Cuki's Modeling/Convolution Experiments

[Psfam]

i am going to try to understand this!

[Cuki79]

Hi Psfam,

I gave many explanations in the previous thread. Read the 1st post of this thread to have the link, if you want to get the whole story.

Here is my last take on the Trance Audio Amulet. Doug Young is playing.

Trance Audio Amulet (mono, no FX):


External Microphone take (stereo, no FX)


Amulet + Stereo IR convolution


I think the first IR I made for Doug is very close to the microphone take (listen to the sample he posted). You can hear that there is less "dynamic" on the mic samples compared to the Amulet which is very dry.

In order to answer the specific request for extra brightness, dynamic AND natural sounding IR, I gave the Stereo IR a special treatment:

* The low end of the IR (<300 Hz) is tighten by reducing the sustain of this part of the spectrum (Basicaly opposite process of Optical Big Bottom). It's the tail parameter of the previous post but with a crossover before.
In the sample I've posted, the low end is actually a bit too tight compared to the mic tracks...

This signal is blended with the high end of the Amulet
* Only frequencies above 5KHz of the Amulet are added to get some air. (There is a bit too much also...)

Note that all these treatments are included in the IR file. There is no extra FX than convolution.

Now my ears are too tired to adjust the amount of bass, high end, and set the crossover frequencies...

I am happy to read your reactions,

Cuki

[Mischief]

Hi Cuki
These are sounding fantastic.
I wonder if the tweaks etc you are doing on Doug's (besides the stereo at this point) are all automated? If so does this work with other pickups or do you think custom tweaks are required for each pick up?

Cheers

[Cuki79]

Hi Mischief,

Well before it was automated because the progam looked for what I thought would be the best sound.... based on a being as close as possible to the Mic sound with respect of the convolution pedal limitations.

* Then I soon realized that I needed an extra brightness to cut through and get more of a "live" feeling when playing the Lyric + IR. So I added a blend feature that was not automated... but could be easily figured out.

* Then you came with the palathetic piezo of yout Talkamine and Doug with his dual source system. As I don't have access to your instruments. The IRs were then made with the inital automated program and then optimized by ear.

Everyone has his own definition of a good "sound". For example, Dannyg1 reacted favourably for Doug's raw rig with strong pick clarity rather than for the softer IR image which is "in principle" closer to a microphone take.

So I'd say yes it requires custom tweak like any system. That's I've sent dozens of files to Doug so he could choose the one he likes best and guide me in the right direction. Actually his plugin tone is so good that you don't need much explanation to know were is the right direction... The only thing you may improve is taming the piezoish nature of the Amulet. The challenge is to do that without compromising too much the rest...

We, guitarists, are a bit crazy. We usually want the simplest "one knob thing" at the begining... And later after months of frustration, we start looking for the latest 5 band fully parametric EQ full tweakable maschine. Six Month later, we would get rid of everything, use only a simple cable and claim that we had finally find our way. A year later, we would change pickup, strings, pick... It's a never ending story.

And it's always going to be like that

Simple= Strong compromise

* Fishman Aura is very simple. You are limited to their IR database.
* Tonedexter is less simple. You are limited by their process and your ability to record with their/your gear.
* My thing is not simple. I am limited by my own computing ability and mostly my wife who's really wondering what am I doing with that computer

So with my process the compromise is where I decide to stop, but at the end it's my decision. I could go on like that for years!!! Now for example, with tired ears, I am not sure I can hear the difference changing certain parameter... But I may, tomorrow morning. I think right now, with Doug and all the people who help listening and posting comments, we are like the customers and shop assistant of a small boutique tube amp company. Randall Smith or Howard Dumble may have felt this way at the begining. I think they were just aiming for the best sound they could get.

So to answer your question: the tweaking is not pickup related, it's ear related. The IR I 've sent you came from a process that I have programmed for the Lyric. If I'd never send you any other IR, how could you have known if there was any better since you had no access to the program? (sorry for my bad english) You'd have to live with it as for the Fishman Aura. First time you were happy with your IR, you wrote:"It's night and day"... But you've also realized that your recordings could be improved and that we could get an even better sound (listening to Doug's IR for example)... In my opinion, we are close to boutique/customshop territory, but for digital FX.

I will end with Larry Fishman's words in his last post for Premier guitar magazine:
http://www.premierguitar.com/article...digital-divide

"[digital acoustic processors] —when properly set up—provide positively stunning results"

[Cuki79]

I've forgotten to say someting.

All my process have been in 16 bits. It's very easy to upgrade to 24bits. I'll try that tomorrow (Doug's file are 24bits).

Cuki

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by SpruceTop

Doug, what guitar are you using for your demos? Thanks.

It's a Kent Hamblin SJ, cocabola and spruce. it's a bit of a darker guitar, which probably plays a role in how this turned out, too. So many variables!

[Neon Soul]

So is there any live applications for these IR's?

Is that the end goal or are these for home recording?

Just trying to get my head around it.

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by Neon Soul

So is there any live applications for these IR's?

That's my interest. I use mics for recording, tho I could see modeling being useful for someone without a decent recording environment. What caught my interest was the Logidy EPSi pedal that can do convolution. So something to add to your pedal board, like an Aura, etc, that lets you easily use your own models for your guitar, at least in theory. There are other devices that are interesting like the ToneDexter, which I haven't had a chance to try. I've never had much use for the Aura, possibly because I haven't been able to use custom models for my specific guitars. Incidentally, having just played a bit with the EPSi, it seems to me to be by far the best sounding reverb pedal I've heard,when loaded with reverb IRs. Lots of interesting options.

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by dannyg1

I'd thought that impulse response sampling was conceived in the effort to accurately reproduce a specific/desired performance space into another. By the sound of the decay in your files, I assumed that there was some room amping or mic'ing of a monitor at least, delicately, in the mix.

That's what IRs have often been used for - there are lots of systems out there that are meant to give you the sound of being in a specific cathedral and so on. But really, it's a mechanism for imposing the sonic characteristics of one sound onto another. I'm no expert on this, but I assume this is what the Fishman Aura, DTar's Momma Bear, the Tone Dexter, etc, are doing. You can take two totally dry signals, or even completely different sounds - convolve the sounds of a trash compactor against a dog barking, for example. You'll get *something*. In this case, we're starting with a dry direct output of a pickup, and trying to impose the sound of a mic'd recording on it. There is naturally some room involved here, since the mics are recording the sound of the guitar in the room. But my goal would not be to capture the sound of my garage studio for live use. All I'd like is an improved pickup sound :-) Ideally, the sound of my guitar as picked up by a mic, without the problems of using a mic live.

[Mischief]

Same here my hope is to add IR for live sound for a more natural presentation. Having heard so far the capability I am also thinking this will be nice if making quick videos and even recordings when the IR will suffice. I don't think It will replace miking in a studio when one may select specific mikes, track and record specifically to match a particular song. However once a good IR is there I think it could very likely have a place in the studio as well.
I would certainly use it as an extra track to mix back in or as a backup if there was an issue with the mic tracking.

So I'm my mind the application can be for both.

[Cochese]

Originally Posted by Cuki79

...I will end with Larry Fishman's words in his last post for Premier guitar magazine:
http://www.premierguitar.com/article...digital-divide

"[digital acoustic processors] —when properly set up—provide positively stunning results"...

As someone that prefers the analog approach I think Larry makes some valid points. I use guitar speaker IR's when recording electric guitar sometimes and can say that when comparing the "sound" of my amp through an IR with a similar speaker and mic position and mic (Royer R121) the results a very close. They would probably be even closer if I had access to the same room and recording equipment. I still prefer mic'ing my own though, and there is something different in the response even when monitoring the real amp through near fields. IR's don't capture distortion or compression characteristics which will probably be the same with acoustics.

It seems like with acoustic as Doug mentioned this is great for someone that doesn't have the equipment and or skill to record with real makes. It's the same with the electric guitar crowd. It makes things easier though to me it's a bit like painting by numbers.

Digital can provide a much more complex snapshot of the sound and as Larry states that would be quite hard with analog. Personally I've tried the Aura and Mama Bear and have never had much luck. For me I can usually get good acoustic tones with mic's in the studio but the same system that sounds great recorded often will not translate live. I don't think it means that these systems aren't well designed. I think in part that playing live poses a great deal of sonic challenges and sometimes no matter what gear you have you're fighting a losing battle in some situations due to the physics of the environment that no amount of EQ can fix. Kind of like my gig last night...

Hey if this solution works for people that are inexperienced in home recording that's great. If it can somehow bring a big improvement in live sound applications I'd sure give it a go as long as it doesn't alter the feel and you still have dynamics.

[Cuki79]

I agree with Cochese,

I would never use an IR to record. Doug Young has proven with his pickup tests that a 24$ radioshack mic sounded better than many 100$ undersaddle transducers... Acoustic pickup is not about recording but fighting feedback and cutting through loud environnement.

I am also more of an analogue guy. But I also know how painful it is sometimes to make a complex circuit work. Digital enables to do impossible stuff with analog electronics. So I use what's more appropriate. I've tried many many parametric equalizers and compression plugin/pedal before realizing that I would not get what I want from the Lyric without convolution.

The aim of the IR is for LIVE use. Maybe fast demo tracking....but then I think I'd prefer using a Zoom H series or a cellphone with a small external mic like Rode does.

Anyway I am really struggling to make it sound right. I think I am going to post few samples later on and ask you people in which direction I should go.

Cuki

[SpruceTop]

Originally Posted by Cuki79

I agree with Cochese,

I would never use an IR to record. Doug Young has proven with his pickup tests that a 24$ radioshack mic sounded better than many 100$ undersaddle transducers... Acoustic pickup is not about recording but fighting feedback and cutting through loud environnement.

I am also more of an analogue guy. But I also know how painful it is sometimes to make a complex circuit work. Digital enables to do impossible stuff with analog electronics. So I use what's more appropriate. I've tried many many parametric equalizers and compression plugin/pedal before realizing that I would not get what I want from the Lyric without convolution.

The aim of the IR is for LIVE use. Maybe fast demo tracking....but then I think I'd prefer using a Zoom H series or a cellphone with a small external mic like Rode does.

Anyway I am really struggling to make it sound right. I think I am going to post few samples later on and ask you people in which direction I should go.

Cuki

Cuki,

I'm thinking of buying a Logidty ESPi pedal. I have:

1) Ear Trumpet Labs Myrtle LDC mic that records very flat from 20Hz to 15kHz;

2) Several guitars with Trance Amulet M, Taylor ES2, and Fishman Prefix PlusT pickup/preamp systems;

3) PreSonus Studio192 Audio Interface with Studio ONE3 software;

4) a fast PC computer

What else do I need in the way of gear or software to do what you've been doing? My goal is to make both live-performance sound and recorded-sound of the guitars sound better. When using the Logity ESPi pedal, which Firmware Version do you recommend for what you're doing:

Application Version 1.01 - Convolution Reverb

or

Application Version C.01 - Cab and Room Convolution?

Thanks for any information you can share!

Ken - SpruceTop

[Doug Young]

It doesnt really matter which version of the EPSi you order, both firmware versions can be downloaded. I ordered the cab version, and the sd card had both cab models, and reverb IRs. I downloaded the cab firmware for that card, made a copy, moved the reverbs into the main folder and added the downloaded 1.01 firmware. So now i can switch. The interface isnt as friendly for live use as most pedals if you want to switch sounds or adjust levels, but the verbs sound great. I loaded a Bricasti impulse, and that worked great too. Still have to get explore the cab version.

[Cochese]

Originally Posted by Cuki79

...Digital enables to do impossible stuff with analog electronics. So I use what's more appropriate. I've tried many many parametric equalizers and compression plugin/pedal before realizing that I would not get what I want from the Lyric without convolution.

The aim of the IR is for LIVE use. Maybe fast demo tracking....but then I think I'd prefer using a Zoom H series or a cellphone with a small external mic like Rode does.

Anyway I am really struggling to make it sound right. I think I am going to post few samples later on and ask you people in which direction I should go.

Cuki

What I'm curious about is if an analog controlled digital unit could be used to accomplish the same thing. I have an Emperical Labs Distressor which is a high end studio compressor we've all heard on countless recordings. Dave Dehr the designer uses digital circuitry to control the parameters but the unit has an all analog signal path which avoids the A/D conversion process.

Cuki, I'm not totally sure this will solve all problems live. One thing I've noticed with electric guitar players that have embraced modeling is that in the end the system you are using plays a big part in the final result which is what I alluded to in my earlier post. It's still worth trying though. There is also the phenomenon that many times a guitar can sound quite good in a live setting but not to the person playing it. When I used to host an open mic I would many times let players use my guitar and it would sound much better from the audience perspective than the players. That's another discussion in and of itself.