eyes...
Comment
-
Originally posted by LLL View Post
Can a human even hear 45kHz?
For all practical purpose - lets go with no.
Remember when CD's came out, and they had a harshness to some people? They ran at a 22k sampling rate. It was audible to some, but not most. At 44k, only dogs could tell, and the very very very rare individual.Originally posted by Bad City
He's got the crowd on his side and the blue jean lights in his eyes...
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Aceman View Post
IF you had a normal hearing range that went to 24k (highly unlikely, and likely not for anyone over 12 years old, even if you originally did), you might be able to detect the sub harmonic from 45k at 23.5k.
For all practical purpose - lets go with no.
Remember when CD's came out, and they had a harshness to some people? They ran at a 22k sampling rate. It was audible to some, but not most. At 44k, only dogs could tell, and the very very very rare individual.“For me, when everything goes wrong – that’s when adventure starts.” Yvonne Chouinard
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Sweet! I got like 1.5 of the timestamps right! LOL!
I wish they had done a little longer version with more styles included, but I bet I still couldn't tell 98% of the time, ha ha!
Oh, and I was listening through my new Kali LP-6 V.2 monitors, for anyone who cares. Incredible monitors for the price, by the way!
Comment
-
Originally posted by beaubrummels View PostI really couldn't hear a difference. I think it certainly helps that the IR was created through the exact same mic/cab setup the 'live' take was done with. Proves IRs can sound exactly like the source.
Now it's just a question of: is there an IR out there that you like, that sounds like you want?
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Well, it confirmed my suspicion. The IR and the direct recording were the same. I.E The mic and other settings were never changed once the IR was made. This is an obvious way to confirm that the IR is in fact doing its job.
So now that sound may never ever be able to be replicated again with the live rig. What I will say as a live sound engineer is that it is a great thing the same sound can never be replicated. It is captured ONCE and only ONCE. That moment is either the best it ever could be, or it was not. There are no redo's, no second takes, and no chance to fix it. It has to be right from the beginning. My biggest issue with studio recording was that I could always just go back and try again to do better. I was always in a constant fight with myself to keep perfecting things. When I went to live sound, I only got one chance to get it right and I could never go back to change the outcome I got. That was bliss for me, as there was no longer any torment about how I can make the past better, only that I need to do better in the future on my next gig!!! Turned into a career for me, so I guess I did something right!.
Comment
-
Originally posted by beaubrummels View PostDon't view the spoiler video. No cheatin'
“For me, when everything goes wrong – that’s when adventure starts.” Yvonne Chouinard
Comment
Comment