Well just in case you hadn't heard, the C55 Beta Firmware was released for the Digitech GSP1101 on http://www.mustbebeta.com/. If you haven't tried the beta firmware yet, DO IT. It adds so many features to the GSP1101. Stan, as he calls himself, has been a lifesaver to the GSP1101 and I hope that Digitech takes notice of how customer service and product support should work.
There have been tons of additional features. The C48 and previous added a 5150 model for high gain, plus a bunch others. C55 adds more flexible routing like a compressor in the loop, pre/post FX, etc.
The most notable new feature is the ability to load up to 10 Impulse Response cabinets. Personally I feel the stock cabinet modeling is the weakness of most modelers, GSP1101 included.
The downside to the GSP1101 Impulse Response loading is that it can only load the first 128 "taps" due to memory restrictions. This test is to see how much it affects the tone.
The Impulse I used is one I made with my ENGL Powerball for the Impulse vs. Mic Test. But to put things into perspective, I also used S-PresHigh by Catharsis. Then to test the modeling, I also ran the Nick Crow 8505 through both impulses.
Guitar is a Schecter A-7 7-String with Seymour Duncan Jazz Pickups Reamped through an Edcor Transformer. DI was cut with my LineDriver/Buffer box.
Drums are Steven Slate, Bass is a Lakland through Guitar Rig 4 and a limiter. Master bus has T-Racks Linear Phase EQ just rolling off the rumbly low end and then Steven Slate's FG-X for level.
Guitars have ZERO PROCESSING on them. These are just raw, lots of issues of course with low end rumble and high end fizz. For impulses a high and low-pass are essential, but I wanted to give the raw sound. I did do my best to match levels.
The GSP1101 settings are an 808 low drive, high volume, tone around 70% into the 5150II model set flat with gain around 70%.
Nick Crow 8505 Settings are Flat with gain around 70% with BTE's TS Secret boosting with the same settings as the GSP1101.
Impulse was made with an ENGL Powerball into and ENGL V412 with Celestion Vintage 30's. Single SM57 through an ACMP-73 chinese N*eve clone.
GSP1101 -> Powerball Impulse 128 Taps into GSP1101
GSP1101 -> Powerball Impulse using LeCab
GSP1101 -> Catharsis S-PresHigh using LeCab
Nick Crow 8505 -> Catharsis S-PresHigh using LeCab
Nick Crow 8505 -> Powerball Impulse using LeCab
GSP1101 -> Vintage 4x12 Stock Cab Sim
FULL BAND CLIP:
GUITARS ONLY:
Obviously some big differences! It is almost like GSP1101 is tuned for the Powerball Impulses and the 8505 for the Catharsis ones.
I tried other impulses from Catharsis, Alu, and Recabinet loaded into the GSP1101. They sounded really hollow and generally bad. I didn't spend a ton of time with it, but that is definitely something to consider. I bet it has something to do with the length or the impulses not being cut at zero. But I do like the improvement of sound with my own, which is what I care about.
Right now, the GSP1101 will continue to be in my Live Rig since I think it sounds great there. Been GAS'ing for an AxeFX, but the price just scares me. I like the processors for live work and for writing scratch tracks, but it would be sweet to have keeper tracks or at least better sounding tracks.
I have always been a fan of modelers and hope that the next generation will be better than the last. It is a great theory, a whole room of amps and FX in a single software package or device. The problem is that they sound usable at best. Tube amps just dominate in so many ways.
However, the tube amps are large and heavy, require expensive maintenance, and are just a pain all the way around. Not to mention they are comparatively much more expensive even with offshore manufacturing closing the gap. Also in the studio (and even live) they are incredibly inconvenient. In order to sound good they must be loud and mic'd properly in a good room. Modelers can sound their best completely direct.
The reason I still support modeling is that I can record at anytime and anywhere with a laptop and USB interface. Also when mixing, a badly mic'd or improperly dialed amp can sound horrible. Or you need a specific tone that you don't have or don't have the time to mic, a modeler can be just the ticket.
Anyway I personally think one of the biggest breakthroughs and a weakness with modeling has been impulse responses of speaker cabinets. Essentially it is a sine sweep sampling. Do some searches and you will find that there are lots of links and discussion and packs for sale.
They sound very good, especially compared to other speaker simulation techniques, but they still lack something. Many say they don't breathe, that they are static and not 3D sounding. The problem is that most people don't really have the time to do a proper shoot out. Then using 3rd party impulses is a crap shoot since there is no way for you to compare with the real mic counterparts.
With free individual impulses it is often frustrating since there are so many out there of varying quality. Then with packs for sale or free, they have positions and combinations and such, but sometimes positions even down to a 1/2" is not enough. Millimeters in any direction or angle can have rather large effect on the tone.
But even for myself I have never done a proper shootout properly isolating all the variables... until now.
Testing Procedure
The goal here is to isolate everything but the speaker cabinet vs. impulse. So I mic'd up an ENGL 4x12 Pro (Celestion Vintage 30 speakers) with a single SM57. It is roughly at the edge of the cap where the cone starts, maybe 5mm more on the cone side. Straight on and about 1 inch from the grill.
The amp is an ENGL Powerball. The impulse was generated via the ENGL Powerball FX return. Master volume: 9:00, Depth Punch: 11:30, Presence 2:30. Sine Sweep and Deconvolved with Voxengo's Deconvolver 12-Seconds at 32-bit float 44.1khz.
Preamp is a TNC-73 Chinese Neve Clone from a group buy. They are similar to a Chameleon Labs. I had it set to low impedance and driving the it a little hard with the output rolled back.
DI's were cut with a Schecter A-7 7-string (mahogany body, maple neck, rosewood fretboard) , bridge pickup, Seymour Duncan JB7, tuned to standard with low B. DI was an EWI LDB-1 into a Behringer ADA8000 modded with BB OPA4134 clocked via a DBX Quantum mastering processor.
Re-amping was done via a DIY Jensen style Re-amping interface with an Edcor WSM 10k:10k.
The reamping was done with all the same settings through the mic'd cab. Then again but capturing the signal from the pre-amp and run through the impulse of the mic'd cab set-up loaded up in Poulin's LeCab, no high pass or low-pass filters. All variables isolated except the cab/poweramp combination and speaker impulse.
Results
Each clip has 4-bars of 3 riffs double tracked on their own, then in a mix. Peak levels matched then adjusted slightly by ear.
Interestingly I am having a hard time hearing a difference on my Roland MA-8's that are in my office. But in the studio the first thing that popped out was a increased high-end/upper mid-range and just sort of lacked depth and was just grindy.
From another perspective the Mic'd cab could be described as wooly and muddy and warm and distant. The Impulse being more clear and in your face. Plus people tend to like more high-end just like they like things louder and perceive distortion as being louder.
So to help minimize this perspective, I added a high-shelf to the Mic'd cab:
ENGL Powerball Real Cab and SM57 with a High Shelf
Oh how the plot thickens! Now the Mic'd cab to me has more buzz, but it has a crunch and a grind to it with a 3D-ness. The impulse sounds 2D and lacks depth, just something unpleasant.
So how do we add depth? Well besides EQing with the rest of the mix and using mids to move instruments, how about reverb? In this case the impulse should have grabbed the room as well. But maybe without the percussive nature of the sine sweep, we need a separate room impulse. So I threw on Cubase's REVerence with the default Studio Room Sample and blended to taste.
ENGL Powerball Impulse with REVerence
Future Tests
At this point it would be time for a blind test, and that will probably be for another time. My opinion is that you could work with this. To send this out blind without some "training" like this, it would be a total crap shoot, you can hear differences, but which is better? Which is the cab vs. the impulse. Maybe some new riffs and testing is in order.
Also I would like to take some modelers, plugins and hardware and do the same tests. Through a cab and then through an impulse of the same setup. Maybe with some forum support, this can happen. Although I will likely have to start over with a new impulse since I can't leave my cab mic'd up into eternity.
Other Arguments
One could argue that the tone is bad to begin with so it is impossible to make a fair judgement. Well that may be true, but that isn't the point, it is relative to each other. Also the playing is so bad... well yeah. I focused on what I do, lots of chunk, some thrash, and some diminished chords, I mean at some point every engineer should do their own tests and come up with their own conclusions.
With one mic (SM57) on the Powerball it is a careful balance. Usually I need to two mics, one getting mud and beef and a condenser for the highs. With a single 57 fizz is a problem, so I minimized that. But it is a bit muddy. Plus it needs some EQ as well. AKA. Mudball in some parts.
PHASE: Personally I could hear a big difference between the two on my monitors RAW, so I didn't try too hard to flip the phase. Once you get into processing, things get out of control. You can try on your own though since the guitars are panned hard left and right. But consider that there is a time delay between the speaker and the mic vs. the impulse. So you will have to compensate. Then you will want a frequency aware phase adjuster because of the time shift. Then since they are different takes, there will be some inherent clock skew which will give an exaggerated amount of left-over that will change over time. So go by the lowest amount.
At least for me this answers a BIG question: Are impulses a waste of time? I really wasn't sure. At this point I don't think they are, they are very close and definitely usable. Especially to the point where the average listener probably won't notice or care.
That being said I would probably still elect to mic a cab given the option.
I just recently bought a Presonus Digimax FS. I have been happy with results Ty (Studio Evil) and I are getting with Presonus gear. My hope was to use the clock and the better pre's for drums and some general use. Mainly to put my Behringer ADA8000 on a further backburner.
Now my MOTU mk3 is pretty decent. It was a significant upgrade in sound and features compared to my MOTU mKII. But I had read that MOTU's clocks aren't that great. I personally have never had a problem, but people buy Big Ben Clocks and such for a reason. The Digimax FS clock according to several reviews is supposed to be pretty good. They are using JetPLL which is now used in M-Audio and TC Electronic devices. I wouldn't be surprised if Digidesign started using it too.
Anyway upon attaching the Digimax with BNC and ADAT, I immediately noticed a difference in sound. And that was just playback. So I decided to do a shootout.
I used my cheap acoustic guitar miced with basically a DIY Panasonic WM-61A microphone in a Behringer ECM8000 body. Essentially flat. It was placed at the 14th fret angled towards the soundhole.
Unfortunately these are different takes. So take that into consideration. But I think performance aside you can hear some definite differences in tonality. And it is pretty consistent between the different clocks and preamps. In my own testing, I did do performances multiple times to make sure that my opinions were the same and not dependent on performance and probably some slight changes in sitting position.
While I was at it, I also used my Modded SMPro Audio PR8 (one channel modded with TI NE5532's and another with TI BurrBrown OPA2134's) and my Behringer ADA8000. The SMPro I only used the MOTU clock and converters.
I look forward to hearing your opinions. I can definitely hear differences, but I can't really make out which is better/worse. Maybe in a few weeks I will listen again, or randomize the tracks and see if I can pick them out blind.
Ok... Enough talk... here are the clips.
You can Right-Click to download any of the tracks.
