Help me choose an amp with DI/IR capabilities

[tiboy]

In theory I agree with the UA Ox approach. I say in theory because I have no first hand experience with the UA. The only reason I have the IR version of the PT15 is because I got a great price on a mint used one. The price was considerably better than the non-IR version that was available new or used at the time.

 

[László]

Yup! (in a big texas voice) I say buy the amp you like. I have some separate reactive load boxes and a couple of SM57s for the amps that don't have built in IR. I don't let the IR capability "Fence me in" when choosing amps, if it's got it great, if not...well I have other ways of running direct or mic'd.

You know, that makes a LOT of sense and proves that I am full of BS.

"No one needed proof, Les."

"Oh. Well it's good to confess one's sins."

"We all know your sins, buddy. You don't need to confess them."

"I guess I need to go create some new ones, then."

 

[Malloc]

The Cure is a truly fine amp.

I'm a 'several tube amps guy' I suppose, but maybe that's overkill. Anyway, I wouldn't buy an amp with a built in DI at all, ever.

I'd buy a UA Ox and use it with any amp I would ever play through, now or down the road. Or I'd consider a Suhr or Mesa reactive load box.

Only then would I look at more amps. Otherwise you're stuck with only one amp you can go direct with, and one day you'll be in the same spot.

Don't fence me in.

“Why not both all the tubes?”

Sounds like a legitimate strategy to me!

 

[László]

“Why not both all the tubes?”

Sounds like a legitimate strategy to me!

It is, you're entirely right. See my post right above yours.

 

[Mark Ray]

I voted "other," due to my "In the field testing" that I've done at a couple of hundred gigs with my H & K Tubemeister.

I replaced the glass with quality JJ's and haven't looked back. 18,5,1, or silent watts, built-in Red Box. It sounds great through the PA, and with the Celestion 1x10 cab, you're talking a super light weight "mini-stack" that at least for me, does what I need it to do.

 

[Malloc]

I voted "other," due to my "In the field testing" that I've done at a couple of hundred gigs with my H & K Tubemeister.

I replaced the glass with quality JJ's and haven't looked back. 18,5,1, or silent watts, built-in Red Box. It sounds great through the PA, and with the Celestion 1x10 cab, you're talking a super light weight "mini-stack" that at least for me, does what I need it to do.

Ya the Tubemeister and Revv G20 are other contenders I’ve added since starting this inquiry. Thankfully I’ve got a chance soon to go visit Wildwood and get some ear time.

 

[László]

What I meant to say in my initial post, but said VERY poorly, is that I wouldn't choose an amp based on whether it has built=in IRs and direct recording capability, since those can be bought relatively inexpensively in a standalone unit that can be used with any amp.

I'd just buy a great amp, and a nice Direct Recording/IR box, and call it a day; because I use several amps, and who knows, maybe down the road I'll buy different ones or more amps.

On the other hand, there is something to be said for not having to schlep along a second box. So if an amp has that capability, like the Suhr amp that was mentioned, party! bonus! All to the good!

Most of the load boxes with IRs are pretty small, and could easily fit into the pocket of an accessory bag (heck, I always used to gig with an accessory bag, in addition to a gig bag and an amp), and at least one of my amp covers has a large enough accessory pouch.

Finally, feel free to tell me that I have no idea what I'm talking about. I don't mind. Just mentioning my own POV. It's pretty easy for me to make that call, since I work mostly in the studio these days, and can pile gear up on my racks.

I do have a stand-alone Mesa load box I can do direct recording with. It's an early one, and I use it with software IRs. Sounds fine to me, but the new reactive load boxes are even better.

I should get one. At some point.

 

[Malloc]

What I meant to say in my initial post, but said VERY poorly, is that I wouldn't choose an amp based on whether it has built=in IRs and direct recording capability, since those can be bought relatively inexpensively in a standalone unit that can be used with any amp.

I'd just buy a great amp, and a nice Direct Recording/IR box, and call it a day; because I use several amps, and who knows, maybe down the road I'll buy different ones or more amps.

On the other hand, there is something to be said for not having to schlep along a second box. So if an amp has that capability, like the Suhr amp that was mentioned, party! bonus! All to the good!

Most of the load boxes with IRs are pretty small, and could easily fit into the pocket of an accessory bag (heck, I always used to gig with an accessory bag, in addition to a gig bag and an amp), and at least one of my amp covers has a large enough accessory pouch.

Finally, feel free to tell me that I have no idea what I'm talking about. I don't mind. Just mentioning my own POV. It's pretty easy for me to make that call, since I work mostly in the studio these days, and can pile gear up on my racks.

I do have a stand-alone Mesa load box I can do direct recording with. It's an early one, and I use it with software IRs. Sounds fine to me, but the new reactive load boxes are even better.

I should get one. At some point.

My initial post wasn’t all that helpful for problem statement formation either

Ultimately this thread is actually convincing me that maybe DI capability doesn’t have to be a deal breaker even if I can only justify one tube amp for now.

 

[László]

My initial post wasn’t all that helpful for problem statement formation either

Ultimately this thread is actually convincing me that maybe DI capability doesn’t have to be a deal breaker even if I can only justify one tube amp for now.

I'd pick up a Suhr reactive load box used for $300 and call it a day, and for recording, just use a speaker IR in my DAW. I've had good luck with the original Mesa load box and an IR and it isn't even a reactive load.

I have a fair amount of GAS for one of these, to be able to mic up a real speaker without the usual noise, and skip the load box thing altogether.

OAKBOX – Grossmann Audio

www.grossmann-audio.de

 

[Deleted member 5962]

I'd pick up a Suhr reactive load box used for $300 and call it a day, and for recording, just use a speaker IR in my DAW. I've had good luck with the original Mesa load box and an IR and it isn't even a reactive load.

I have a fair amount of GAS for one of these, to be able to mic up a real speaker without the usual noise, and skip the load box thing altogether.

OAKBOX – Grossmann Audio

www.grossmann-audio.de

Just remember, those iso cabs all have a couple funky aspects that most people don't think about... and also, all other things being equal, the bigger they are, the better, and that one is pretty small...

 

[László]

Just remember, those iso cabs all have a couple funky aspects that most people don't think about... and also, all other things being equal, the bigger they are, the better, and that one is pretty small...

Yes, they can sound boxy, and generally need EQ in a mix. I can handle that. But it's only a frequency response/resonance problem, so it's easily fixable with a modern EQ.

What people don't realize about IRs with load boxes is that they're static- because they're based on a recorded sample they can't change as the sound proceeds through the simulation. So a speaker IR can't respond or break up exactly the way a real speaker does under power. There are reactive load boxes that mimic what a speaker shows to the AMP, but they don't mimic what a speaker itself does physically as power is applied.

And that's a problem that can't be fixed in a mix.

There is one alternative to the IR modeled speaker that's based on an algorithm that simulates sound proceeding through time in a speaker, and it's a good one:

The Universal Audio OX box is a nice alternative, because instead of using an IR, it uses an algorithm. I would prefer that to an IR, but again, the real speaker is still different and less artificial sounding.

I can deal with the EQ problems of a real speaker, but can't change the artificial nature of a digital speaker.

On the plus side for the Grossmann product, I've heard demos made of this cab, and they sound very good given the type of tool they are. The small size means they'd be less of an eyesore in my studio. Since none of these silent boxes is perfect, my preference is to accept the size trade-off. And of course, take the top off, and it's simply a speaker cab with a nice mic mount, which is a pretty cool thing in and of itself.

Here's that demo I was talking about. You may be pleasantly surprised. In fact, I've decided that I'll replace at least one of my current cabs with one of these at some point this summer.

Sounds & Videos – Grossmann Audio

www.grossmann-audio.de

 

[markd21]

I have had tremendous luck with the Suhr Reactive load. I used it with all my Bad Cat amps and my last tuber, a Vox AC15. It was glorious keeping the amps cranked and messing with various "cabs" to change the tone.

I use a Helix Rack as my IR loader, though I have Two Notes Wall of Sound, THU Supercab. And Helix Native for IRs also. I am always able to get an amazing sound with that gear.

 

[Deleted member 5962]

Yes, they can sound boxy, and generally need EQ in a mix. I can handle that. But it's only a frequency response/resonance problem, so it's easily fixable with a modern EQ.

What is unusual about iso cabs is this. Normally, a guitar speaker is in an open, closed or tuned port cab. That only provides whatever level of acoustic suspension comes with the design of the cab, on one side of the speaker. Front of the speaker cab is not affected so the only acoustic suspension is provided by the cab. In an iso cab, you're adding two other factors. 1) the front of the speaker is also in an acoustic suspension cab. If they are carefully matched for both size and insulation, the "cab resonance" will be at one frequency range, but it's level can change. If perfectly matched they may not affect the actual movement and sound of the speaker more than the simple back side cab, but they also might!. But if they are different sizes (and most of them are, with people trying to make one side much bigger so it doesn't sound boxy) but what you introduce is two different acoustic suspension factors that the cone is seeing. There is added resistance to the front that doesn't match that of the back. This can give two different resonant frequencies but often changes them dramatically. I saw some tests where it was easy to find the frequency of the cab resonance with the mic chamber part not mounted, so it's just like a closed back cab. But when you put the top piece on, the resonant point changed. Some cabs give two peaks but it changes the "cab" peak when you put the mic area cab on. Some smeared the two. Some (smaller ones) significantly affected the actual cone movement. Some caused the actual cone frequency response to change some (due to two different cab res points).

After all of that, the second big factor is that you are also putting the microphone inside of a restrictive cab area. I think all these factors contribute to the "boxyness" that's always associated with them. So honestly, I hope you DO get one and then I'll follow closely to see what your reaction is and what you have to do to try to get rid of that. I hope it's as easy as you say, but a couple years ago when I was following all that testing, you could ALWAYS here which one was the iso cab. No matter what they did, it never sounded as open as even when they just took the top box/mic area box off. My ear was never fouled in those demos, and what my brain kept telling me is that putting the mic inside a box, even a well insulated one, took away air and openness.

I've also read where J Mitchell hopped in a few of those discussions and discussed EQ a bit. He was discussing his reflection free IRs and said that if you have boundary resonances, spotlighting them with an EQ and reducing the amount down to negate it, doesn't "SOUND" the same if if the resonance is removed, because it's still "there" just lowered in volume, and even if you Q it down. He did a graph of a frequency response that was perfect peaks and valleys that bounced between +6dB and -6dB and said "this doesn't sound the same as flat frequency response, even thought all these peaks and valleys average out to flat. He specifically addressed reflection based EQ, and how if you EQ it down to where it's not an audible peak any more, it's still smearing the time alignment of the pure signal that doesn't have the resonance, AND you're also cutting the fundamental tone at that range as well as the resonance, when you EQ it. Does that mean it can't sound good? OF course not. Does it mean it can't sound "the same?" Well, that's where it gets interesting. Then it's tradeoffs.... "is it almost as good" or more importantly "good enough?" Or does it really sound "the same as the original?"

This is too long. And boring to most. I'll stop now. LOL

 

[László]

What is unusual about iso cabs is this. Normally, a guitar speaker is in an open, closed or tuned port cab. That only provides whatever level of acoustic suspension comes with the design of the cab, on one side of the speaker. Front of the speaker cab is not affected so the only acoustic suspension is provided by the cab. In an iso cab, you're adding two other factors. 1) the front of the speaker is also in an acoustic suspension cab. If they are carefully matched for both size and insulation, the "cab resonance" will be at one frequency range, but it's level can change. If perfectly matched they may not affect the actual movement and sound of the speaker more than the simple back side cab, but they also might!. But if they are different sizes (and most of them are, with people trying to make one side much bigger so it doesn't sound boxy) but what you introduce is two different acoustic suspension factors that the cone is seeing. There is added resistance to the front that doesn't match that of the back. This can give two different resonant frequencies but often changes them dramatically. I saw some tests where it was easy to find the frequency of the cab resonance with the mic chamber part not mounted, so it's just like a closed back cab. But when you put the top piece on, the resonant point changed. Some cabs give two peaks but it changes the "cab" peak when you put the mic area cab on. Some smeared the two. Some (smaller ones) significantly affected the actual cone movement. Some caused the actual cone frequency response to change some (due to two different cab res points).

After all of that, the second big factor is that you are also putting the microphone inside of a restrictive cab area. I think all these factors contribute to the "boxyness" that's always associated with them. So honestly, I hope you DO get one and then I'll follow closely to see what your reaction is and what you have to do to try to get rid of that. I hope it's as easy as you say, but a couple years ago when I was following all that testing, you could ALWAYS here which one was the iso cab. No matter what they did, it never sounded as open as even when they just took the top box/mic area box off. My ear was never fouled in those demos, and what my brain kept telling me is that putting the mic inside a box, even a well insulated one, took away air and openness.

I've also read where J Mitchell hopped in a few of those discussions and discussed EQ a bit. He was discussing his reflection free IRs and said that if you have boundary resonances, spotlighting them with an EQ and reducing the amount down to negate it, doesn't "SOUND" the same if if the resonance is removed, because it's still "there" just lowered in volume, and even if you Q it down. He did a graph of a frequency response that was perfect peaks and valleys that bounced between +6dB and -6dB and said "this doesn't sound the same as flat frequency response, even thought all these peaks and valleys average out to flat. He specifically addressed reflection based EQ, and how if you EQ it down to where it's not an audible peak any more, it's still smearing the time alignment of the pure signal that doesn't have the resonance, AND you're also cutting the fundamental tone at that range as well as the resonance, when you EQ it. Does that mean it can't sound good? OF course not. Does it mean it can't sound "the same?" Well, that's where it gets interesting. Then it's tradeoffs.... "is it almost as good" or more importantly "good enough?" Or does it really sound "the same as the original?"

This is too long. And boring to most. I'll stop now. LOL

Well take heart, it's not at all boring to me, and I agree with all of the above. We are totally on the same page.

Except this cab sounds good. And by that I mean, better than it's supposed to sound! Have you had a chance to listen to the video? It's pretty freakin' impressive. I listened to the demo on my studio monitors, and was kind of blown away with what Grossmann has accomplished.

Also the ease of changing out speakers and mics? Fantastic.

As I always say, sometimes someone builds a pretty darn good mousetrap! Anyway, a plan is in the works, and it's wife-approved. I'm just trying to decide which of my traditional cabs I can do without. With the KHE amp switcher in my studio, changing cabs from standard to something like the Grossman or a load box is literally flicking a single switch, or a single MIDI command. So it's pretty easy to incorporate something like this in my setup. I know I'd get some good use out of it. We shall see how this all works out down the pike.

 

[Deleted member 5962]

I'm just trying to decide which of my traditional cabs I can do without.

I’d love to take the PRS Bigmouth cab off your hands but I’m a little tapped out after my trip to Indiana.

I’ll check some of the clips out tonight

 

[László]

I’d love to take the PRS Bigmouth cab off your hands but I’m a little tapped out after my trip to Indiana.

I’ll check some of the clips out tonight

No worries - if I decide to sell it, you'll get first dibs. I've got family events coming up for a while yet this summer, so I won't be ordering it until late summer/early fall. That's when the ad music business picks up, so it doesn't even make sense to get the Grossmann before then.

But do listen to the video I linked. It's pretty impressive.

 

[Malloc]

Decision made: none of the above (even surprising myself).

Here’s a little tease before I make it’s own post:

 

[aamefford]

So?????

 

[Deleted member 5962]

So?????

Someone is sleeping at the wheel!

 

[aamefford]

Someone is sleeping at the wheel!

Seriously! In the short time I’ve been here, this place has become a primary component of my social life.

Oh wait - that’s kind of pathetic…