Quote:
Originally Posted by -GF-
I've seen this said a lot and, as a beginner, I don't understand it.
It seems to me the main flaws that get highlighted are that the sound gets lost in any sort of mix and problems with EQ, but as I understand it, EQ can be built into any IR (or EQ can be applied before or after) and often complaints get resolved by using the IR as a blend with your dry signal.
Are there other problems I'm missing? Or have I misunderstood how IR works and whether it can or cannot fix the commonly stated flaws I mentioned above?
|
I don't think the premise is true. I use ToneDexter all the time live, and have used other IRs as well. I've seen lots of acts at different volume levels and venue sizes using ToneDexter live as well.
I think what is true is that sound changes when you play at higher volumes, in different rooms, and with an audience. Especially with an acoustic that tends to interact with the sound system. This is nothing new, and nothing to do with IRs. The sound you dial in at home at low volume may or may not translate to a live venue. I remember when I was a kid playing in a rock band that I spent all afternoon at a club where we were playing dialing in my "perfect" sound by myself in the empty club - it sounded amazing when I was done! It took me all of 30 seconds that night with the band playing and a full audience to undo everything I'd set up. What sounded great in an empty room with just me didn't cut it in the real gig situation.
There was an article some time back (Sound on Sound maybe?) about how Peter Frampton uses ToneDexter, and how they had lots of different IRs, made with different mics and in different rooms, etc, and they'd choose between them for the show. Really no different than how you might change your EQ, reverb, or whatever, from gig to gig depending on the room and the audience size, noise level and so on.