What are your thoughts on IRDX Core? Use the code "JAMESZHAN" to get 10% OFF Bogren Digital IRDX Core! bogrendigital.com/products/irdx-core?ref=ahmZJDRtmlkdaH
Finally. I was waiting for IRDX standalone for a long long tome since the MLC was released…I am not necessarily saying that IRDX will definitely make guitar sounds ‘better’ or ‘realistic’. Yet, IRDX is a pioneering product in terms of its concept: it thrives to capture the non-linearity of real cab and speakers, which is exactly the last piece of puzzle needed. During the years, amp sim algorithms has become almost perfect (at least in my opinion), and IR remains to be the only cab sim method (in fact there were a bunch of analog hardware cab-sim products in early years. However they are way unrealistic compared to IR, since it’s almost impossible to emulated all the tiny peaks & valleys of the frequency response of real cab & speaker). It’s reasonable for IR to be the dominating cab-sim method. Firstly, it is simple in both terms of creating one and putting one into use. It’s just a convolution. Secondly, impulse response is no different than a EQ in frequency domain, while IR can easily reproduce the “tiny peaks and valleys” of real cab & speaker mentioned above, that analog gear cannot reproduce. As these advantages made IR almost perfect cab-sim as well, people forget one thing that IR is essentially linear, while real cab & speakers are absolutely NOT. This means in reality, cabs will have natural gain compression and harmonic distortion and will behave differently under different input level (assuming the same input waveform). Thus, if IRDX can truly reproduce that non-linearity of real cabs, it will potentially open a whole new chapter of future cab-sim product. Without knowing much of IRDX algorithms, now I highly believe that Bogren Digital was using some kind of neural network or other Machine Learning methods, which are the most effective and popular reverse engineering techniques, to achieve IRDX. NN’s are very good at capturing non-linear aspects in real world. Enough bullshits from an engineer perspective, now back to the producer’s view: I said IRDX might be inspiring in terms of technique, but not necessarily ‘better’ for producing. Still, the producer doesn’t really care “how real the plug-in is” but only care “how good it sounds in a mix”. So, I won’t say IRDX can 100% make every guitar track of mine better. Also, there are more technical considerations such as: even though IRDX is claimed to be able to capture the natural compression and saturation of real cabs, I don’t think that at current stage it works well for all types of IR’s, because different cab and speaker combination have their unique behavior of compression and saturation, due to their unique impedance & physical structure, etc. Thus, IRDX may only ‘roughly’ emulate the non-linearity of all cabs, but may not ‘closely’ emulate a specific cab. Still, IRDX is a very impressive product that I am happy to try out.
James, thanks for such an elegant and clear review. The MOST OBVIOUS way to test IRDX Core is to use it with BLUNTSTATIC sources - meaning, not even a guitar to begin with, but a pure mono sustained saw wave or similarly generated tone from a retro computer/console like one of the Plogue chipsynths: hold down a sustained note, then move the IRDX Core knob around. You'll DEFINITELY hear a difference of how it "excites" the higher frequencies and subtle dynamics movement. Let that be your benchmark.
In order of preference for me, it was Saturn > IRDX > Amp sim every single time. I didn't expect that at all because I was blown away the first time I tried IRDX when demoing the MLC Subzero plugin, but good to know that Saturn (which I already own) will effectively accomplish the same goal with better results for my taste. I've already started using this in a couple of projects and it works great - thanks for the trick!
Was wondering when they'd do a standalone IRDX plug. However, in the MLC 100 they put out I almost never use IRDX. I think it's more like a post-processor kinda sound, like an exciter or saturator plugin that is perhaps tuned for guitar a bit more. So yes it does hype the guitar sound a little, but I'm generally ok with doing my own processing after the fact on a guitars bus. Great video!
It's definitely noticeable. The IRDX tracks sound less thick/muddy and have more harmonic content and top end shine it seems. It's a bit subtle, but not subtle enough not to matter. It make a positive change.
Outside the mix, I tended to prefer the original amp sim and Saturn 2. In the mix, however, the IRDX definitely made a positive difference and I liked it much more!
I’d be curious to hear your opinion on how IRDX compares to the resonance knob in STL Libra, and/or the NonLinear knob in Cabinetron. So far I’m preferring Cabinetron although the NonLin is very subtle. Thanks!!
I'm listening with cheap JBL wired earphones, I can hear the difference but it is so minimal that I think it does not giustify the price of this plugin, expecially for rock and metal where the sound is already so saturated. The casual listener uses laptop/smartphone/bluetooth speakers, so these nuances are lost like tears in rain.
I mainly perceive it as an increase in dynamics - the feel while playing live through it is the biggest draw, for me. Turning it off, everything sounds and feels more two-dimensional.
James, so far I checked 4 of your videos and your attention to detail is amazing! I will be inspired by your channel, everything is on point!! Could you let me know if you are doing your video editing by yourself, or commission someone for it? I'd like to know in your content creation process or delegation. For sure audio is peak level professionalism and shows your skills and knowledge, so I should better binge your videos :)
Thanks for your kind words, man! I'm a one-man operation, haha. I love making videos and creating motion graphics too much to outsource it. I do actually plan to post some videos about content creation, like filming videos, cameras, and video production in general. I just haven't had the time to do that yet, but soon!
Sounds like a black box packing some EQ, compression, and saturation moves. It's probably reproducible with other plugins but at $39, it's worth it as a shortcut to a (in most cases) desirable result.
All your samples are flawless and very high quality, I don't hear any enhanced difference worth noting. As it sounds great on and off. I know ML Sound Labs did a whole sweep of A/B phase flipping tests, with some very minor transient differences. IRDX with a static IR doesn't sound anything like what a real speaker creates when they A/B phase flipped it to hear it's Delta signal. Those people saying it makes it more 3D, I have a whole forrest of Tone Wood(TM) I could sell them.😁
IRDX seems to add a little bit of high end and I might be hearing more transient detail? Pretty subtle but not so subtle that I couldn't hear the difference.
You could sum both tracks flipping phase in one of them to actually isolate and listen to what's different in both signals. Everything else will be cancelled and silenced
I actually considered doing that in the video, but I scrapped the idea because I'm not sure what purpose that would serve; like I don't know how hearing only the differences would help people determine if this is a tool that could help with their sound. For me, it doesn't really matter what the differences are; what matter are what the differences add to the original sound and how the differences sound in a mix context.
@@JamesZhan I totally get it. It was more about checking out what the plugin is doing with an analyser, pure curiosity. We'd be able to spot EQ changes and added harmonics. That'd be useful info when trying to emulate what this plugin is doing with something like Fabfilter Saturn. You can even spot if it's doing compression, if some frequencies appear and dissappear over time. This would also discourage the "I can't tell the difference/It's not doing anything" comments. You need to add your girlfriend/wife (can't remember) at the end of the video for a blind test! That'd be fun! Your last video together was great 😁
What are your thoughts on IRDX Core?
Use the code "JAMESZHAN" to get 10% OFF Bogren Digital IRDX Core! bogrendigital.com/products/irdx-core?ref=ahmZJDRtmlkdaH
It adds dynamics to a static lifeless tone. Like taking something in suspended animation and animating it. Pretty remarkable design. I'd use it!
IDRX kinda reminds me of an exciter for IRs. It does make a difference that you can hear on stand alone, kinda exciting the high end.
Comparing IRDX to an exciter is pretty accurate I would say!
Finally. I was waiting for IRDX standalone for a long long tome since the MLC was released…I am not necessarily saying that IRDX will definitely make guitar sounds ‘better’ or ‘realistic’. Yet, IRDX is a pioneering product in terms of its concept: it thrives to capture the non-linearity of real cab and speakers, which is exactly the last piece of puzzle needed. During the years, amp sim algorithms has become almost perfect (at least in my opinion), and IR remains to be the only cab sim method (in fact there were a bunch of analog hardware cab-sim products in early years. However they are way unrealistic compared to IR, since it’s almost impossible to emulated all the tiny peaks & valleys of the frequency response of real cab & speaker). It’s reasonable for IR to be the dominating cab-sim method. Firstly, it is simple in both terms of creating one and putting one into use. It’s just a convolution. Secondly, impulse response is no different than a EQ in frequency domain, while IR can easily reproduce the “tiny peaks and valleys” of real cab & speaker mentioned above, that analog gear cannot reproduce. As these advantages made IR almost perfect cab-sim as well, people forget one thing that IR is essentially linear, while real cab & speakers are absolutely NOT. This means in reality, cabs will have natural gain compression and harmonic distortion and will behave differently under different input level (assuming the same input waveform). Thus, if IRDX can truly reproduce that non-linearity of real cabs, it will potentially open a whole new chapter of future cab-sim product. Without knowing much of IRDX algorithms, now I highly believe that Bogren Digital was using some kind of neural network or other Machine Learning methods, which are the most effective and popular reverse engineering techniques, to achieve IRDX. NN’s are very good at capturing non-linear aspects in real world. Enough bullshits from an engineer perspective, now back to the producer’s view: I said IRDX might be inspiring in terms of technique, but not necessarily ‘better’ for producing. Still, the producer doesn’t really care “how real the plug-in is” but only care “how good it sounds in a mix”. So, I won’t say IRDX can 100% make every guitar track of mine better. Also, there are more technical considerations such as: even though IRDX is claimed to be able to capture the natural compression and saturation of real cabs, I don’t think that at current stage it works well for all types of IR’s, because different cab and speaker combination have their unique behavior of compression and saturation, due to their unique impedance & physical structure, etc. Thus, IRDX may only ‘roughly’ emulate the non-linearity of all cabs, but may not ‘closely’ emulate a specific cab. Still, IRDX is a very impressive product that I am happy to try out.
James, thanks for such an elegant and clear review. The MOST OBVIOUS way to test IRDX Core is to use it with BLUNTSTATIC sources - meaning, not even a guitar to begin with, but a pure mono sustained saw wave or similarly generated tone from a retro computer/console like one of the Plogue chipsynths: hold down a sustained note, then move the IRDX Core knob around. You'll DEFINITELY hear a difference of how it "excites" the higher frequencies and subtle dynamics movement. Let that be your benchmark.
the difference is very very subtle
In order of preference for me, it was Saturn > IRDX > Amp sim every single time. I didn't expect that at all because I was blown away the first time I tried IRDX when demoing the MLC Subzero plugin, but good to know that Saturn (which I already own) will effectively accomplish the same goal with better results for my taste. I've already started using this in a couple of projects and it works great - thanks for the trick!
Was wondering when they'd do a standalone IRDX plug. However, in the MLC 100 they put out I almost never use IRDX. I think it's more like a post-processor kinda sound, like an exciter or saturator plugin that is perhaps tuned for guitar a bit more. So yes it does hype the guitar sound a little, but I'm generally ok with doing my own processing after the fact on a guitars bus. Great video!
Awesome comparison! Saturn 2 is gold on any source material
Thanks! And agreed. Saturn 2 is soooo good
Very good comparison ! Personally i like IRDX, i hear some little presence that i like. Thank you for this video !
It's definitely noticeable. The IRDX tracks sound less thick/muddy and have more harmonic content and top end shine it seems. It's a bit subtle, but not subtle enough not to matter. It make a positive change.
Outside the mix, I tended to prefer the original amp sim and Saturn 2. In the mix, however, the IRDX definitely made a positive difference and I liked it much more!
I’d be curious to hear your opinion on how IRDX compares to the resonance knob in STL Libra, and/or the NonLinear knob in Cabinetron. So far I’m preferring Cabinetron although the NonLin is very subtle. Thanks!!
I'm corious to hear in a Pop - Funk track on the guitars. I'm gonna check this one out. this really catch my attention.
I'm listening with cheap JBL wired earphones, I can hear the difference but it is so minimal that I think it does not giustify the price of this plugin, expecially for rock and metal where the sound is already so saturated. The casual listener uses laptop/smartphone/bluetooth speakers, so these nuances are lost like tears in rain.
I mainly perceive it as an increase in dynamics - the feel while playing live through it is the biggest draw, for me. Turning it off, everything sounds and feels more two-dimensional.
There were instances where I liked it on and others off. Bought it just so I have it within reach.
James, so far I checked 4 of your videos and your attention to detail is amazing! I will be inspired by your channel, everything is on point!! Could you let me know if you are doing your video editing by yourself, or commission someone for it? I'd like to know in your content creation process or delegation. For sure audio is peak level professionalism and shows your skills and knowledge, so I should better binge your videos :)
Thanks for your kind words, man! I'm a one-man operation, haha. I love making videos and creating motion graphics too much to outsource it.
I do actually plan to post some videos about content creation, like filming videos, cameras, and video production in general. I just haven't had the time to do that yet, but soon!
@@JamesZhan if you do, I'll be around to check it out :)
I wish you all the best!
Sounds like a black box packing some EQ, compression, and saturation moves. It's probably reproducible with other plugins but at $39, it's worth it as a shortcut to a (in most cases) desirable result.
All your samples are flawless and very high quality, I don't hear any enhanced difference worth noting. As it sounds great on and off.
I know ML Sound Labs did a whole sweep of A/B phase flipping tests, with some very minor transient differences.
IRDX with a static IR doesn't sound anything like what a real speaker creates when they A/B phase flipped it to hear it's Delta signal.
Those people saying it makes it more 3D, I have a whole forrest of Tone Wood(TM) I could sell them.😁
Much better with it off! That saves some money!
I do own n love a lot of bogren digital products but for IRDX core 39 euro seems too much for me..
IRDX seems to add a little bit of high end and I might be hearing more transient detail? Pretty subtle but not so subtle that I couldn't hear the difference.
How do I use it on Headrush?to play live
Definitely can hear it, harder to hear in the mix.
I'd like to hear it on cleaner tones. So far all the examples have been with metal tones.
That is a good point.
I guess I deaf .... I sometimes see more depth, but in the mix I don't hear any difference ;'(
You could sum both tracks flipping phase in one of them to actually isolate and listen to what's different in both signals. Everything else will be cancelled and silenced
I actually considered doing that in the video, but I scrapped the idea because I'm not sure what purpose that would serve; like I don't know how hearing only the differences would help people determine if this is a tool that could help with their sound. For me, it doesn't really matter what the differences are; what matter are what the differences add to the original sound and how the differences sound in a mix context.
@@JamesZhan I totally get it. It was more about checking out what the plugin is doing with an analyser, pure curiosity. We'd be able to spot EQ changes and added harmonics. That'd be useful info when trying to emulate what this plugin is doing with something like Fabfilter Saturn. You can even spot if it's doing compression, if some frequencies appear and dissappear over time. This would also discourage the "I can't tell the difference/It's not doing anything" comments.
You need to add your girlfriend/wife (can't remember) at the end of the video for a blind test! That'd be fun! Your last video together was great 😁
Saturn 2 on every instance was better, only a little but noticeably.