The Acoustic Guitar Forum

Go Back   The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > Acoustic Amplification

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #16  
Old 09-28-2022, 08:45 AM
Chipotle Chipotle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,301
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by -GF- View Post
There seem to be 3 statements that are commonly asserted as "accepted wisdom" that I can't reconcile...

1 - "Quackiness" is a serious issue that is worth considerable effort to address
2 - IR entirely addresses quackiness
3 - IR is not worth the hassle for the small benefit they confer.
Here's the missing pieces:

4 - That "quack" can actually help an acoustic guitar "cut through" the sound of a full band, so *in some cases* is actually desirable, to a point. There are situations when not sounding quite so much like an actual "acoustic guitar in the room" is a good thing.

and

5 - There are other ways to reduce quack and get an acceptable tone that some people find easier.

The whole point is not that "IR is not suitable for live performance". It's that "IR is terrific for some situations, but isn't the be-all end-all for tone shaping in every circumstance".
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-29-2022, 08:33 AM
leew3 leew3 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,953
Default

I've found that using the IR solution in the Voiceprint DI works great for our purposes. I play several different instruments in the course of a night so having IR settings for each enables me to play them all on one channel. We're typically either outdoors in rather large but resonant spaces or indoors playing to 30-40 people. As always YMMV
__________________
"I go for a lotta things that's a little too strong" J.L. Hooker
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-29-2022, 09:07 AM
PANDAPANDELO PANDAPANDELO is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Brazil
Posts: 352
Default

For what I'm seeing lately, IR is getting better and better, but it is just one of the lots of variables that we have for a better plugged in sound.

For example: I used Its with the HX Stomp. It was my first experience. Cuki helped me tremendously until I had a GREAT recording sound.

I tried to use it live, and I wasn't happy with the sound. I went back to use just a Baggs M80 pickup.

After a few months, I got myself a ToneDexter, and the tone was awesome. It was easier to dial a good and better sound live than the HX Stomp, since there was really easier to change parameters and IRs on the fly... but something was missing.

After a few months, I got myself the Felix2 and I started to use dual source pickups (K&K Trinity). The best sound I've ever had. Huge amount of tonal control for live usage... and that's what I'm using until now. I'm really happy about it, BUT I think that if I could use the ToneDexter to shape the Pure Mini side of the dual source with a low IR blend (maybe around 40%), the sound would be even better, since the IR would do heavy EQing by itself; I would need a smaller blend of the Mic signal, and would have even more EQ control with the preamp.

A lot of awesome preamps to chose: ToneDexter (IR), Voiceprint (IR), Felix2, Sunnaudio MS2 (haven't used it, but I would LOVE to try it someday)... and so on!

A lot of possibilities nowadays... I just know that I'm really happy with all the equipment we have these days.
__________________
Rodrigo Pandeló

2005 Martin HD28 with K&K Trinity;
2012 Cordoba C10;
Grace Design Felix 2;
Sennheiser MD441;
DPA 4099 Core;
DPA 4018L;
Bose L1 Compact;
QSC Touchmix 8;
QSC K10.2;
Neumann u87ai;
Neumann KMS105;
Neumann KM184 (matched pair).

http://www.youtube.com/rodrigopandelo
http://www.rodrigopandelo.com
http://www.instagram.com/rodrigopandelo

São Paulo/Brazil
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-29-2022, 12:51 PM
Chriscom's Avatar
Chriscom Chriscom is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Northern Virginia/DC/USA
Posts: 1,794
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chipotle View Post
Here's the missing pieces:

4 - That "quack" can actually help an acoustic guitar "cut through" the sound of a full band, so *in some cases* is actually desirable, to a point. There are situations when not sounding quite so much like an actual "acoustic guitar in the room" is a good thing....


The whole point is not that "IR is not suitable for live performance". It's that "IR is terrific for some situations, but isn't the be-all end-all for tone shaping in every circumstance".
Is that really quack though? There's quackiness on the one hand, and a pleasing electric-y sound on the other. I've only taken one serious stab at training my Tonedexter, and ended up with, not My Guitar But Louder, but rather a very nice tone that clearly comes from an acoustic guitar but is not an exact reproduction of an acoustic guitar.

Agreed with the second point above completely.

There's a point at which I doubt any skilled live mixing will let a pure acoustic tone cut through, that point being the more electric instruments around you, the more so.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-29-2022, 01:50 PM
shufflebeat shufflebeat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,684
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriscom View Post
Is that really quack though?
There are several aspects to your question that deserve addressing.

First, quack - it has become obvious to me over many years of discussing the same issues with different people that not everyone is referring to the same phenomenon when they use the term. For some (most) it's the floppy, middy hard sound that comes from badly matched USTs working with less than ideal input impedances without treatment of any kind except excessive gain. For others it's actually the string/fret rattle that we used to call "ball bearing noise" and for others it's anything that doesn't sound like an acoustic guitar with an ideally positioned Beyer m201 in front with a silent, appreciative audience.

Second, is it necessary for bigger bands to cut through? The character of the sound that is needed for most busy band mixes is part rhythmic, part melodic. This usually involves a strong initial transient (silent to loud at the start of a note) which is often part of the "quack" problem at very specific frequencies. A good mic'd sound can include a strong transient (even in bassier frequencies with an m201) but there are no hard and fast rules on this and context is all. The m201 or sm57 sound with double bass can be amazing and full, while leaving lots of room for vocal, fiddle, etc. A "quacky" UST in that scenario would sound like complete cack.

However, a rock style electric bass with drums will fill out much of the spectrum and mask much of a "nice" guitar sound where a little more "ice pick" could be tolerated.

Hope that makes sense.
__________________
Give a man a fishing rod... and he's got the makings of a rudimentary banjo.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-29-2022, 03:52 PM
phcorrigan phcorrigan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 2,415
Default

The interesting thing about an acoustic guitar is that, unamplified, it will sound slightly different depending on where the listener is positioned. All attempts at amplification are trying to get the "best" sound possible, and this is a subjective standard. Getting good sound from an acoustic guitar in a performance venue depends on so many variables, and pickups were added to try to eliminate the variables that make mic'ing guitars a hit-or-miss task. They have done that, but at the cost of losing some of the acoustic character and adding some of the characteristics of the pickup itself. IR devices, such as the ToneDexter, attempt to restore some of the lost acoustic character while eliminating the undesirable character induced by the pickup itself. IMO, the result is never perfect, but for me it is as close to the sound of a properly mic'ed guitar as possible without using a microphone.

Those of us who use a ToneDexter are always looking for the Holy Grail of a "perfect wave map," which we will likely never attain. At some point we have to say "close enough," until something better comes along.
__________________
Patrick

2012 Martin HD-28V
1984 Martin Shenandoah D-2832
2018 Gretsch G5420TG
Oscar Schmidt Autoharp, unknown vintage
ToneDexter
Bugera V22 Infinium
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-29-2022, 07:40 PM
cdkrugjr cdkrugjr is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 631
Default

Well that depends. There are LOTS of IRs.

Consider your beautiful Parlor whose sweet voice you love for finger style. You bringing her out for Bluegrass? Probably not.

In my band (keys) our rhythm player has an IR he uses for two songs that makes his Strat sound like “Acoustic in the Mix.” . . Doesn’t sound great on its own, but he doesn’t play it on its own. Alone it just sounds weird.

There are dozens of IRs and more are being created all the time, with all kinds of applications in mind. That 70s piezo “Quack” is just as much an effect as a ring modulator. You don’t always Want a ring mod, but when you Want a ring mod, nothing else will do.

Same with IRs. There are plenty that will sound good with a given guitar/pickup/player combination.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > Acoustic Amplification

Thread Tools





All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, The Acoustic Guitar Forum
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=