The doc also has an SWR Big Ben 1x18 IR. It's neat
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Hi. Im kinda new to this. I just got a nux mini and i'm liking it so far. Got some free irs just by looking at this thread. What are your preferences in terms of pedal placement? Compression before cabsim or cabsim before compression? Thanks!
Kind of depends on what you're trying to achieve with the compressor. Before the cab sim you'll probably get a more consistent tone. After, I'd imagine your dynamics will be smoothed out but the timbre will have more wiggle room.
short answer: try both. Use your ears.
longer answer: a cab sim is nothing more than a complex EQ curve. Compressing before the cab sim means you're EQ'ing the compressed tone. Compressing after the cab sim means you're compressing an EQ'd tone. To your ears, this distinction may or may not matter or sound much different, depending on the comp you're using and how it is set.
If you're using a broadband compressor (full frequency range compressor typical, vs. a multi-band comp or one with sidechain EQ cabability), compressing before the cab sim means that the full frequency range of your bass signal (or whatever processing comes before the comp) will determine how the compressor behaves. With bass, the amount of low end usually determines compression onset since this is where the most dynamic energy lives. Thus, compressing after a cab sim - which MIGHT attenuate some of the sub-low frequencies of your raw tone - may allow you a bit more latitude in adjusting broadband compression.
With a multi-band or sidechain EQ compressor, you have more capability to adjust the compressor with respect to low frequencies. All of this may or may not make much of a difference.
Though you probably won't run into this, some cabinet Impulse Responses are of a longer duration of time, and may include a microphone that is some distance away from the speaker capture it is emulating. Thus there may actually be some very low level room sounds captured in the cab sim IR. With drastic amounts of compression at a low threshold, you may start to hear a lot of that room component (might actually be OK). I doubt that you'll run into this with the Nux Mini.
Use your ears.
Thanks for this. I tried em both just yesterday. I liked it pre cab. Im only using a two knob compressor.
I have a question to those explored the twists and turns of this rabbit hole further than I have...
How do you generate from 2 or 3 IR files (e.g. cone + port + tweeter) one single IR wav file to load into my Mooers Radar?
I have managed to install Boogex into Audacity and can mix the 2 IR's to be applied to a recorded track.
That's helpful to narrow down to figure out how I want my cab model to sound, but that's not what I'm after.
The point of it all is to have different cab options for headphone practice/playalong to load into my stomp box IR loader.
I have downloaded most of the packs mentioned in this thread. Some of the single mix IR files from Dr. Bonkers, SNB or Shift Line are quite okay.
However, I had a reality check once I reverted back to my old trusted Tech21 VT Bass, first generation with the always on cab sim.
The VT bass, though limited to Ampeg(ish) tones, does this for my application better than any IR loaded into the Radar IR loaded.
Admittedly, modeling has come a very long way since my Line6 Bass Pod XT, but the results are not quite there for me yet.
I do hope its user error on my side and someone can point me in the right direction.
How do you generate from 2 or 3 IR files (e.g. cone + port + tweeter) one single IR wav file to load into my Mooers Radar?
I have managed to install Boogex into Audacity and can mix the 2 IR's to be applied to a recorded track.
That's helpful to narrow down to figure out how I want my cab model to sound, but that's not what I'm after.
The point of it all is to have different cab options for headphone practice/playalong to load into my stomp box IR loader.
I have downloaded most of the packs mentioned in this thread. Some of the single mix IR files from Dr. Bonkers, SNB or Shift Line are quite okay.
However, I had a reality check once I reverted back to my old trusted Tech21 VT Bass, first generation with the always on cab sim.
The VT bass, though limited to Ampeg(ish) tones, does this for my application better than any IR loaded into the Radar IR loaded.
Admittedly, modeling has come a very long way since my Line6 Bass Pod XT, but the results are not quite there for me yet.
I do hope its user error on my side and someone can point me in the right direction.
True, I had looked at the module mixr, but it costs $60...
I was hoping some could show me how to do that inside audacity with boogex or nadir.
Just wanted a few cabs for headphone practice.
Does everybody use mixIR to blend IR's or are you happy to choose and pick a single mic position?
The Redwirez DB115 model has been praised by several people in this thread. Have you been happy without blending in the port?
Last edited:
Hey man - I use IRs through a Shiftline Cabzone X for sending to FOH and for headphone prctice. I've never found a need to use anything but single mixes and I'm definitely a fan of the Redwirez DB115 and B15 cab SIMs. I think the best/flatest responses are the best to use but that is a taste kinda thing. Favourite mic are the RE20, TC30, U47 FET and D12. Placed 3-4 back at cone.
I do use a bit of overdrive, some compression and a small amount of EQ going into the Cabzone from my pedal board but thats about it.
My inclination with trying to blend this mix of different IRs is this: the mic'd speaker (cone, in your terms) will give you the most of the tonal character in the speaker IR. The "port" and "tweeter" tend to represent the extremes of the frequencies living below and above the fundamental range of the speaker, and thus I think of them as being something more effectively addressed using a parallel blend of dry signal: think of a 3-way crossover with the midrange removed, with the lo>mid and mid>hi x-over points being set to taste along with their respective levels.
This is one of the benefits of the more sophisticated modelers that allow for parallel signal paths if you WANT to have more of the broad frequency range present in your sound. Personally, I implement an IR specifically because I WANT the sub low/ultra high frequencies filtered. That said, I've augmented single speaker IR cab sims with a full range parallel signal blended in at roughly 15% dry/85% IR ratio, and this helps retain body and attack. If your IR loader pedal has a MIX feature, try it.
I'd also suggest rather than blending 3 IR .wav files, trying to find a far-field IR (presumably capturing the entire broad frequency range of a speaker that features such a broad range) of a cabinet that you like, and simply working with EQ to further enhance the low & high end of the tone to your liking (assuming it hasn't been completely lopped off). If you've not checked out Ownhammer IRs, these are worth looking into.
I've also had success just ditching the IR altogether in favor of a combination of drive pedals, preamps and EQ. I find there is a bit more "immediacy" to the way these feel compared to IRs (which might explain why Sans Amp pedals are still preferred by many, since they are analog filters and not digital cab sim IRs).
It is a rabbit hole. Good luck.
One thing to try - Take your mixed Boogex track that includes everything and make a new single IR
Video - Voxengo Deconvolver | Voxengo
The free version should do it.
In the voicing of a ported cab, the port forms an essential part of the speaker response. If you tune the port higher, the speaker will roll off earlier and, depending on the speaker parameters and port tuning, at different slopes.
For recording purposes that might be a viable approach. But I can load only one wav file at a time in my Mooers Radar and connot either mix 2 IR'S or blend the dry signal in, which in any case would overlap the "mid range"
Yeah, thought about that also, a wide frequency range mic further away from the cab to capture more of port and tweeter.
However those IRs have to much of room influence. Anyhow, another branch of this rabbit hole to bolt down even further...
See my earlier post I indeed find playing thru my Sans Amp VT Bass with its built-in cab sim more live-like and with more immediacy than through the Mooer Radar cab sim loader. The Radar however is much better than the sims in my Line6 BassPod XT.
Its a rabbit hole for sure, with many forks and turns... you actually might get lost there and forget why you went in and what you were actually looking for....[/QUOTE]
thanks for that. Had a look at the video. (OT painful to watch, couldn't the guy rehearse a bit what he wanted to show and leave the "oops, I didn't expect that" bits out???) So I will have to generate a sweep file, copy that into several instances, apply the various IR's to them, mix them down to taste and then deconvolve that file with Voxengo into a new mix IR. [\deep breath out]
That's another fork down this rabbit hole... I am so tempted
This weekend I will try to be a bit more systematic. I'll throw out all the IR's in my Radar and load only one single cab sim in a number of variations (cap cone positions distance etc.... Thanks for reminding me
Full disclosure: I have one further goal in this IR adventure.
I have been very interested in cabinet building since a very long time and have been keenly following the many DIY cab design threads here on TB. I have probably run my own sims of most the DIY builts in Boxsim and other cab design packages.
Since I cannot possibly built every cab I find interesting, I thought the IR approach would let me narrow in on my likes and dislikes (specific needs) by sampling a greater variety of cabs, than possible in the real world.
I am pretty sure, I can get a good representation of a single speaker sealed cabinet, but remain as yet unconvinced on ported/tweetered cabs without the mixIR approach.
This here is another fork in this rabbit hole just begging to be investigated...
Bass Impulse Responses – Celestion PULSE Speakers
If anybody has tried to corelate a cabsim in a box building programm to an IR of one of the Celestion speakers and verified this through a frequency plot of the IR file vs the cab sim. That would be so cool.
paging @agedhorse
No other manufacturer of bass speakers has offered something like that. Or I haven't found that for Eminence Faital or any of the other usual suspects.
I have been very interested in cabinet building since a very long time and have been keenly following the many DIY cab design threads here on TB. I have probably run my own sims of most the DIY builts in Boxsim and other cab design packages.
Since I cannot possibly built every cab I find interesting, I thought the IR approach would let me narrow in on my likes and dislikes (specific needs) by sampling a greater variety of cabs, than possible in the real world.
I am pretty sure, I can get a good representation of a single speaker sealed cabinet, but remain as yet unconvinced on ported/tweetered cabs without the mixIR approach.
This here is another fork in this rabbit hole just begging to be investigated...
Bass Impulse Responses – Celestion PULSE Speakers
If anybody has tried to corelate a cabsim in a box building programm to an IR of one of the Celestion speakers and verified this through a frequency plot of the IR file vs the cab sim. That would be so cool.
paging @agedhorse
No other manufacturer of bass speakers has offered something like that. Or I haven't found that for Eminence Faital or any of the other usual suspects.
Speaking of the Celestion cab IRs - has anyone ever bought any of these? I dare say they would be well produced but I can't see any mention of anyone using them in this thread.
I don't believe the DB115 has a tweeter in it.
The only IRs I've tried blending are the Hartke Redwirez. I use a Stomp for my IRs, so I can load two... I posted some audio samples in post #94 of this thread of the Hartke IR. It's got a dry reference sample, a sample with just one of the 10" woofer IRs, and then a blended sample with IRs for both a 10" and 5" woofer. I don't remember which specific IR models I used, though. I never tried blending in the port IR... Might be worth going back and trying it out, but I can't currently load all three at once.
I like the blended Hartke sample quite a bit, because it does remind me of the Hartke Pro 4200 I used to have. But that also takes an extra block in the Stomp's signal chain, and I do tend to prefer the sound of other single IRs more. (Currently the Redwirez DB115, Dr. B's Ampeg PF115, and the Shift Line Heritage B15 is pretty awesome with my P bass with flats. But also finally got back to tinkering with my 8x10 models, and dialed a couple in a bit more last night).
5sg.
I think I saw them along the way in my IR wanderings, but kinda forgot about them!
The Pulse 12 model has my curiosity piqued... I dig me some 12s, my main live amp setup is a pair of 1x12 cabs. I should probably get through my 8x10 IRs first before I start adding more though.
lolI've actually had fantasies about getting the Quad Cortex just so I could create IRs of my Berg 1x12s and a couple key pedals. lol
5sg.
Last edited:
Although I'm not a huge fan of the Hartke aluminium cone tone those sound clips sound exactly how I remember those 4.5XL cab/speaker systems sounding!!!
Bring on the 810 showdown!!!
