People blame IRs because maybe they don't use them in a proper way. Some people expect the IRs sound like real cabinets in the room. Obviously it can't be true, in any way. IR doesn't sound like "just a cabinet"; it simulates the whole system "cabinet+microphone+cable directed to the mixer". So, you just can compare both sounds on the same speaker. You can't compare a full range speaker to a cabinet cone. If a good IR sounds bad to your ears, it's because your speaker sounds bad to your ears. Anyway, real cabinet cone sound is never the perfect sound heared by the audience, it's just the sound which guitar player hears. Real cabinet needs to be microphoned and sent to the PA and then, the real sound is the one which comes out from PA. Even when you just use your cabinet for final sound, the things audience hears sound different to the things guitar player hears, just because of cone position, ambient reverbs, physical obstacles, etc. Setting a real cabinet to sound like you want is really difficult and depends on the situation, on the ambience...what IR does is to make it simple and to have a replicable, fixed photo of your cabinet/mic system, to send it just to the mixer. Maybe many guitar players are too used to cabinet cone sound and they think it's their real sound, but it's just a feeling. So, I tell people to learn to use their equipment properly. When you really learn what you need, what you look for, what your guitar sounds like, then you can compare systems. And you're demonstrating with graphs, numbers and also ear feelings, that IR is a perfect photo of what it simulates.
I also think that a lot of people who don't like the 'feel' of IRs, are actually not enjoying the feel of playing while listening to a mic'd (recorded) version of the sound. Which is fine, and probably true. Also means that playing in control room of a studio is going to be though... and _that_ is also why a lot of people prefer to be in the live room while tracking in a studio, having the recording engineer talk to you through headphones :). This all has nothing to do with IRs, because they capture the response of a mic'd up cabinet just fine. Just don't compare the sound of you standing next to your cab to the sound of your cab recorded, that's all :). People might also not like the latency of a digital signal path, although I doubt that's the issue most of the time. Also depends on hardware used so your experience might be different. But most hardware-IR loaders can archive around 2ms, or even less. If you stand a few meters further away from your cab you add more 'latency' because of the speed of the soundwaves... so to everyone who thinks that 2ms of latency messes up your playing, go play analog and stand 5 to 8 meters away... if you still have issues, you might be right. If the analog path works for you even at more distance, then the latency is not your problem :).
Totally agree brotha! Im just waiting for you get into making acoustic guitar impulses like the 3 Sigma ones. I know you would freaking kill it if you did. And id buy the crap outta them!!
I can hear the different between C and D particularly in the first few second. D sounds clearer and has more treble. But the rest of the sample is identical. Bottom line is both are very nice sound. I will be VERY happy with one of them.
I think people can only appreciate the convenience and cost savings of cab IRs only after successfully mic’ing a real cab themselves, at least once. Let’s not forgot, most people are going to apply some eq on their tone at the very least. Bedroom,live, & studio tones can be very different.
In my opinion, it's really easy to get a warm, dynamic tone, that feels like playing through a real amp and miced up speaker with a good IR. And of course in my opinion the absolutely best of the best is ML soundlab. They work perfect both with vst plug-ins and to bring some life into multi effect pedals.
Hi Mikko. ML Sound Lab IRs are great. I think I'll end up buying them all. It would be great if you made a video explaining the characteristics of the microphones you use in your cab pack and some tips to use them. Regards
To my ears: Sample A:Real Mic, Sample B: IR, Sample C:Real Mic, Sample D: IR. It's really a tossup between A and B for me, but i'm 95% sure i got the C and D right. I have tons of IR's and cab sims (bunch of ML Sound Lab cab packs and MIKKO Essentials included) and i think some of them sound really great! Definitely on par with real cabinets, indistinguishable in a mix. But i still feel there are some minor differences there. I'd really love to know if my ears are lying to me or not. Mikko, please let me know, it's for my sanity, not vanity :) All the best!
I can hear a very slight change in the way the low end respondse. A and C are just a tiny bit fuller but the difference is so subtle I'd have to A/B them freely and not hear them after each other to be sure. Nevertheless ML Labs IRs are definitely the best ones I've ever tried during my 12 year IR journey.
I think a lot of people are afraid of change and technology, some people are stuck in their ways and because none of their guitar heroes used them. I love your IR’s Mikko, I can have 1000’s of cabinets and they all fit inside my Mac 😊
How are you capturing the power amp signal from the Friedman here? I try to pull similar tricks with my amps/cabs at home where to avoid mic’ing the amp I’ve been taking a DI off my (bypassed) attenuators and one of them has a power amp tap on the transformer (a Single Rec) but the other doesn’t. Just wondering exactly how you did it for this experiment, sounds great anyhow :)
We have quite a secret signal chain but there's a cool trick you can do with a passive DI box. Take the speaker out of your amp into the DI and use the input THRU/LINK to connect the DI into your cab. It has to be a passive DI. You should now have the amp and cab doing their natural thing BUT you also have a DI out that'll be the amp signal with all the power amp color in it. ;)
@@mlsoundlab I have a couple of passive DI boxes I've considered doing that with but neither seemed to be spec'd for it... I don't know enough about the usual implementation of passive transformer-based DIs (mine are a Whirlwind IMP-2 and Radial ProD2), do you think it's a good bet that if you have a totally passive transformer-based DI, it's capable of safely handling speaker level signals? I know some passive DIs specifically list this as a use case so I've always been nervous to try with mine. Thank you for answering btw - I'm glad to know that someone like you *is* using that trick!
I think the issue (can you even call it that?) is that some people want a 'raw' cabinet sound, i.e. something not perfectly mic'd, with a little bit of nasty room reflections to add character. Has a cool vibe, that's personally my favorite type of recorded cabinet tone. This is the 'realistic' tone for some people, and they mistake great recording technique used to create these hi-fi IRs for sounding 'flat', while in reality, it's just good, modern recording technique. Either way, I know the problem can't be in the IRs because they sound so identical to the real thing that it's almost not even worth disputing at this point.
I liked the B and D. :D I've been trying to make an IR with a slapback-delay effect, by copying the wave-file and pasting it onto itself some 20ms after start. It "sort of work" but the sound becomes weirdly midrangey and the volume drops, anyone got any ideas about that?
I have just been on a little IR journey and ended up by mistake, finding your old impulses on my PC. After trying endless Celestions, Ownhammer and others, but your Impulses sounded way better to my ears than the others. Ended up with the ML-FRMN-M25-7B-A. What differs your IRs from the others?
I have tried Helix, helix native and the new Nolly archetype. I must say the biggest difference is how the distortion reacts to the guitar. How the amps break when I strum harder. I feel like IR doesn't matter as much if the amp sims aren't great.
As far as I understand, the "dynamics" argument is a different one. What you've shown is "IR would reproduce a change of amplitude in different frequencies over time". Which is kind of obivous. Correct me if I'm wrong, I see the counter argument as "depending on the volume the speaker should reproduce a different frequency-over-time picture", as if you would need a combination of different IRs.
Was going to say the same thing. I definitely hear a difference between C and D. I do like them both but D sounded a little more refined to me for lack of a better term.
I hear no difference whatsoever ^^. Love your IRs man! Especially the Zilla Cab! I believe what people complain about is basically the difference between the sound of their cab when it's not micced up and the sound of their cab micced up with a 57+421
I barely use real amps to do sessions nowadays. IR's are enough for me. That being said, I tried to capture IR's of my cabs, and they sucked terribly. Leave it to the pros! I love ML Sound Lab IR's and have them in all my main presets.
Thank you so much Camilo! Means a lot coming from you. There's a lot you need to take care of for a clean capture.. and there's a lot of mic placing experience behind as well. :) I leave the playing for pros like you.
Hey Mikko... You looked kinda irritated in this video lol. First off thank you for all the things you do for musicians. I think you do great work. Second, I think people blame their bad tone on Its or mikko or anything else but themselves. I love your It's. They sound great. Keep doing great things for musicians. Thank you.
For me I have noticed that my IRs do lack low end. Not so much blaming the IR but is there something I'm doing wrong when using them? Perhaps using the wrong IR for my dialed tone? Are there ways I can fix this?
@@TheMackyD Try our free one: bit.ly/MLSoundLab There are many things that can go wrong in making an IR. Just remember that without a point of reference (f.ex. real mic vs IR) it's like you said - not necessarily the IR's fault.
Dynamics fidelity depends on the bits per sample not the length? If I understand correctly dynamics refer to changes in volume. I still agree with your standing in IRs though.
Can someone explain the following please. If ir's are really virtually identical to the sound of a real mic'd cab, why do we always seem to need to apply high and low cuts to them, both for live use and recording? This isn't a trick question, I'd just really like to know.
A ir B mic C ir D mic? Either way, I feel some air and punch is missing from these exact samples. I'm not a recording engineer, I actually like the sound in the room, and it's hard to judge closed-miked sounds.
Great video, Mikko. Have you ever thought of releasing cabinets for Acustica nebula, which uses vectorial Volterra kernels? Ownhammer used to do this and supposedly they sound a little better. The guy at ownhammer wrote "In addition to linear aspects like frequency response, time & phase relationship, and decay, the [acustica] engine is capable of capturing and rendering non-linearities, such as but not limited to harmonic distortion and dynamic response" ( ownhammer.com/faq/nebula.html ). The market is smaller than impulses but it would be interesting to compare an impulse made with the same setup with an acustica patch made with the same setup.
Hey - I did think about that at some point but ultimately with the A/B comparisons that I've made I'm phase cancelling to silence meaning that with the way I do IR's my results are already identical. Like I kind of showed in this video there is "some" dynamic response to the current IR format due to frequency response and decay but distortion is one of those things that we're not capturing so if you're overloading your mic or mic pre then that's going to be hard to duplicate. Personally I don't do that so it's not a big issue. The way I have things running with the ML clean capture method I can only measure differences between the real mics and IR's at about 5,8% amplitude level. That means that if you have your guitar volume set to f.ex. -6dB then all the differences that may occur will be at least 30dB lower in volume. That difference doesn't necessarily even sound different but it's more like comparing an IR based reverb to an algorithm based reverb at -36dB volume. So it's essentially non-existent. Wow that went geeky fast. :D
Quite a difference. A and C is more open sounding than B and D. I really hope A and C is IR because I´d like the convenience. But I bet my money on it is the miked cab.
There is a slight tonal difference B has a raspy mid-range, slightly less 2.5-3k, but potentially more 7-8k, than A. D has less 2.5-3k more noticeable than the first setting but again more presence (7-8k). The essence of the sound is mostly there. I commented this before any reveal, so I am not biased. Speakers are moving transducers and are not 100% consistent, the sound difference is the equivalent of a mic being very slightly off axis, or phasing difference. Again D has an almost more compressed sound, by a little bit.
Okay, I know this video is 2 years old, but I've stopped it at 5:05 to give my impression of what I think I heard. I also recognize that I may be in for a bit of trickery, that there was actually no difference in any of the four samples. I've made my peace with the idea that I may be an idiot, or at the very least imagining things. LOL The samples that I found most pleasing (key word, there,) which seemed to have the best clarity and dynamics, were A & D. It is because of that clarity but I think they might both be the IR samples. Depending upon the mic used, the speaker, the size of the cabinet, the room it's in, where it's placed on the speaker, the list is too damn long but I know for a fact that an improperly mic'd cabinet can sound downright shitty. The reverse is also true - I try to go by what pleases me the most, rather than some vague idea of what constitutes best. After all, art is not about best. Ego checks and all that. I will post this, and await my forthcoming scorching LOL.
This makes sense, but I think it still doesn't solve the real issue which is people want a amp in the room sound when they are listening through monitors and headphones. And when you search on how to get that sound, not many people have good explanations on how. Best I could find is to use a room ir after the cab ir...?
One of the problem of the common people is that they believe an IR will sound like the sound they hear when the play their amps with cabs not when they RECORD their amps. i was one of these guys
Definitely can't tell which one was which. They could both be miced cab or IR, no way I could tell. However I thought the sample B had a bit different high end and sample A had a bit different bottom end. Yet replaying them always made me question it. With C and D samples it was even less noticeable, I most likely couldn't name the same sample twice between C and D even when A/Bing the samples. It might be psychological as well when I swear I spotted some very slight difference between C and D, but can't put my finger on it, and every time I go back and forth between the samples, I swear it's not really there. Also the playing with A and B samples had enough dynamics in playing to throw your memory off between the samples. After all, human memory and ears are so easily deceived. I also wonder how much youtube does for the audio here, since I noticed even hd vs 4k has difference in audio quality when uploading videos. Technically if they are identical, it shouldn't matter, but what do I know. The outcome of this is what I already knew from experience, especially using Neural DSP for a while, that the difference - if there is one at all - is so small that it doesn't matter in practice. And that the quality of the IR (or micing of the cab), how it was made, has far bigger impact than the difference of the technology itself. And when you use these products with an UI that allows you to choose the mic and its placement and panning, it becomes moot to talk about the difference when you can adjust the tone to your liking and the IR isn't hindering that process, but actually improving your recording convenience and experience. It's actually easier to get a good recording sound out of these products than micing a real amp and cab. And even better, the possibility to tweak the sound AFTER recording to fit better in the song and mix, or create the sound after laying down the tracks with some quick passable sound is such a huge benefit that I welcome small tradeoffs (like not being able to use my own favourite amp, but the one from the plugin, even though those plini amps are crazy tweakable to different applications. Been running tests with the same guitar with annoying pickups, recording covers of different styles, and they've always come through and fixed the pickup problem, way better than my amp would). Good video, people need myth buster tests and videos these days, especially when it's so accessible these days! Maybe the reason why people feel IRs are not good representation of their sound are not familiar with recording guitars, and therefore compare it to their cabinet on loud volumes which already changes their perception of the sound. They stand close to the cab so ears far off-axis, maybe they even stand on the side. They play loud and experience the room and physical impact of soundwaves on body. If they would record the same sound and then compare it to IR, they'd be surprised of how their sound actually was on recording. Or if they were to turn their speakers louder (which people never do when they listen to their recording, because why would you, it's for the practicality so you listen to it on nice levels instead of blasting guitar amp levels).
I ear sound A and C were bigger/deeper than sounds B and C. A and C are the mic and B and D are ir ?? Don't use the guitar power amp for the sweep signal. Use good hifi power amp. Sorry my english is shity. I love work Mikko ! I will buy your mars ir ! It's sound really good ! 👍
Mikko, your the fuckin man! Love how you basically give those people one of these-----🖕. But delivering the mikko way 😂, I love it. Anyways Well said man! Personally I trust and believe in what you do, you are awesome my friend!! 🤘
What’s the difference in a 40ms IR and a 200ms IR?!I can hear a difference between 20ms and 40ms in the Helix....the 20 has much less low end.....is the difference between 40ms and 200ms that drastic?
It becomes more and more subtle the longer the IR. You sort of start to get a stiffer feel with short IR's while longer IR's tend to feel smoother. The difference is mostly in the low end so you don't necessarily notice it but in a comparison you'll hear people say "a real mic is warmer" .. this is exactly what a longer IR does. It's very subtle.
@@scottpeters4401 We provide a 500ms format. I'm saying that 200ms is enough for most use cases. When going below that use the longest format possible.
A 20ms impulse, has 20ms to describe what's happening. 1000ms (one second) divided by 20ms is 50. So a 50hz tone is 20ms long. That means that a 20ms IR can not describe what's happening under 50hz. It also means that 'near' 50hz it might get things a bit wrong. Should still be fine for 80hz or more. A 40ms impulse is 1000ms / 40 = 25hz. Should be fine :).
A and D sound the best to me, not sure if they are IR or mics or w/e. Actually nevermind. The first upstroke of B just sounds worse than the last downstroke of A so it created an illusion. I can't tell a difference
One argument I've heard is that an IR is taken at one volume so you don't get the dynamics of the cone when it's playing quietly or being pushed hard. Is that a non issue with longer IR's? Is that what you meant by ML using 500ms IR's? I don't know if that makes a huge difference honestly (maybe it's more genre specific), but that's the reason I see people saying IR's aren't dynamic.
Ok, so I started using ir’s and I like them very much, even all around vst based system. But I can hear a difference on a frickin iPhone… Sample B is louder and more overdriven, if You can’t hear that, then I don’t know, but it’s not good if you sell products like this…
I agree with most of the video, but you are wrong about dynamics. An IR is a purely linear operation, whereas dynamics are by definition nonlinear. In most 4*12 cabs the speakers over match the amp, but if you drive an ac30 with blues at full tilt, you will hear speaker compression that an IR cannot reproduce. Likewise, if you run a 100W Plexi into four M25 greenbacks at full tilt, you will hear lots of speaker distortion (don't blow the speakers). This cannot be represented by an IR either. What you demonstrated in the video is resonance and early reflections, which is also very important to capture :-)
Yup I did a bad job explaining what I meant with that. I meant that the frequency sustain of an IR will be dynamic for as long as the IR is. Meaning that generally the low end sustains longer and so on.
@@mlsoundlab and I think that is super important. The frequency balance moving in time brings a very important liveliness to the sound. I miss it every time I hear short IRs.
@@Smittefar1 Crucial part of a good IR. That's exactly what sells the "real amp and cab being miked up" effect for modelers. Reflections are what make IR's sound real. :)
There's a diff in C and D. D likely being the IR. Not as big slightly more narrow or boxed sounding when compared but not enough to give a shit really!
hm, I can hear a difference but anyway they are very close and would not complain :). Are recordings made in separate takes or 2 takes and then processed in 2 ways (cab+mic vs IRs)? it would be nice to have them all in wav form to compare in one's own DAW. It could be also interesting to make more 'scientific' and brutal test of comparison than by ear ;) Like phase cancellation method.
I copy paste what I said in another video. Capturing the impulse response of the pulsating membranes (speaker -> mic) is indeed a very good way, but still it's not the whole truth. Why? They do not account for the distortion of a speaker during complex waves. That is, if you play a sinusoidal wave through an amp speaker you'd get a (preferably) not distorted, harmonics free notch in an FFT graph. But this is rarely the case with amp speakers. People want to distort their cab sound, because they also like the characteristics of the distortion given by each cab. The result of this? The speaker's bandwidth often decreases (!) when the medium (membrane) is distorting the sound. And this creates a dynamic equalization on high frequencies that is NOT possible to capture in an impulse response function. This generates harmonics, which are often very pleasant (they are multiples of 2, 4, 6, 8 etc) to hear, and I personally also prefer them. This is how you can distinguish between a real miced cab, and an impulse response. The latter sounds brittle and harsh at 1kHz to about 2-3kHz, because of that effect.
I wonder in the context of recording, if it'd be worth trying to distort/compress those specific frequencies to mimic that then. Regardless, I think most players nowadays haven't even heard what speaker compression sounds like so for home recording this probably doesn't even matter.
In the context of IR's I think all products are only using close miking, thus the statement of 200ms vs 500ms. Sound moves through the air and forms a serious of flame like nodes where energy is concentrated at the tips. The first node might be 1,2,3 meters from the source, then another at 5,10,15,20 meters etc . You could place a mic at each of these tips and mix to taste..so yeah beyond 500ms is required and a baffling 'corridor' to minimize room reflections. I would consider 'chasing the flame' as the next challenge for IR creation...a series of IR files captured at distance and time aligned...sort of like the mikko approach, but using node distance instead of close mic position. Of course you could try chasing the flame from the full range speakers that are transmitting the post IR signal...but probably not as good or convenient as capturing the original source nodes. 'chasing the flame' is one of many little known techniques discussed in the 2003 book "Mixing with your mind" by Michael Stavrou (forward by Sir George Martin)
Tube snobs and cab junkies get tiring to me. IR's are just fine and nobody would notice tomorrow if half the albums they heard were mixed with IR's. Sure real cabs feel awesome to play through because they're in the room with you but yeah. I'm fine with some solid IR packs and still can make a huge low heavy tone. Dynamics are only really heard/felt when you have a cleaner sound and the cab is not that responsible for them anyway as you said. Things like Recabinet3's dynamic control just use some kind of limited compression and multiband fun. It sounds awesome. But it's also not that necessary in most situations. As a metal guy I'd think more people would hate dynamics because it's messing up the chugs and whatever?
I feel like B and D must be the IRS even though I liked them better.. A and B identical, but D sounded more artificial.. In a cool way.. my ears must be tricking me.
You can always play the samples with inverted phase... I would bet the will cancel each other. The complaints usually comes from people who expect a recorded cab to sound like the cab in a room. I can't see a reason why an ir wouldn't sound exactly like the miced cab it's emulating.
Because the IR doesn't account for the distorted harmonics of a speaker, which create (yeah sorry ML Sound Lab man, I know you sell IRs for living) *dynamic equalization which is not captured in the IR*. I am really sorry for using those taboo words, jokes on me! THE GUY literally reveals the reason in the starting of the video. What's with the 12 year old behavior... This is studied like... since sound engineering was first a thing, don't fuck with us ML man. (edit: bad grammar :D)
I agree that blaming IR format is really bad. But there will be difference. I hear small difference between samples. The mic'd ones are bloomy/bubbly/less clear because there's distortion caused by the cabinet. Can you capture an IR of a guitar amplifier? Of course not. The spectrum will be similar but there's difference. Also the cab behaves differently at different levels. You can get different IRs from using different levels. The difference can be significant if the captured IR is used in a very different condition than the cabinet. The IRs do sound a little flat and more clean than the real cabinets. In a mix the difference can be negligible. And at the end of the day is not that it sounds the same but does it sound good that matters. But there will always be certain cases real cabinets are more suitable.
Ive never heard any IR have the kind of depth and airy realism of cab/mic recordings captured with an ultra high end signal chain. For some reason they just sound as good as cabs recorded with mics going to home studio-grade signal chain of pres and converters which don't capture that airy sound that well, and dont have very deep and full bottom end response. I still have yet to hear IR's that do it for me. Sorry.
@@LCRLive687 Same pres and converters for both mic and IR clips so it's irrelevent. This is exactly what I wanted to point out. You can't blame the IR format without a reference clip like in this comparison. The point is not about "does it sound good" - it's about does it sound the same and with the correct methods you can get it this close no matter which pre or converter you use. We run a pristine clear capture rig that's quite a well kept secret. :)
@@mlsoundlab actually, the real question is if mastering grade converters plus some crazy 40,000 dollar power amp is used for the sweep sent to the capture of the iR, will the same air be heard in the IR as in a mic setup recorded through the same converters? You can't hear the airy and deep sound with cheap converters, whether mic'd or IR-based. So hard to tell unless you use full out crazy converters like lavry. Then you will be able to see if there is further, deeper, lower, and airier content that can be heard. Its yet to be tested for IR. Ive never heard such a test.
I own a Ernie Ball Luke, guitar (pro guitar) and 4 other as good E. guitars performing rock high gain tracks on a professional level. I own many amp sims THAT USE IR's. (Amplitube, guitar rig5, TH3, Revalver 4,) playing back through 800 dollar Samson near field pro mixing monitors. They all suck for high gain amps, Explain that! not realistic enough for me I know because i have played through real Soldano's, Messa Boogie, Marshall, Bogner, Orange and Laney amps. And its Heaaaaaven sweeeeeet stick a sm57 in front of one of those and DONE.
Joseph Mazzu. Joe, like Steve Walsh, I’m an “analog man.” What is the best 50’s sounding style strat under )$1500? Used okay. USA preferred. Fender brand not necessary.
@@nathan7265 a Korean made Strat is good just consider upgrading the pickups with Fender Custom Shop ‘54s and you're on your way. total cost in the between 600-700
Joseph Mazzu. Sweet. Thank you. I would be fine up to $1500 with a USA preference. G&L? Ernie Ball? I have another question: I’m looking for a humbucker profile pickup that is single coil wound that sounds like a 50’s-60’s 2-4 Alnico.
Had a client, who heard eq changes of 1/3 of a db until i saw that the eq was BYPASSED! Enough said. It is arrogance based on the assumption; my ears are better than yours.
I was referring to the time decay based frequency drop-off as a dynamic element as shown in the graph. Many people think an IR is just an EQ curve. The reason why I brought this up is because right now some people are advicing people to use extremely short IR's.
@@mlsoundlab It's wrong to call that "dynamic" cuz it doesn't vary depending on the input signal level, iow it's not a non-linearity. I know those people you're talking about and they suggest it for a reason: avoid room reflections. And room reflections are what's probably causing different decay at different frequencies.
@@carmelodl8407 You're right about that. Based on these tests - even the one I did today where these clips are from there is no real dynamic difference between the mic+cab vs IR. You can even extract the audio from this video and phase reverse the difference if you want to try it out. When you start shortening the IR - that's when you start hearing the difference between mic vs IR. What I'm saying is room reflections are crucial for realism.
@@mlsoundlab And I concur with that if our goal is to replicate the sound of a cab mic'd in a particular room and use it in a recording. But when playing live you're actually doubling room reflections cuz there will also be those from the actual room you're playing in. A rerflection free IR is more appropriate in that case imho, and it also gives the freedom to choose a different virtual room in your recordings simply by using a reverb plugin. There's also another question: is 500ms enough to capture the full room reflections? (and most hardware modelers don't even allow to use that lenght)
@@carmelodl8407 It obviously depends on the room but in my room I can capture all audible resonances with about 200ms IR's. About the live circumstance: People suddenly feel very strongly about these double reflections... how on earth have all guitarists before 2019 been able to live with double reflections? If you simulate a fully analog tube rig then all stage monitors get a mic feed that includes these reflections. So why are they suddenly a problem now? :)
Lol don't blame the IR format when he says he makes better IR's than his competition. Lol little dynamic difference in cabs, yet he makes a living at it. ML soundlab isn't that great. They don't even have midi implementation in their standalone amp sims. Tried a bunch of their IR's for a vox amp and didn't sound that great where I had to stop looking. Finally found some decent Vox IRs that are FREE, made by SNB. ML Sound lab IR's don't even have proper documentation. They just grouped a bunch into the folder and didn't label which mics they use. LAZY! Spend your money elsewhere or download free IR's that sound better. Less hype videos and more work.
