I called the change at 11 on the other vid. Kinda assumed it was gonna be the only change. Heard the extremes mellow lows and highs drawing back and a slight percieved increase in some mids. Was by ear. Was listening on full sound at home. Maybe through a phone speaker or something it wouldn't have been so apparent. Great vids, these.
Placing the edits in logical spaces in terms of timing with the riff was a mistake I think. If I was going to just guess the edits that is what I would assume. Edits should have been in random spots. I can almost guarantee no one would get it at that point. I have done this myself (not just with IR tests) fyi and have never had anyone get the answers correct.
Never in my lifetime did I ever think that I would play something besides a tube amp… But fractal and York IR’s are great…very satisfied with this technology 🙂
This might have tipped me over into just using IR's from now on. Instead of collecting cabs and microphones to just end up with the same quality of results way down the road. These videos are so valuable!
Great video I've been trying to use real mics sm57 in my room for a long time with not the best results..I switched over to my amp to a load box into an IR and my problems were solved...I'm also using York IRs they do sound good...
Justin has got to be one of the nicest guys out there on top of providing the best IR's I can find. I use York Audio exclusively on the Fractal FM9 and he has answered any question I've ever thrown at him, but always goes way beyond the basic question with additional tips that have saved me a lot of time and helped me get the best out of what I'm doing. Could not recommend him enough. Nothing against the stock Fractal cabs/Dyna-cabs but York Audio is absolutely a game changer and the not so secret sauce of every single patch I've made.
Hands down best IRs available. Justin is so cool and has helped me out before. I hope we get some more eminence speakers. I need a Texas Heat from him.
Crazy that one person got the IR vs real amp switching correct, or really close to the switches, but its good that the majority of us can't tell the difference either.
Thx for this content bro! York Audio is one of the best IRs makers in the Market. Serious thing here. Will be great to hear others IR makers in the same test.
So great that you got Justin on here. His insanely awesome cabs deserve all the attention of the world! Thank you and Justin for doing what you do! 🤘🏻🤘🏻🤘🏻
Great video, Justin makes great IR's and seems like a really cool guy. He is always really helpful and answers questions super quick on the fractal forum. I didn't have a guess because they were too damn close for me to really make a guess and didn't see the need to, especially in a mix, no one would be able to tell the difference
Good video. Goes to show how far technology has come and you don't need a big, loud expensive amp for recording. I wonder if IR gear has put a hurting on amp sales.
IR is the best alternative compared to buying many cabs which surely cost a lot of money and need a big room for storage. York audio is happen to be my favorite IR at this moment. I don't know what Justin does but his IR recipe matches my taste.
Really great comparison. The demo of load box coloration was enlightening indeed. I could hear the differences with the load box changes, but I can’t hear any consistent differences between the IR blind test clips.
The York Audio KW 412 M-25 SH is the first and only IR that I've heard that actually sounds better than my actual speakers and cabs. Considering that I've likely tried over a hundred different IRs from both the major and lesser known players in the game, I don't see any others coming anywhere close to achieving what York Audio has -- yet.
That was great! still I'm always getting the most organic natural sound with a real amp and a real cab mic correctly. Not sure about the test using an Axe FX as an amp as opposed to a real amp but was fun to watch! thanks for it
@@SonicDriveStudio I actually thought it was relatively easy to guess where the changes were due to the structure of the tune, all breaks were at a change or repeat section in the riffs , guessing, and I mean guessing the difference between IR and Cab was next to impossible by ear...
I am so glad IRs have come such a long way. I would love to own lots of cabs but I don't have the room can I crank my amp without rattling my house. If you have the room and mics then mic the cab. Don't? Use your fav IR. This test for SURE won't change peoples minds who love "amp in room sound" and "moving air"
Fascinating. I agree with others that IR's truly are one of the most valuable tools to come along in the guitar world. Never thought I'd record direct, but York's IR's sound so damn good, it's like cheating.
Gotteem! I also heard the back and forth at the end, but I thought it was just the playing style because it switched back and worth so fast. Ya' fooled me, Justin. hehe Great, great video! It's like I said in my response in the pre-video post on Facebook, I figured most wouldn't be able to tell the difference, but either way most of those minute details gets lost in the mix. ??? Maybe do a video on Dynamic IR's, see if they hold up or if they're just myth/hype ??? This was really fun, Jon. Thank you for making this video, bud!!!
Also REALLY interested in your upcoming load box comparison. I don’t use IRs much at all, but use attenuators a lot (Weber, Bugera, Two Notes), and hopefully you can add some content w/r how the AITR loaded amps sound.
I thought _maybe_ I could hear a switch or two, but it was so incredibly close that in the context of a mix, or in a live situation, that would be absolutely indiscernible. The only place where I really feel like I can tell the IR from a live cab is with a specific kind of low gain/break-up tone, and even then, only if they were side by side compared in a vacuum. Since an IR doesn't recreate speaker breakup, that can be a sign as well- but I don't like speaker breakup at all, so it's a no brainer for me!
I was one of the "clueless" I watched the first video and any differences between the two were insignificant IMO. I've always thought, even all the way back to the original Amp Farm, that the cabinets have been the biggest challenge. IMO the recent best developments in modeling platforms has been the advent of IR loading. I need to dig out my PODxt, and V-AMP2, turn off the cabs, and check those with current IR's. I'll bet they're actually pretty usable.
Ok, the fast switch between real cab and IR is the reason of my doubt which led me to add a PS to my comment in the blind video, but I’m happy I was able to distinguish them right for the biggest part! Nothing beats a real cab pushing air, IRs are only a very good compromise.
Impulse responses are just a way to mathematically describe the linear temporal response of a system (and thus can perfectly replace such system), pretty much as uncompressed digital audio is a way to mathematically describe sound. So, a listener of the final digital recording would (and should) hear the exact same result from that system versus it's IR (that's a mathematical truth). That system includes the speaker and cab's electric and acoustic impedance, the exact point in space at which the mic is positioned w/respect to the cab, the frequency response and sensitivity of the mic, and the reverberation of the room as taken at the one-dimensional point of the mic capsule. This holds as long as the system is linear, that is, it doesn't introduce distortion or dynamic processes (which would happen if you saturate a cab). Of course, you'd have a very different sensation if you're in the same room as the real cab, since you'd hear the 3D radiation of the cab plus volumetric room reflections.
@@gastonpossel 1. I don’t know the exact process, but I know that any digitalization may always include a loss 2. What digitalization probably isn’t that good at is reproducing transients. That’s why I managed to spot the real cab, because the peaks in the palm muting parts where clearly different.
@@shredgd5 Number 2 is not accurate as a reason for spotting the differences. You probably heard a difference in playing (remember you *are* hearing digital audio either way, and actually lossy audio on youtube). On number 1: on lossless (uncompressed) digitalization, you only lose frequencies above 1/2 the sampling rate (above hearing range). In theory, you also introduce quantization error noise, but this is typically 96 dB (for 16 bit) or more below the signal, and therefore not perceivable. The gear's electronic noise is always higher and will mask quantization noise even when the musician is silent. Again, either way you are hearing a digital, mathematically sound representation of the signal, further messed up by YT lossy compression.
@@gastonpossel don’t mix up the digital conversion of analog audio (which I agree can’t be perceived) with the digital creation of audio content made by IRs. This digital creation can have limits basing on how the algorithms were created, so it’s useless to switch the discussion on how good a digital audio can be, because we all know it is. What digital creation can be not so good at is providing all the non-linear responses analog equipment sometimes provide. For example, chords can create unexpected harmonics in the cab+speaker system and harmonics might also be influenced by the room that system is inside, then picked up by the microphone. Or peaks created during palm muting might change the behavior of the speaker in reproducing concomitant notes because of mechanical characteristics, or even simply combination of different notes might mechanically change the behavior of the speaker. I don’t believe an IR can include all the “special cases”. So maybe if you created an IR basing on hours and hours of playing with different tones, different guitars, different players and different musical genres, you might end up with an “almost perfect IR”, because you would include all the “exceptions”, i.e. all the non-linearities in behavior of the analog system. But I doubt anyone would be able to do this.
@@shredgd5 Oh. Then I misinterpreted your response when you said digitalization. The specific case of IR is a digitalization of the linear response of a system to an impulse, as I said (it's not an algorithm, it's an audio file that convolutes with other audio). You are correct in that the temporal response of an impulse won't capture non-linearities. There are some companies that create so-called "dynamic IRs" which I presume that are a bunch of linear IRs captured at increasing levels so you have a level-dependent response (that should, in theory, address soft non-linearities, some speaker saturation maybe, but I've never tried them). Fortunately, a speaker is usually used in it's linear regime.
Impressively close, I just hear a little bit of extra low end and high end fizz with the IR, which would problably be easily solved with some hi cuts and low cuts, making them even pretty much identical
IRs FINALLY offer guitarists a simple method to achieve studio quality tone ANYWHERE. IRs alone are enough of a reason to go digital. Everything else is just an extra cherry, even amp modeling.
Justin once made his own Ownhammer pack, and the sound demo for that is still a recorded sound that makes me go 'oh wow!', _that's what I'm after_. And I hear it in his recordings now to, so maybe it's something to do with his playing/strumming style :). Underrated legend he is, please keep it up!
I’d love to know what power amp he used with the axe fx. Sounds really good. Trying to pull the trigger on a good power amp that won’t color my modelers when trying to use them with an actual cab.
This is a great! Belonging to the conservative tribe, someone's finally persuaded me that IRs can be like the real deal. I couldn't hear a difference worth considering. Thanks guys! However there's one comment stating they can't replicate speaker distortion. Is that true? Anyway I can't wait to hear the loadbox shootout! Cheers.
My favorite load box is the Fractal Audio LB-2. The UK impedance curve on it seems to work well with most of my amps. For the load box clip, I can’t remember the order off the top of my head, but I THINK it’s the Suhr Reactive Load IR, RedSeven, St. Rock React, and the Fractal LB-2. None of them sound bad, they all just have their own character. My brother is borrowing my Two-Notes, so I didn’t get to include that one.
I definitely couldn’t tell any difference between the IR and the real, mic’d cab. In a mix it would really be impossible to distinguish between the two.
I was off by a few seconds.. I've got great ears. That said, I didn't really notice switches back after the first difference. It's almost bang on. Well done York audio!
First of all, great idea to use a modeller that doesn't need a loadbox for this. Totally makes sense as a valid way to work the impedance curve out of the equation, kudos. But that leaves me with a question: Was the same poweramp used for the IR capture phase? I am assuming this, as the IR sweep (or shot) has to be amplified through _something_ to get out of the speakers. In that case, part of me speculates that you might have used an ultra-clean solidstate poweramp with absolutely no compressions/saturation/breakup for this?
I can hear the difference when I can see the changes. So as long as I can see the musician tracking in the studio, I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt if they are using an IR or a Cab.
But if you couldn’t hear the changes WITHOUT seeing the changes, it just shows that the visual aid makes your brain think that it’s hearing differences based on visual cues. That’s the main reason why I didn’t want there to be a visual aid or mention the amount of switches in the first test… it’s all about what you hear rather than what you see. :)
ir is flatter subdued in the flow where the cab pops through to the surface a bit more like 3d bloom, same as drum vsts to real drums its that damn 10 or 15 percent the evolving sonic brain chases, its subtle but all sums add up in a mix not so important on its own
Yo, I actually did catch the changes at 8 and 21 But the 14 second one sounds EXACTLY the same wtf All the other changes are just impossible to hear for me
I would have been one of the backwards people. I thought the cab (which sounded a bit dryer, more dynamic fidelity(? Im not an audio engineer, I just watch this kind of stuff to pick up concepts here and there) was the IR because of the dry wider dynamic range, where the actual IR had a slightly warmer quality to it to where it sort of sounded like the frequencies were washing each other a bit (ya know, as the physical speaker cone would as its moving about and such). And for me, its very in the weeds, no way Id pick out that difference in a mixed down whole band track. Just like the blind tone cap test on another channel, back to back to back yeah there is a difference, sort of, but gun to my head couldnt tell you which was which at a concert or something. Of course, the difference between tone caps would be enough to sort of glow through on some level depending on the style and mixing. But this real cab vs IR....While I can barely tell, and there is something to be said about the esoteric intangible qualities and how they add up (on some level, its not magic, it wont make crap music good, but it could make good music better. Again, very dependant on the recording crew knowing their equipment and recording space) I really dont expect Id be able to tell the tiny (again intangible in the weeds, down in the noise if you will) differences in a full track if at all, much less know it was because of a miced cab or a IR thingy. Like, a track could sweep across the two, and Id never notice. Maybe it makes some ephemeral difference, but its not going to make the difference between and awesome band and a crap one.
Interesting test, showing that IR's can be very close to a Real Amp. But, I believe you need the same gear, guitar and pickups, to get such good results.
Well the IR is just the cabinet portion of your tone. It’s important to dial in your amps to suit your guitar, your playing technique, and your listening environment. If you’re using good IRs and still have a hard time getting a realistic tone, it’s likely the amp modeling or load box you’re using is hindering your results. For that tone, I literally pulled up an SLO model and only touched the gain, depth, and presence controls, so it doesn’t always need a ton of tweaking to get a sound you like.
Hang on. You used an Axe FX 3 for the mic’d cab source and not an actual valve amp? It could be the impedance curves from an OG amp that make the aural difference easier to identify.
Yup, the test is seeing how accurate IRs are to the actual mic’d cab. Using a modeler where the cab and IR “see” the same impedance curve eliminates the variable of a mismatched impedance curve from a load box.
Nice to know I was write about the number of switches, but as to what they were I was wrong. Not that it mattered. They were so close and all I could hear was a little difference in the high end so made a random guess the one with more high end was the cab.
I'm making this comment without having watched the whole video, I notices that sometimes the sound was slightly brighter and slightly more focused but, it wasn't a huge difference.
@@SonicDriveStudio Is it though? I thought the point was if IR’s sound as good as a mic’d recording, not comparing literally the same thing. Obviously if he created the IR then recorded audio from the same mic and cab, why would there be any difference? That’s be like comparing WAV and AIFF.
So IRs ate virtually indistinguishable, but loadboxes are far from transparent. So there's no perfect way to get a real tube amp into the box to transparently use the IRs without putting the signature apund of the loadbox on the recording.
Placing the edits in logical spaces in terms of timing with the riff was a mistake I think. If I was going to just guess the edits that is what I would assume. Edits should have been in random spots. I can almost guarantee no one would get it at that point. I have done this myself (not just with IR tests) fyi and have never had anyone get the answers correct.
Guys for recording of course the IR can match the cabinet sound because it's only what the mic can capture out of the speaker. The cabinet is only relevant to the player on the stage. Like Gilmour said once "you can lean against the sound" no IR can reproduce this experience.
I´m NOT CONVINCED!!! I mean, indeed the IR and the mic sound almost the same but using a Axe FX as the preamp and passing it through a poweramp is not a real case! No one will ever record like that! I would rather choose a real case, such as an tube head + mic and compare it to a standard loadbox like the captor or a suhr loadbox. I bet the differences will be stronger!
The test is simply “does an IR sound like a real mic’d cab,” and the blind test shows that they are nearly indistinguishable. This shows that the IR is an accurate representation of the mic’d cabinet in its purest form. If you watch the whole video, I also play a clip showing that the impedance curves in different load boxes changes the sound. I used the Fractal with a power amp so that the live cab and the IR had identical impedance curves. All that to say, if you use an amp and a load box with an IR, any difference you hear between the real cab and the IR is coming from your load box’s impedance curve. I hope this helps. :)
@@yorkaudio5444 Another difference that you would hear is the power amp section of your tube head. All are different. Some have presence and depth controls. I agree with Francisco. However, at the moment, this is the closest we can get with IR's.
@@KeithMcKissick You’re correct that an amp’s power amp affects the tone. A modeler also models power amp behavior and coloration, so the same power amp color is being heard in the live cab as well as the IR. The IR doesn’t have any power amp coloration so that it’s a clean slate for whatever amp/power amp you want to use with it.
So, what do you guys think? What did you think of the initial blind test? And what about the reveal/results?
I called the change at 11 on the other vid. Kinda assumed it was gonna be the only change. Heard the extremes mellow lows and highs drawing back and a slight percieved increase in some mids. Was by ear. Was listening on full sound at home. Maybe through a phone speaker or something it wouldn't have been so apparent. Great vids, these.
I had absolutely no idea what was going on in the blind test. Very interesting
Haa, my guess was right, or almost 😁 but truth be told almost unnoticeable! Cheers
Placing the edits in logical spaces in terms of timing with the riff was a mistake I think. If I was going to just guess the edits that is what I would assume. Edits should have been in random spots. I can almost guarantee no one would get it at that point. I have done this myself (not just with IR tests) fyi and have never had anyone get the answers correct.
Never in my lifetime did I ever think that I would play something besides a tube amp… But fractal and York IR’s are great…very satisfied with this technology 🙂
This might have tipped me over into just using IR's from now on. Instead of collecting cabs and microphones to just end up with the same quality of results way down the road. These videos are so valuable!
Oh man. So glad he covered impedance curves between amps and various IR's. Gonna check out some York Audio stuff now.
Great job guys :)
Great video I've been trying to use real mics sm57 in my room for a long time with not the best results..I switched over to my amp to a load box into an IR and my problems were solved...I'm also using York IRs they do sound good...
Justin has got to be one of the nicest guys out there on top of providing the best IR's I can find. I use York Audio exclusively on the Fractal FM9 and he has answered any question I've ever thrown at him, but always goes way beyond the basic question with additional tips that have saved me a lot of time and helped me get the best out of what I'm doing. Could not recommend him enough. Nothing against the stock Fractal cabs/Dyna-cabs but York Audio is absolutely a game changer and the not so secret sauce of every single patch I've made.
Great to see Justin in person 👍🏻 I'm a huge fan of his IRs and use 'em exlusively today ;-) Thanks for the great work!
Hands down best IRs available. Justin is so cool and has helped me out before. I hope we get some more eminence speakers. I need a Texas Heat from him.
Crazy that one person got the IR vs real amp switching correct, or really close to the switches, but its good that the majority of us can't tell the difference either.
York Audio IRs save me so much time not having to screw with mics! Highest quality!!!
Thx for this content bro!
York Audio is one of the best IRs makers in the Market. Serious thing here.
Will be great to hear others IR makers in the same test.
York Audio are great guys. Top notch stuff! I have the Marshall 4x12 MV30. I use the blend IR and it is AWESOME!
Justin makes hands down the best IRs. Im a fan of his Zilla pack, i only wish it had his 57 Unidyne. Thats the best mic i have heard
Couldn't tell the difference. No shame admitting it. Love the York Audio IR's, as well.
So great that you got Justin on here. His insanely awesome cabs deserve all the attention of the world! Thank you and Justin for doing what you do! 🤘🏻🤘🏻🤘🏻
I was waaaay off hahaha that’s a good thing! Love where technology is with the guitar community.
Impedance curve elimination FTW!!!! Thanks again for all you do Jon - LOVE IT!
Great video, Justin makes great IR's and seems like a really cool guy. He is always really helpful and answers questions super quick on the fractal forum. I didn't have a guess because they were too damn close for me to really make a guess and didn't see the need to, especially in a mix, no one would be able to tell the difference
Good video. Goes to show how far technology has come and you don't need a big, loud expensive amp for recording. I wonder if IR gear has put a hurting on amp sales.
IR is the best alternative compared to buying many cabs which surely cost a lot of money and need a big room for storage.
York audio is happen to be my favorite IR at this moment. I don't know what Justin does but his IR recipe matches my taste.
Really great comparison. The demo of load box coloration was enlightening indeed. I could hear the differences with the load box changes, but I can’t hear any consistent differences between the IR blind test clips.
Can't wait for the load box comparisson with all the quality of ur tests.
The York Audio KW 412 M-25 SH is the first and only IR that I've heard that actually sounds better than my actual speakers and cabs. Considering that I've likely tried over a hundred different IRs from both the major and lesser known players in the game, I don't see any others coming anywhere close to achieving what York Audio has -- yet.
That was great! still I'm always getting the most organic natural sound with a real amp and a real cab mic correctly. Not sure about the test using an Axe FX as an amp as opposed to a real amp but was fun to watch! thanks for it
Awesome video! Because of you I only use YORK AUDIO IR’S. Every amp in my helix sounds freaking awesome now
I didn't really hear any differences between IR and Cab so my guess is that it's nothing to worry about and use what gets you there.
Great video! Glad my York audio addiction is justified! I don’t have ‘em all but I have over 20 packs so far…
So far…
Well im blown away right now. I guessed the switch correctly but i tough the IR was the real mic 🤯
That's already an impressive achievement!
@@SonicDriveStudio I actually thought it was relatively easy to guess where the changes were due to the structure of the tune, all breaks were at a change or repeat section in the riffs , guessing, and I mean guessing the difference between IR and Cab was next to impossible by ear...
I am so glad IRs have come such a long way. I would love to own lots of cabs but I don't have the room can I crank my amp without rattling my house. If you have the room and mics then mic the cab. Don't? Use your fav IR. This test for SURE won't change peoples minds who love "amp in room sound" and "moving air"
Fascinating. I agree with others that IR's truly are one of the most valuable tools to come along in the guitar world. Never thought I'd record direct, but York's IR's sound so damn good, it's like cheating.
York’s work is awesome.
where do you get your IR's from
thanks!
LOL I had the opposite -- my blue was red and my red was blue! I guess I don't need to lug a cab anymore. Thanks for that.
Another one ("pushing air" myth) bites the dust. Hey!
True. But loud is also fun
Convinced me! :-) Great work!!!
Best Impulse Responses are from York Audio
Gotteem! I also heard the back and forth at the end, but I thought it was just the playing style because it switched back and worth so fast. Ya' fooled me, Justin. hehe Great, great video! It's like I said in my response in the pre-video post on Facebook, I figured most wouldn't be able to tell the difference, but either way most of those minute details gets lost in the mix.
??? Maybe do a video on Dynamic IR's, see if they hold up or if they're just myth/hype ???
This was really fun, Jon. Thank you for making this video, bud!!!
Also, I only used my ears and my trusty HD 280 Pro's, no analyzers.
Nice! Sure was helpfull hearing and for me, learning about the difference between loadboxes and stuff. Since that is pretty new to me, using it 😁
Also REALLY interested in your upcoming load box comparison. I don’t use IRs much at all, but use attenuators a lot (Weber, Bugera, Two Notes), and hopefully you can add some content w/r how the AITR loaded amps sound.
I thought _maybe_ I could hear a switch or two, but it was so incredibly close that in the context of a mix, or in a live situation, that would be absolutely indiscernible.
The only place where I really feel like I can tell the IR from a live cab is with a specific kind of low gain/break-up tone, and even then, only if they were side by side compared in a vacuum. Since an IR doesn't recreate speaker breakup, that can be a sign as well- but I don't like speaker breakup at all, so it's a no brainer for me!
I was one of the "clueless" I watched the first video and any differences between the two were insignificant IMO. I've always thought, even all the way back to the original Amp Farm, that the cabinets have been the biggest challenge. IMO the recent best developments in modeling platforms has been the advent of IR loading. I need to dig out my PODxt, and V-AMP2, turn off the cabs, and check those with current IR's. I'll bet they're actually pretty usable.
Thanks! Great info!
Ok, the fast switch between real cab and IR is the reason of my doubt which led me to add a PS to my comment in the blind video, but I’m happy I was able to distinguish them right for the biggest part! Nothing beats a real cab pushing air, IRs are only a very good compromise.
Impulse responses are just a way to mathematically describe the linear temporal response of a system (and thus can perfectly replace such system), pretty much as uncompressed digital audio is a way to mathematically describe sound. So, a listener of the final digital recording would (and should) hear the exact same result from that system versus it's IR (that's a mathematical truth). That system includes the speaker and cab's electric and acoustic impedance, the exact point in space at which the mic is positioned w/respect to the cab, the frequency response and sensitivity of the mic, and the reverberation of the room as taken at the one-dimensional point of the mic capsule. This holds as long as the system is linear, that is, it doesn't introduce distortion or dynamic processes (which would happen if you saturate a cab).
Of course, you'd have a very different sensation if you're in the same room as the real cab, since you'd hear the 3D radiation of the cab plus volumetric room reflections.
@@gastonpossel
1. I don’t know the exact process, but I know that any digitalization may always include a loss
2. What digitalization probably isn’t that good at is reproducing transients. That’s why I managed to spot the real cab, because the peaks in the palm muting parts where clearly different.
@@shredgd5 Number 2 is not accurate as a reason for spotting the differences. You probably heard a difference in playing (remember you *are* hearing digital audio either way, and actually lossy audio on youtube). On number 1: on lossless (uncompressed) digitalization, you only lose frequencies above 1/2 the sampling rate (above hearing range). In theory, you also introduce quantization error noise, but this is typically 96 dB (for 16 bit) or more below the signal, and therefore not perceivable. The gear's electronic noise is always higher and will mask quantization noise even when the musician is silent.
Again, either way you are hearing a digital, mathematically sound representation of the signal, further messed up by YT lossy compression.
@@gastonpossel don’t mix up the digital conversion of analog audio (which I agree can’t be perceived) with the digital creation of audio content made by IRs. This digital creation can have limits basing on how the algorithms were created, so it’s useless to switch the discussion on how good a digital audio can be, because we all know it is. What digital creation can be not so good at is providing all the non-linear responses analog equipment sometimes provide. For example, chords can create unexpected harmonics in the cab+speaker system and harmonics might also be influenced by the room that system is inside, then picked up by the microphone. Or peaks created during palm muting might change the behavior of the speaker in reproducing concomitant notes because of mechanical characteristics, or even simply combination of different notes might mechanically change the behavior of the speaker. I don’t believe an IR can include all the “special cases”. So maybe if you created an IR basing on hours and hours of playing with different tones, different guitars, different players and different musical genres, you might end up with an “almost perfect IR”, because you would include all the “exceptions”, i.e. all the non-linearities in behavior of the analog system. But I doubt anyone would be able to do this.
@@shredgd5 Oh. Then I misinterpreted your response when you said digitalization. The specific case of IR is a digitalization of the linear response of a system to an impulse, as I said (it's not an algorithm, it's an audio file that convolutes with other audio). You are correct in that the temporal response of an impulse won't capture non-linearities. There are some companies that create so-called "dynamic IRs" which I presume that are a bunch of linear IRs captured at increasing levels so you have a level-dependent response (that should, in theory, address soft non-linearities, some speaker saturation maybe, but I've never tried them). Fortunately, a speaker is usually used in it's linear regime.
It would be interesting to see a null test.
Impressively close, I just hear a little bit of extra low end and high end fizz with the IR, which would problably be easily solved with some hi cuts and low cuts, making them even pretty much identical
IRs FINALLY offer guitarists a simple method to achieve studio quality tone ANYWHERE.
IRs alone are enough of a reason to go digital.
Everything else is just an extra cherry, even amp modeling.
I'm pleased I could hear the switch at 7s on the original clip 😃 but man the other switches were almost imperceptible (!)
Very impressive, the sound really de same in my ears. Can you taste this ir with captor x to compare if this unit(captor x) change the sound?
Which axe model did he play? Sounds awesome :)
Not even my eyes can hear any difference
3 people guessing right is nothing statistically. You should make more tests with less obvious switchings.
Good video!
Justin once made his own Ownhammer pack, and the sound demo for that is still a recorded sound that makes me go 'oh wow!', _that's what I'm after_.
And I hear it in his recordings now to, so maybe it's something to do with his playing/strumming style :). Underrated legend he is, please keep it up!
Your content is grade A
🇨🇦
load box battle... waiting!
I had it backwards I actually liked the IR
I’d love to know what power amp he used with the axe fx. Sounds really good. Trying to pull the trigger on a good power amp that won’t color my modelers when trying to use them with an actual cab.
Has it been said somewhere, if its at 44.1 or higher samplerate?
This is a great! Belonging to the conservative tribe, someone's finally persuaded me that IRs can be like the real deal. I couldn't hear a difference worth considering. Thanks guys! However there's one comment stating they can't replicate speaker distortion. Is that true? Anyway I can't wait to hear the loadbox shootout! Cheers.
My only response on the first vid would have been that the second clip seems to be missing 🙂
What power amp was used to capture the IR's?
What power amp did you use with the fractal??
Can you tell what load boxes in Justin example? What's Justin favorite load box?
My favorite load box is the Fractal Audio LB-2. The UK impedance curve on it seems to work well with most of my amps. For the load box clip, I can’t remember the order off the top of my head, but I THINK it’s the Suhr Reactive Load IR, RedSeven, St. Rock React, and the Fractal LB-2. None of them sound bad, they all just have their own character. My brother is borrowing my Two-Notes, so I didn’t get to include that one.
I definitely couldn’t tell any difference between the IR and the real, mic’d cab. In a mix it would really be impossible to distinguish between the two.
I think I have only lost one of your blind comparisons this far. I was able to pick out the cab at the beginning and end, but the middle was harder.
York Audio IR's are the best bar none.
I was off by a few seconds.. I've got great ears. That said, I didn't really notice switches back after the first difference. It's almost bang on. Well done York audio!
There may be an ever-so-slight difference but it is also so minuscule as to not matter at all. I was unable to guess which was which.
First of all, great idea to use a modeller that doesn't need a loadbox for this. Totally makes sense as a valid way to work the impedance curve out of the equation, kudos.
But that leaves me with a question: Was the same poweramp used for the IR capture phase? I am assuming this, as the IR sweep (or shot) has to be amplified through _something_ to get out of the speakers. In that case, part of me speculates that you might have used an ultra-clean solidstate poweramp with absolutely no compressions/saturation/breakup for this?
This guy gets it. :) And yup, the same power amp was used for the live cab as well as for capturing the IR to eliminate as many variables as possible.
I can hear the difference when I can see the changes. So as long as I can see the musician tracking in the studio, I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt if they are using an IR or a Cab.
But if you couldn’t hear the changes WITHOUT seeing the changes, it just shows that the visual aid makes your brain think that it’s hearing differences based on visual cues. That’s the main reason why I didn’t want there to be a visual aid or mention the amount of switches in the first test… it’s all about what you hear rather than what you see. :)
Revelation!!!
I'm wondering what power amp he use to send the signal to the cab. Did you know that, Jon?
ir is flatter subdued in the flow where the cab pops through to the surface a bit more like 3d bloom, same as drum vsts to real drums its that damn 10 or 15 percent the evolving sonic brain chases, its subtle but all sums add up in a mix not so important on its own
This is quite an unpunctuated string of BS....
@@dirtyharry1881 like your birth certificate
Yo, I actually did catch the changes at 8 and 21
But the 14 second one sounds EXACTLY the same wtf
All the other changes are just impossible to hear for me
I would have been one of the backwards people. I thought the cab (which sounded a bit dryer, more dynamic fidelity(? Im not an audio engineer, I just watch this kind of stuff to pick up concepts here and there) was the IR because of the dry wider dynamic range, where the actual IR had a slightly warmer quality to it to where it sort of sounded like the frequencies were washing each other a bit (ya know, as the physical speaker cone would as its moving about and such).
And for me, its very in the weeds, no way Id pick out that difference in a mixed down whole band track. Just like the blind tone cap test on another channel, back to back to back yeah there is a difference, sort of, but gun to my head couldnt tell you which was which at a concert or something. Of course, the difference between tone caps would be enough to sort of glow through on some level depending on the style and mixing. But this real cab vs IR....While I can barely tell, and there is something to be said about the esoteric intangible qualities and how they add up (on some level, its not magic, it wont make crap music good, but it could make good music better. Again, very dependant on the recording crew knowing their equipment and recording space) I really dont expect Id be able to tell the tiny (again intangible in the weeds, down in the noise if you will) differences in a full track if at all, much less know it was because of a miced cab or a IR thingy. Like, a track could sweep across the two, and Id never notice. Maybe it makes some ephemeral difference, but its not going to make the difference between and awesome band and a crap one.
Virtually indistinguishable
Would have been good to know the length of the IR. A long enough would be difficult to guess but most of the IR loaders will chop it down.
what ir did he use
Interesting test, showing that IR's can be very close to a Real Amp. But, I believe you need the same gear, guitar and pickups, to get such good results.
Well the IR is just the cabinet portion of your tone. It’s important to dial in your amps to suit your guitar, your playing technique, and your listening environment. If you’re using good IRs and still have a hard time getting a realistic tone, it’s likely the amp modeling or load box you’re using is hindering your results.
For that tone, I literally pulled up an SLO model and only touched the gain, depth, and presence controls, so it doesn’t always need a ton of tweaking to get a sound you like.
That's a badass Metallica shirt.
Hang on. You used an Axe FX 3 for the mic’d cab source and not an actual valve amp? It could be the impedance curves from an OG amp that make the aural difference easier to identify.
Yup, the test is seeing how accurate IRs are to the actual mic’d cab. Using a modeler where the cab and IR “see” the same impedance curve eliminates the variable of a mismatched impedance curve from a load box.
Who were the three commenters that got the closest?
Liked the ir better. The cab had some resonance I'm not a fan of.
Nice to know I was write about the number of switches, but as to what they were I was wrong. Not that it mattered. They were so close and all I could hear was a little difference in the high end so made a random guess the one with more high end was the cab.
And I didn’t guess because I was listening while driving.
I'm making this comment without having watched the whole video, I notices that sometimes the sound was slightly brighter and slightly more focused but, it wasn't a huge difference.
So did the engineer who recorded this make an IR of the exact same setup? That might be why they sounded identical
That's the whole point
@@SonicDriveStudio Is it though? I thought the point was if IR’s sound as good as a mic’d recording, not comparing literally the same thing. Obviously if he created the IR then recorded audio from the same mic and cab, why would there be any difference? That’s be like comparing WAV and AIFF.
So IRs ate virtually indistinguishable, but loadboxes are far from transparent. So there's no perfect way to get a real tube amp into the box to transparently use the IRs without putting the signature apund of the loadbox on the recording.
line out
I Played this on my reference monitors I couldn't tell the difference ...
You can actually hear it when you see it.
7 second and 14 seconds is where I hear changes.
Edit: well I was halfway there you can hear they are certainly different though headphones.
Oh shit I got so close
Placing the edits in logical spaces in terms of timing with the riff was a mistake I think. If I was going to just guess the edits that is what I would assume. Edits should have been in random spots. I can almost guarantee no one would get it at that point. I have done this myself (not just with IR tests) fyi and have never had anyone get the answers correct.
Guys for recording of course the IR can match the cabinet sound because it's only what the mic can capture out of the speaker. The cabinet is only relevant to the player on the stage. Like Gilmour said once "you can lean against the sound" no IR can reproduce this experience.
It's not really a question About if it sounds real, more like does it sound unique
I´m NOT CONVINCED!!! I mean, indeed the IR and the mic sound almost the same but using a Axe FX as the preamp and passing it through a poweramp is not a real case! No one will ever record like that!
I would rather choose a real case, such as an tube head + mic and compare it to a standard loadbox like the captor or a suhr loadbox. I bet the differences will be stronger!
The test is simply “does an IR sound like a real mic’d cab,” and the blind test shows that they are nearly indistinguishable. This shows that the IR is an accurate representation of the mic’d cabinet in its purest form. If you watch the whole video, I also play a clip showing that the impedance curves in different load boxes changes the sound. I used the Fractal with a power amp so that the live cab and the IR had identical impedance curves. All that to say, if you use an amp and a load box with an IR, any difference you hear between the real cab and the IR is coming from your load box’s impedance curve. I hope this helps. :)
@@yorkaudio5444 Another difference that you would hear is the power amp section of your tube head. All are different. Some have presence and depth controls. I agree with Francisco. However, at the moment, this is the closest we can get with IR's.
@@KeithMcKissick You’re correct that an amp’s power amp affects the tone. A modeler also models power amp behavior and coloration, so the same power amp color is being heard in the live cab as well as the IR. The IR doesn’t have any power amp coloration so that it’s a clean slate for whatever amp/power amp you want to use with it.
It'd be cool if they made an ir that somehow pushed air like a real amp:)
The ir is brighter the cab is more full sounding too me. Cab sounds like 10% better
Wastingmytimewithouraxefx
I LOVE the York Audio Mesa IRs, particularly the 2x12 pack. :)