Forget Stock Cabs | Let's Do EQUALIZERS vs. IMPULSE RESPONSES (This was a BLAST!)

[@jvlaine96]

Admiring your patience, will, perseverence etc. However, there will always be those who just don't (want to) get it.

[@SteveSterlacci]

This video is gonna hurt a great many butts. I can't stand when "try IRs" is the FIRST piece of advice newer or users wanting help receive from the community. They have their places when you know why, but they aren't god sends!

[@JasonSadites]

I totally agree Steve! The whole reason I did this series of videos was because far too often people are led astray and made to believe that just placing any old IR in a preset makes it amazing, which, as we know, is far from the truth.

[@SteveSterlacci]

@@JasonSadites yep. It also kills users experience thinking this way and then spreading that misinformation. Glad you did this series!

[@zekerdoodle]

My two favorite helix makers. Love the content guys, keep it up.

[@literalghost929]

I love using IRs because it's just 1 click to go from a Marshall to say a Mesa or Fender with a correspond mic setup. With the L6 cab + mic, you have to choose the cab, then choose the mic, then choose the distance, so basically, a lot more hassle with L6 cabs to switch from one setup to another. And if you don't really know what you're doing; what mic sounds how and distance it should be placed, and with which cab they each work well or badly, well, going IR just simplifies tremendously the entire process.

[@oddbec]

@@literalghost929 you have heard of Favorites in the Helix?

[@darrenwest1969]

I’m a helix user ever since it came out. I haven’t liked the stock cabs since I discovered IR’s. My main issue is I can’t get a better sound than with the small amount of IR’s I prefer. I agree that an IR is just a complex EQ curve. I agree that IR’s a time consuming as sorting through the hundreds I own is a pain. After your last video, I attempted using the stock cabs again, but I was not successful in achieving a sound I was happy with. I’m going to stick with the IR’s I like. Have you thought about attempting to match a stock cab with your test IR with the EQ’s in the actual helix?

[@bradylasserre9320]

I'm blown away by the eq matching on Ozone. Pretty eye opening.

[@HotRats73]

Very well Jason, I'm glad you did this.This is an important concept to underline. the H&K red box or Palmer PDI used "eq" for emulating cabs for decades. In the previous video I've suggested that with ozone match eq you can make the amp raw output sound close to any IR. Now we have prove :)

[@DerekMarshall]

Super cool ... the L6 team should join you for a detailed discussion of this stuff!

[@davidspingler6337]

I’m waiting for DSR-like algorithms to become the norm, as the static nature of traditional IRs (which imo includes Helix stock cabs!) will always be the biggest gap between the virtual stuff and real world speakers. One reason I think the powercab sounds so good when using the speaker modeling functionality (my subjective opinion, naturally) is the fact that the speaker is actually dynamic with an eq slapped on to it to get it closer to the real deal speaker it’s trying to emulate. I know Helix doesn’t support DSR (nor do any of the current modelers, afaik), or if it’s even possible for the firmware to be updated to allow it, but it’d be awesome if it were to happen. Might have to wait for the successor to Helix though. That said, the stock cabs and many IRs sound really good, and in a recorded mix, and frankly to the average audience member in a live mix setting the difference between them and real speakers are pretty much irrelevant/trivial at this point. As players, we will always want the maximum realism from modeling, and there’s no such thing as good enough for some of us. I’m happy with where modeling is at right now with the Helix, but I also look forward to each step forward the technology takes.

[@mickymalibu]

I use both depending on the situation, like you say whatever works go with it , an IR can be a quick solution sometimes but other times you can be limited with the IRs you have and then I find the stock cabs more useful ,,,,,

[@rockrep]

Great video. Really informative. I’ve been one of those IR’s have been getting me there faster people, but now at least I’ll be (or will try to be) less biased towards the stock cab EQ curves. I will say my ears have trouble telling me how to tweak EQ parameters (especially parametric EQ), as I can get overwhelmed by the amount of options available in a signal chain, but they are ok at telling me roughly what sounds better in A/B comparison. I’m in Headrush-land, but it’s all the same situation to Helix. That match EQ software plugin is really cool btw. Thanks again.

[@deconline1320]

The IR contains a time duration element. The shorter the IR, the closer you will get to an EQ. When you use a long IR (something like 200-500ms), you get room effects. It's pretty cool to start combining different time length and position IRs. The Line6 (like many others) will shorten you IR before loading it (to 20-40ms?). This removes the room characteristics. This is why you can use an EQ and sound the same. For fun, you could try instead a DAW IR loader and try using different "full length" 500ms IRs.

[@JasonSadites]

Yes, you are absolutely correct on everything you state here. I kept the information about the longer IRs out of this series of videos since I was dealing in the very specific topic of IRs as capturing a guitar speaker cabinet in the way it is used in the Helix with a maximum length of approx. 42ms at 48khz in a 2048 IR block. This was done since this whole discussion arose from the "Helix stock cabs always suck in comparison to any 3rd party IR" folks that are very vocal about their opinions on this. I figured it was not worth muddying the waters with info about something that wasn't pertinent to the discussion at hand. Thanks for your great comment :-)

[@BourkeTommy]

Great way of explaining the simplicity of what an IR is while also respecting the complexity. I also agree with your comments about how the point is not to get people to not like IRs if they like it for their workflow. It’s not magic, but can be a really cool tool.

[@MattCrill]

Great video as always Jason. It is interesting as music , in general, is entirely subjective. You've made it clear (once again) that HOW you use the tool is likely much more important than what tool you are using (i.e. we've discussed how you can dial in a tube amp or modeler poorly). That's what I love about the Helix. You can go down the rabbit hole and try to study every amp, cab, and effect and how to tweak it. Or, you can just plug in and start playing. I won't go conspiracy theory and say that IR manufacturers help perpetuate the myth that stock cabs are bad to help with sales. :) :) :) I appreciate the work you do to put information out there, throw out some different scenarios, and let us decide for ourselves. Is anyone really going to care if I use stock cabs or IRs when I play on Sundays? People sure blow up forums to where you might think so. Great content Jason!

[@derrickm5013]

It might be worth mentioning that several amp manufacturers have included emulated cab outputs that were just static eq curves.

[@stevegardiner8473]

I remember back in the very early days of digital gear, I had a Digitech GSP 21 Pro, and the "speaker emulation" in that (which was horrid and unusable btw) was literally just a set of graphic eq curves that you could actually see! Next was a Marshall JMP-1 with emulated outs. Not as good as what's available these days but you could get away with it. Then I had a Rocktron Voodu Valve, and a ROLAND GP-100, those units were actually very usable direct to PA. But that GSP21, hideous speaker emulation.

[@carstenfisch9990]

I might be wrong, but a usual Speaker IR has also "room reverb" information in it. sure, a close miked Cab has only a little response of the room the cab is in, but its there, and can make a difference. A lot will vanish in a mix, but its NOT "just a extremely detailed EQ".. But in the end: Use what feels and sounds right for you. I use both Stock cabs and IRs.

[@JasonSadites]

You aren't wrong at all. AN IR and an EQ are very different things. The way the IR is implemented in the Helix, (max. length of approx. 42ms at 48khz) it is far to short to have any of the "room reverb" in it. So no it is not just an eq, but as I showed in the video, using a VERY detailed eq, you can get to the point where the 2 sounds are almost indistinguishable from each other. This video was meant to be taken to work with the last 2 videos I did, which were showing stock cabs vs impulse responses to discuss the whole internet myth that "all stock cabs suck" :-)

[@carstenfisch9990]

@@JasonSadites Thanks for the answer. I wasnt aware that the Cab IRs are this short to be honest. After your video i tried it myself, and inspected the IRs in a IR Reverb Plugin and in Audacity... and you´re right, the way it is the CabIRs ARE kind of "only" a pretty Fancy EQ. Wont change the value of them, or how i use them, but its good to know... btw, thank you for all your Helix Videos and Work.. i learn SO much from you!

[@400_billion_suns]

So beautiful it brought a tear to my eye... lol! Great vid Jason! I've been using Ozone's Match EQ for a year or two to create tone-match presets on my Helix to studio guitar recordings, in stereo, by matching the L&R channels independently. I then make a pair of IRs from the L/R matches, which get loaded into my Helix on split paths. My process is very similar to what you showed here. So much for my "secret" sauce! :) I agree on Izotope's stuff... the whole suite is *super* useful. One important tip, which you're probably already aware of: it's pretty easy to clip the Match EQ plugin when running the sine sweep test tone through it, if there are any resonance peaks in the reference you're matching. You can get around this by just pulling the level down very low on the input fader in Ozone. Just make sure the level meters don't go into the red when you're running the sweep, and you're good.

[@allighton]

Agreed 100%. I've been doing some acoustic match IR's using Ozone Match EQ and Voxengo Deconvolver, and I had only one pass through match EQ. After watching Jason's video, I re-did one with 4 match EQ's and it sounds so much better in the high end. BUT, I did have to carefully gain stage each instance of Match EQ to keep out of the red.

[@bjorngoud5259]

Picking parts of facts, mix it with parts of myths, season it with personal feelings, and let it simmer on the heat of the argument, is the perfect recipe of modern day confused confirmation.

[@captainebol]

I do want to just say that in general an IR isn’t only like an EQ. For example, an IR can make a short lived delay - and I don’t just mean latency. An IR specifies for an input pulse, what the output looks like, and you can make an IR that reproduces copies of the input pulse. That’s not possible with EQ. The IRs that are produced to be used instead of stock cabinets ARE mostly just about EQ though. And I want to say what you are doing is awesome and I wholeheartedly support because there are so many tribal wars based on just opinions and confirmation bias in the guitaring world (as in every world :-( )

[@JasonSadites]

I totally agree with what you say here Lewis! That is why I clearly stated in the video when discussing how IRs are implemented in the Helix (max. 42ms length at 48khz) they basically amount to nothing more than a static eq curve :-)

[@darrenwest1969]

Brand bias is an issue, not only with IR’s, but with everything guitar related. I have tried all the big name IR companies, and have been just as dissatisfied as I was from the small back yarders. I like what I like, and if you find some IR’s that you love, stick with them.

[@joeyfarley9916]

I think people have forgot that its about the music you create not the gear you use to make it. There is something crazy going on with all the fighting over gear, who cares whats "BEST" lets hear the songs you have written or play just whatever you have created. I like to know what gear is used but i will never fight with someone over a stock cab or I.R its crazy. If it sounds good it is good period.

[@nathanbrown3872]

Couldn't agree more. The majority of people listening have no idea what youre playing through or how much it cost. You could spend tens of thousands of dollars on the "best" gear; Vintage, modern, or some combination of both and you're still gonna have mixed reviews. Just play, create, and have a good time doing it. Full stop.

[@sjsphotog]

This same battle/ war happens in the Photography world with "my gear/ brand is better than your gear/brand" or in the AVR world etc etc etc. Too much focus on hardware vs software i.e. the result. The image tells the story and creates impact , the camera (gear) is just the tool that got you there. A great musician (like Jason for example) can make any guitar or modeler sound good but a bad musician can't make any gearc, even the best gear sound great no matter what they try and do.

[@deans.4705]

an impulse response is the reaction of a system when given an input. It is not just an eq curve. If you want to think of it like an eq curve then you are missing the entire time element. However you can get very close with an eq match. The response of a speaker is not the same as an eq curve. When creating an impulse response, it is capturing how that system responds over time. A 1024 point IR is around 21ms at 48Khz. If the speaker's integrity is compromised over that time, it would also capture that as well as the compression of the system. Think of a speaker being blasted. The cone will not react physically the same way it would when playing softer. The same can be said for the diaphragm of the microphone. It will take time to recover from the movement. Having said that, thanks for the video. It sounds very close.

[@JasonSadites]

Yes, I completely agree. Which is why I clearly stated in the video that when using an IR as it is implemented in the Helix (max. Approx 42ms at 48khz) none of that would apply and you basically end up with a static eq curve.

[@deans.4705]

@@JasonSadites 42 ms is nothing to dismiss. The IR that you showcased here has a depth not found in the eq version. However all of this is dismissed when using the factory cabs as they are impulses in their own right.

[@JasonSadites]

So what, out of curiosity and in your estimation, is creating the depth you claim to hear in the IR version?

[@deans.4705]

@@JasonSadites Time. The files simply don't sound exactly the same because an impulse and an eq are not the exact same thing. If they were then impulses wouldn't exist in the first place there would just be eq's. As stated before it is the time element. this can even be heard between Fractal normal res vs their ultra res cabinets

[@JasonSadites]

@@deans.4705 so you would be able to easily pick this out in a blind test?

[@mattbrillhart2922]

Some people need to chill out. How about spend 3 hours with the built-in cabs to learn more about the mic’s characteristics, mic distance, hi-low cuts vs. spanning social media?? Time well served. I use a few IRs but find built in cabs are best options at times as well.

[@JimsMusicJourney]

I do something similar with low pass filter followed by an eq to really dial in a tone the way I like it to get the tone in my head I’m chasing.

[@benhodges9287]

Hi Jason. I’ve been a viewer since purchasing a Helix last year and have found your vids a great source of info, this series has been really interesting! I have never explored IRs personally. So I am clear on what an IR really is within the application of the Helix and based on previous comments, it is actually a varying eq curve over a 42ms period, but the short length of the response renders it, for all intents and purposes, static?

[@JasonSadites]

Hey Ben, glad you enjoy the videos 😀 I would say the way you described it here is exactly the way I view it and would describe it..thanks for the comment!

[@BeachJazzMusic]

An interesting thing I found after seeing your last video is that I tried using the amps with IR's and also stock cabs. To my ears some amps sounded better with stock cabs and some with IR'S. In some cases the amp without either sounded best. Now keep in mind that I'm running my Helix and Stomp though an actual guitar amp so that could have a lot to do with it. I would suggest to people that they try out different scenarios to see what works best for them. There's so many IR makers out there that it's mind boggling and how do you choose. Everyone has a different brand that they like. You could probably spend your entire life trying to decide on which ones to use.

[@clanled2]

Im playing in a covers band. Using this EQ match with the isolated tracks of the guitar used in a particular song along with my helix preset, could i apply this eq in a block in helix and sound almost like the original recording?

[@jimkordahl9490]

We've seen you use multiple EQs to sculpt tones, like Alex Lifeson's 'Lime Light' tone for instance, and that did require multiple EQ blocks. The "ish" tone you achieved spelled out the magic seems to be in the mastery of EQ-ing. I have a better understanding of EQ-ing, but I am far from being knowledgeable enough on the subject to even enter the debate. That said, I wonder how many blocks of EQ it would take to accomplish the job that the "EQ match" software can. Just a random thought. Jason, again, I am armed with more useful knowledge on how to use my Helix in many profound ways for my quest for total tone snobbery dominance. Stock cabs are still a struggle for me, however, when I have A/B'd a stock cab with an IR I liked working with (within the same preset) I end up shaping the stock cab to sound almost like the IR sounded, by accident. My point is, the more I work with the cabs the better I get at shaping them to sound closer to my desired sound. With the stock cabs vs. IR debate, both require time and research in my humble opinion. Now if I can just have the knowledgeable approach to pick a stock cab (and mic and distance choice) that's going to put me in the ballpark first, I'm good to go from there. Bottom line, I need to put in my 10,000 hours by doing my homework regardless of which method I choose.

[@stevegardiner8473]

Another interesting video. Thanks. An observation, after using ir's for a long time, first in a Digitech GSP1101, then a Headrush Pedalboard, and for the past 4 years a line 6 Helix, I can definitely tell there's a difference between Helix stock cabs and ir's. I'm not saying which is good or which is bad but, the Helix stock cabs have certain characteristics in their sound, that I haven't come across in any ir's I've ever used. So, while they may be very similar, to my ears, there is a difference, a fundamental difference. I run my Helix through FRFR, decent desktop speakers, and PA systems, and through those, I'm pretty sure I could identify if I'm listening to a stock cab, or to an ir. The stock cabs just have a certain thing. If I had to put it into words, which isn't easy, I'd say the stock cabs have a bit of distortion, a slightly unrefined edge/digital artifacts that i don't notice in ir's. PS. I've tried some ir's that are, for me anyway, unusable. All are not created equally.

[@gerhalla-germanbrawlhalla4018]

THX for this very interesting video! For my that means to focus more on EQ knowledge. Maybe this helps me to progress on my project to let my pod go in combination with the small headrush speaker sound simelar to my Engk retro combo. Up to now I clompletly failed to reach this goal. Maybe plaiing more with the EQ helps - lets see..

[@stevebowley6348]

Chad Boston gave us his OTB EQ replacement for IRs a few years ago and to my ears are more like the 'amp in the room' than IRs or stock cabs

[@JasonSadites]

Steve, ah yes I remember that and tried it out. Wasn't crazy about what it was doing in the high end for my preference.

[@shaynestilllife]

I agree with with your stance on the eq curve. I think the big difference is that line 6 is using an algorithm to create a simulation to create those EQ curve based on the sliders vs miking up an actual cab, running a sine wave through through reach position the mic. Look at what the Mikko player plugin does for this. Is much more detailed.

[@Superman-pn1rx]

Excellent video, this open my eyes and ears, I have a question if IRs are a very complex EQ curve, trying them, to find a specific sound, my guess is using with a pre amp with flat EQ (low, mid,highs) and only using the IR to mold the previous gain stage. Sorry my English and thanks for your eventual answer

[@JasonSadites]

The point in this video was that in the way that IRs are implemented in the Helix (i.e very short) they act as nothing more than a VERY detailed EQ. Having said that, while you could use them with a pre-amp and flat eq, I don't really see the purpose in that as you can "tweak" the IR in anyway like you can an eq. This video was done as a response to folks who said Helix cabs were not good and that the only way to get the Helix to sound good is with 3rd party IRs. None of that is or was ever true. Hope that clarifies :-)

[@islandfield]

Jason.. Hole thus reaches you.. I rewinded to try to understand but when you explained the 3 instances of eq match to me it sounds like you use same Sources for capturing the 2 sounds for eq matching.. How the you get 3 different Eq curves? Or is the source to match from the same,and the source to be eq'ed the result from the previous tone matching? (which in my brain would make sense...) And what was the deal with zine tone in the start? I can't seem to follow how you created the sources for ozone instances. Could you elaborate?

[@Poldo77miticu]

basically what we call improperly "IR" are FIR digital filters. The theory behind this is not modern the latest scientific publications I read in the past have been written in 1997. the ability to upload IR is common today and considered as a plus but the old GSP1101 has this capability as well...In my opinion in some particular situation the IR works well for recording but they are not good as stock cab when you're playing live. A physical model of cab of modeler in general is more defined and works just better in a lot of situations...

[@bones2532]

Thanks, Jason! Until now I thought, that the quote "IRs and cab sims are nothing but EQ curves" is a simplification just to make it more comprehensible in the first place. So, technically I was pretty sure there was a dynamic component involved, let's say, some complex kind of compression, like real cabs do. (Even if this was the case, it still wouldn't be black magic or fairies dust). Now I'm a bit surprised, that this mystified algorhythm behind both, IRs and cab sims, IS in fact containing nothing but EQ curves. Impressive lesson!

[@literalghost929]

nono .. IRs are more than just a simple EQ curve.. LOL You were/are correct that the driver does impart its own "dynamic component", and I think it's audible in Jason's clips. Here's 2 comments by Jason about it: "which is why I state clearly in the video "with the way IRs are implemented in the Helix" which are far to short to notice any of the things that you mention above." "Jason Sadites: In my understanding, an IR 2048 block in the Helix truncates the length of the impulse response files down to 42ms at 48khz, even if they are longer to begin with. Far to short for any "reverb" parts of the sound to come through. That is why I made the statement about how it is implemented in the Helix :-) "

[@bones2532]

@@literalghost929 Interesting point. To be honest, I don't really hear that difference in dynamics. Actually I don't trust my ears enough to tell the difference of a real complex static EQ curve from another one that contains slight dynamic changes. I'm just a 'simple man'. 🤪

[@literalghost929]

@@bones2532 I made another post about it, with speakers, you'll hear it mostly in terms of depth, ex; With the IR, it's like the guitar will occupy the space in front of you between 1.0m to 1.2m (20 cm thick), whereas the EQ will seem be more like paper thin in terms of depth, and just occupy the space at 1.1m away (5cm thick). -------------- Literal Ghost 15 hours ago 15:45 Actually I think you can hear the difference between the EQ and the IR: The EQ does sound 'flatter', that is, spatially; 3d. With speakers, the IR will have more depth; This is probably as I had mentioned the time domain effect from the IR (FR=frequencies, IR = FR + time/CSD). The speaker driver isn't perfect, so if it had to play; 0, 1, 0, 1; it would probably more end up playing something like 0, .9, .1, .9. Meaning the 'natural reverb' I was speaking about previously (note decay) , ends up just adding 'weight', or depth to the sound: Also, it should smooth over the sound (note attack + note decay), but I can't say that I was really hearing it as being smoother in this clip.. It would also explain why you had trouble correcting the high end. A guitar speaker will behave differently, especially in the high frequencies which is typically handled by tweeters. Having a big driver having to reproduce the high end will make a 'tink'! sound a lot like a 'dink'; as it cannot move fast enough back and forth the 10,000 times a second it needs to reproduce the sound perfectly, because it has too much mass. So it doesn't just end up playing those frequencies less loud; it really changes its characteristics, which is something that can't really really accurately be done via just EQ. Not entirely sure why/how it worked running the EQ a 2nd time, but the fact that you could hear more differences in the high end is just the nature of the IR vs EQ. If your clip had more high registers (ex; playing clean using the upper part of fretboard), it's likely that it would have sounded more different; and again, the worse the speaker driver, the more difference you would hear vs just EQ.

[@bones2532]

@@literalghost929 Wow, that was quite an in depth explanation. I'm always interested in really understanding how things work. That whole IR topic is a rather complex field. Thanks a lot for taking so much effort explaining those details!

[@sjsphotog]

Most folks don't realize that in a real studio, a pro will never just use an amp and mic to record a track without the engineer/ producer adding as EQ and compression and other things during mastering to make the tone sound great to make your want to buy the song. No great song was ever made without EQ in some form or another so use them in your chain!! and don't blame a stock cab cant DO IT ALL, ask by itself behind able to Shape your tone. it's just an amp and mic no more no less. Its just like someone blaming a non metal amp for not sounding like hard core metal without using a distortion pedals in the chain. Use the right additional tool for the right job. Nuff said. Keep it up Jason. Science works.

[@Uomo-ratto]

I can use an IR to equalize ?

[@JoePariseauMusic]

Does changing the different cab mic models change the "feel" or just the tone? 🧐

[@JasonSadites]

Just the eq curve.

[@bones2532]

... which - just to make things even more complicated - can easily have an effect on the feel of a preset. Just compare the feel of two presets, one with a flat EQ setting, the other one with a huge boost in the low end, for example.

[@fernandoferro9866]

Great video man!

[@literalghost929]

Just 3m in the video, but as far as I know: An IR is more than an EQ curve... To keep it simple, FR responds to the balance of frequencies, while an IR also adds information in the time domain. So sure, if you have an IR which is fairly 'clean' in terms of spectral decay, with just FR you might be able to get really close. But if your IR is 'poor' in CSD and will skew a signal more 'over time', that's not something you would be able to reproduce with just FR. So how close you would get to the IR using FR would be very highly dependent on the IR. Ex; room reflections, multiple mics, etc., will all generate artifacts which may be REALLY hard or impossible to reproduce. Just imagine an IR has having somewhat of an 'reverb' built-in, that's basically the difference between IR/FR; the time domain. From wiki: "of a dynamic system is its output when presented with a brief input signal, called an impulse. More generally, an impulse response is the reaction of any dynamic system in response to some external change. In both cases, the impulse response describes the reaction of the system as a function of time (or possibly as a function of some other independent variable that parameterizes the dynamic behavior of the system)."

[@literalghost929]

To put it in different terms, compare a FR graph to a CSD/waterfall & spectrum. The IR is to the CSD/waterfall & spectrum graph what an EQ is to the FR graph.

[@JasonSadites]

Yes I completely agree with everything you say here, which is why I state clearly in the video "with the way IRs are implemented in the Helix" which are far to short to notice any of the things that you mention above.

[@literalghost929]

@@JasonSadites Oooh so then the Helix/Go's implementation isn't like a true or accurate IR implementation? Interesting....! To my ears, with the Go, I thought I could hear different sound 'character' (other than FR) given a certain mic/cab/IR. But it could have very well be placebo. I'm watching your previous Helix vs IR video, looking forward to seeing your test results! :D

[@JasonSadites]

In my understanding, an IR 2048 block in the Helix truncates the length of the impulse response files down to 42ms at 48khz, even if they are longer to begin with. Far to short for any "reverb" parts of the sound to come through. That is why I made the statement about how it is implemented in the Helix :-)

[@emanuelmedina6654]

For me, the eq match sound better because when i use IR they sound lifeless and phase ish, i ve tested this method with guitar stems of periphery song "lune" and the eq match works better because it sounds concrete and with the same fizz as those guutar stems

[@gabrielantequera7654]

How would you add the time element of an ir to the eq curve? Great vid!

[@florianju5638]

I don't think you understand correctly. There is no time element in any IR *when you here it*. There is while you create the IR curve. You then apply that static curve to a sound.

[@ChasingJordanK]

Really like this series of videos. I wonder how far eq can go in the signal chain to shape the sound, i.e. pickup emulation and amp emulation. Can the response of everything be emulated through eq?

[@therainensemblemusic231]

Of course, not. Even IR's cannot be represented by EQ, because IR is a time-based thing. Also, you can't alter harmonic content with EQ, so you can't do pickups, amps, pedals etc. With EQ you can only change balance between what's already there (see how Jason cut High frequencies of amp sound, without really adding anything, just gentle rebalance). If DI guitar signal doesn't have enough harmonics, you can't add them with eq, you need saturation (most of the times in form of an Amp)

[@Rake5k]

Static changes yes. Dynamic changes no. As Jason also explained in this video: amps react dynamically to the signal: eg more input volume increase distortion. So a static eq cannot replicate it's behaviour. I'd think different pickups' characteristics are mostly static so an eq could quite accurately emulate them. That's a guess, I didn't do any research. Also an eq cannot restore what's lost. Eg if your pickup cuts lows then those entirely cut cannot be restored and those mostly cut will have a lower signal-to-noise ratio = more noise when you boost them with eq.

[@literalghost929]

@@Rake5k I don't think standard IRs go as far as capture dynamic behavior; as in; at volume 5 it sounds like this, and at volume 10 it sounds like that. I think it's just at medium level, the IR captures that sound. If you wanted to capture what the amp sounds like it's maxed, then you would need a distinct IR for that. But the original point is that the particular way a speaker distorts will not be 'captured' by an EQ. If it changes the FR sure, but if let's say at 60hz the driver had 10% distortion, the EQ could not reproduce this distortion. The same thing if the driver adds harmonics given a certain tone, I don't think an EQ could capture it, I mean, imagine if when you play a 600Hz the speaker driver resonates at 1200hz or whatever; the IR would catch it, while the EQ would likely just boost the 1200Hz frequency all the time.

[@gangrenebob7281]

Is there a handful of IR's you like to use somewhere in any of the videos? I'd be game to try a few out compared to stock cabs I use.

[@JasonSadites]

Hey Scott, I pretty much never use 3rd party IRs in my presets, as I have never found the need personally.

[@picksalot1]

Very interesting and informative series of videos. I would welcome an EQ Match feature inside of Helix to make tone matching simpler when using dissimilar gear (guitars, amps, cabs, mics, etc.). I sometimes feel paralyzed by having so many "equipment and setting" choices. Thanks Jason for doing all the heavy lifting. 👍 I haven't used IRs on my HX Stomp, but I'm wondering now if they might be a good way to to emulate the different "EQ Curves" associated with different types of pickups. So for instance, could I create/use IRs to convert the way that a single coil pickup sounds into the way a PAF Humbucker sounds and vice-versa?

[@fedest]

I seem to remember there are some IRs around attempting that kind of stuff. There are also IRs trying to emulate the natural resonance of acoustic guitars, so it's certainly not only cabs. If you are interested, there's also a pedal, "Sim1", that does exactly that. Problably technology based on IRs but a bit more sophisticated, it first has to "learn" your guitars' PUs to then morph their sound into the target guitar. I only tried it for a couple of minutes with headphones at a trade show, but was very impressed with hearing a strat sound from a Les Paul w/o coil splits.

[@picksalot1]

@@fedest Cool, thanks for letting me know about that.

[@waynejames2014]

Funny that, after buying many branded IRS I ended up with a custom IR created for a custom artist preset that remains nameless.

[@literalghost929]

15:45 Actually I think you can hear the difference between the EQ and the IR: The EQ does sound 'flatter', that is, spatially; 3d. With speakers, the IR will have more depth; This is probably as I had mentioned the time domain effect from the IR (FR=frequencies, IR = FR + time/CSD). The speaker driver isn't perfect, so if it had to play; 0, 1, 0, 1; it would probably more end up playing something like 0, .9, .1, .9. Meaning the 'natural reverb' I was speaking about previously (note decay) , ends up just adding 'weight', or depth to the sound: Also, it should smooth over the sound (note attack + note decay), but I can't say that I was really hearing it as being smoother in this clip.. It would also explain why you had trouble correcting the high end. A guitar speaker will behave differently, especially in the high frequencies which is typically handled by tweeters. Having a big driver having to reproduce the high end will make a 'tink'! sound a lot like a 'dink'; as it cannot move fast enough back and forth the 10,000 times a second it needs to reproduce the sound perfectly, because it has too much mass. So it doesn't just end up playing those frequencies less loud; it really changes its characteristics, which is something that can't really really accurately be done via just EQ. Not entirely sure why/how it worked running the EQ a 2nd time, but the fact that you could hear more differences in the high end is just the nature of the IR vs EQ. If your clip had more high registers (ex; playing clean using the upper part of fretboard), it's likely that it would have sounded more different; and again, the worse the speaker driver, the more difference you would hear vs just EQ.

[@HotRats73]

I was thinking that even if the purpose of your videos about this topic is clear, calling an IR a complex/detailed EQ curve is not totally correct because IRs are not static EQs, they evolve over time. they have a "tail" if you will. the EQ curve evolve during the duration of the IR length. that's why is possible to create reverbs with IRs.

[@JasonSadites]

That is completely correct. Which is why I specifically stated in the video "with the way it is implemented in the Helix" meaning the Helix truncates the IR to approx. 42 ms at 48khz at the longest, so not going to be reverb going on there. An eq and an IR function very different, but with the way it is used in the Helix it is basically going to act as a VERY detailed eq. But I do agree with what you say here :-)

[@johnbowman3630]

So this vids a bit old, but I'm gonna have to dissent a bit here Jason; what you are saying is _perceptually_ true, ie not much audible difference, but that is only with short decay times. As the IR length increases, what you are saying becomes less and less true as cab-convolution contains more room and less direct amp sound, and the 'decay' of that signal stretches into the audible range. But yeah at 20ms close-miked IR times, EQ-match away :D

[@JasonSadites]

This video was solely talking about how IRs are implemented in the Helix. It goes without saying that as they get longer it would be different. But this video was not talking about that.

[@johnbowman3630]

@@JasonSadites Well to me and you it might go without saying, but there are a LOT of people on all kinds of forums who are applying the argument in your video to all IRs in general, in fact I just had one link me this video. As one more point of interest, I've participated in/witnessed A/B tests on TGP where the IRs _below_ 20ms were spotted as sonically inferior by a lot of participants, so if that frequency snapshot is accurate enough, why is a 10-15 ms .wav inferior to a 20ms one? This is a genuine question; something in the 'sizzle' definitely starts to go missing in the 2-5k range there with broken up tones, to my ears anyway. Anyways, if it sounds good it is good, etc. etc. etc. I dig your playing man, keep rockin'.

[@StratsRUs]

This is getting to Monty Python levels of 'silliness'. '' You are ALL individuals !! '' _Voice from the crowd_ " I'm *not* "

[@JasonSadites]

Just out of curiosity, what is "silly" about the discussion?

[@desmusik]

great work mr myth buster!

[@rodas_guinea]

Thanks for putting it clearly, and getting rid of the fairytales placed by the gurus.

[@JimmyD718]

Really amazing! Great video. Thanks Jason.

[@JasonSadites]

Thanks so much Jimmy :-)

[@dutch2g]

IR is a frequency response over time, you can’t recreate that with only EQ. But for “direct” IR’s, a good frequency response would suffice.

[@JasonSadites]

That is why I stated clearly in the video "as they are implemented in the Helix".

[@aberuper9985]

@@JasonSadites Thanks for the series, this has me interested in diving into the stock cabs in my POD Go. Please elaborate how IR's are implemented differently in Helix than an standard IR loader plugin. If the Helix is fundamentally changing the IR by removing the time component, perhaps a follow-up video comparing these would be helpful. All the best!

[@intergalacticmatt3176]

Happy hockey playoffs! Who are you rooting for?

[@JasonSadites]

Thanks Matt!! LONG time Boston Bruins fan here. So far so good against the Caps, great series so far :-)

[@CaptainWhiteman7]

Hey Jason. Could this be done to change the tone of one guitar & pickup to sound like another guitar & pickup? I ask because I'd really like to bring only one guitar to a cover band gig but need position 5 strat tones for a few songs and humbuckers for the rest. I'm also interested in a better acoustic simulation perhaps using this method if you happen to want to dive into this further. I've heard people have gotten good results with Fractal's Tone Match. Can you show us how to do this for Helix without Variax?

[@sjsphotog]

Maybe a Variax is what you need

[@Zedacuequinha]

In my tests, they are not JUST detailed eq. Using eq Match in a Stock cab Really made them indistinguible to me. But they werent the same thing. Flipping the phase of one áudio didnt cause full cancellation

[@JasonSadites]

A proper understanding of null tests shows just because something is not a perfect null does not mean the sounds are audibly different. Null tests can be a tricky thing. If there is a perfect null, it means the two audio files are exactly the same. If there is not a perfect null, it sometimes does not mean that there is an audible difference between two files. In the case of the example in my video, a perfect null would not be achieved as the two files are not identical but that is beyond what I am trying to demonstrate here. So, again in the way IRs are implemented in the Helix they are simply acting as very detailed eq curves with no non-linear qualities. Hope that helps :-)

[@Zedacuequinha]

@@JasonSadites yes it helps! The IR files are wav and so there is a time component there .. i Guess it is just to short to notice. But i Wonder how much information is really lost in the helix When it truncates the file I loaded longer IR in the helix native and also in other loader (reaverb) that Handle higher durations and couldnt really tell the difference

[@400_billion_suns]

@@Zedacuequinha It's also important to point out that a perfect null requires perfect time alignment, down to the individual sample, and that is a tricky thing to achieve in many cases, where the tiniest differences in latency will prevent it.

[@jomamastool]

I think that it's all down to IRs costing money. It's the same idea that a 1000$ mic sounds better than a 300$ mic simply because it costs more when that just isn't the case. Everything is situational.

[@christianboddum8783]

Good one Jason!

[@JasonSadites]

Thanks :-)

[@zekerdoodle]

Bring back your artist series for helix. We’d love to hear some Zeppelin stuff. 😎

[@SadieBoxollie]

Thanks again!

[@claushillerupemborg7808]

I can just say - try 3 sigma DrZ 212 - and then try to EQ something that is close to as nice sounding with stock caps, with the regular EQ blocks... You do not have a chance... !!

[@JasonSadites]

Nobody ever said or even suggested that could be done. "Nice sounding" is very subjective and up to the person listening in the specific circumstance the tone is being used in. That being said I am sure that is an IR that was done very well :-)

[@claushillerupemborg7808]

@@JasonSadites And I did not say that anybody or you have said that... But the consequence of following your path or view in this matter, is, that I try dial in my absolute favorite sound with stock caps and EQs... I have tried,- I can't do it.. and I don't believe anybody can...

[@JasonSadites]

That is not "my path or view", in fact I am on record numerous times saying that if you have a favorite IR that works for you, that is exactly what you should use. So to say otherwise is a complete misrepresentation of what I said or believe. These videos are in response to the folks who say that "Helix Stock cabs suck" or that great results cannot be achieved with them. Nothing more nothing less. Your favorite sound is in fact just that, it is YOUR favorite sound. Others may disagree and think it sounds awful, so it is meaningless, other than to you. So making blanket statements that the stock cabs are no good, really doesn't do anybody any good.

[@claushillerupemborg7808]

@@JasonSadites OK.. lets leave it there:-) and thanks for great videos and sharing your knowledge...

[@JasonSadites]

My pleasure and glad you enjoy the videos! Have a great weekend :-)

[@adriandean6256]

Thank you

[@AA-ih6kt]

Shows me that tweaking is insane

[@JoePariseauMusic]

Why do people spend more time trying to prove each other wrong? Balance the scales ⚖ what can we all agree on? Awesome test Jason! 😊👍

[@therainensemblemusic231]

Actually, IRs are more than just static EQ. It represents how cab and room sound in every moment during IR's lenght. For example, firstly it produces low frequencies, and after that you hear high frequencies (this behaviour is not static, it is time-based). Of course, not everyone can hear that and there is not so much phase/time-based information in Helix IR's, however, we can't say that IRs are just static EQ.

[@JasonSadites]

While what you say here is very true and I agree completely the example I use here and how the Helix implements IRs, they are essentially reduced to applying a static eq curve to the preset which was easily shown in my audio examples in this video and the previous audio test I did. Going beyond discussing the implementation of how they are utilized in the Helix, which at best truncates an IR to approx. 42ms, just complicates matters for the points being discussed in these last videos, which is why I chose to keep the points simple for the sake of what is being discussed here.

[@Tmidiman]

I’m not sure why your so defensive of a companies IRs. If they aren’t good, they aren’t. Just go get some that you like. There are better burgers than McDs, do you need to defend it? Of course you can, but why not just go get a better burger?

[@JasonSadites]

Not sure where you got the idea I am defensive against any IRs. As I mentioned in this series of videos, everyone should use whatever works best for them. This series of videos was done in response to the folks who are very defensive of 3rd party IRs and that they are an absolute necessity for the Helix to sound good. You should ask your questions about burgers to those folks. And what exactly is a "better" burger? Would that not be subjective?

[@intergalacticmatt3176]

Outstanding video and Science-based approach. I understand the aspect of intelligent conversation to further discussions down a rabbit hole but It’s also super satisfying to just ban or block the butt hurt trolls!

[@JasonSadites]

Thank you so much :-) Unfortunately it does come to just having to block these folks...