|
Post by Guitar on May 3, 2021 11:12:10 GMT -6
Ownhammer are my favorites, as well. About to buy the Revolution bundle as soon as I get the chance, haven't heard that one yet. Some of the Celestion IR's are good too, very direct sounding.
|
|
|
Post by LazyOldSun on May 3, 2021 11:30:24 GMT -6
If you are considering the Boss waza TAE you should check out the Fryette Power Station which I believe inspired the boss unit. The power station is tube rather than Solid state and is the best attentuator i’ve heard. It also has a reactive load for silent recording I like to record with mics at lower levels rather than IRs, but its nice to have both options.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on May 3, 2021 11:43:16 GMT -6
Yes, the IRs are created with different mics, angles, etc, so you browse through them and see what sounds good. I’ll have (usually) a 57 and a Royer 121 on two tracks, like I do when I mic an amp. I monitor the IRs with a Strymon Iridium, so no DAW buffer/latency. But the raw Suhr RL is what I actually record so that I can mess with the IRs as much as I want in the DAW. If I didn’t already have the Iridium, I’d have gotten the version of the Suhr that hosts IRs itself. I have pretty much the same set up after a lot of buying and selling other products. Suhr reactive IR, Ownhammers. I have the Suhr IR but sometimes I use the Iridium because I like the room sound. I don't often use it for actual recording but I find it much more pleasant for silent practicing, It's a little less in your face which is nice when playing hours on end with headphones. When recording I always record the IR and the unfiltered if I want to mess with other cabs in the computer. And I also thought it sounded much better than the OX for my tastes. It's one of the best guitar purchases I've ever made. Yeah I'm kind of the same way with the Iridium. I don't usually use it for keeper tracks (though I have) but I really like playing it. I just plug into my pedals/Iridium and mess around like I used to when I was younger. It gets me to play more electric guitar than anything else, and that nets me song ideas, which more than justifies its place in my studio.
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on May 3, 2021 12:20:02 GMT -6
Yes, the IRs are created with different mics, angles, etc, so you browse through them and see what sounds good. I’ll have (usually) a 57 and a Royer 121 on two tracks, like I do when I mic an amp. I monitor the IRs with a Strymon Iridium, so no DAW buffer/latency. But the raw Suhr RL is what I actually record so that I can mess with the IRs as much as I want in the DAW. If I didn’t already have the Iridium, I’d have gotten the version of the Suhr that hosts IRs itself. I have pretty much the same set up after a lot of buying and selling other products. Suhr reactive IR, Ownhammers. I have the Suhr IR but sometimes I use the Iridium because I like the room sound. I don't often use it for actual recording but I find it much more pleasant for silent practicing, It's a little less in your face which is nice when playing hours on end with headphones. When recording I always record the IR and the unfiltered if I want to mess with other cabs in the computer. And I also thought it sounded much better than the OX for my tastes. It's one of the best guitar purchases I've ever made. So you can record the IR out and the unfiltered in parallel on the Suhr? Are those TRS outs?
|
|
|
Post by bricejchandler on May 3, 2021 12:37:04 GMT -6
I have pretty much the same set up after a lot of buying and selling other products. Suhr reactive IR, Ownhammers. I have the Suhr IR but sometimes I use the Iridium because I like the room sound. I don't often use it for actual recording but I find it much more pleasant for silent practicing, It's a little less in your face which is nice when playing hours on end with headphones. When recording I always record the IR and the unfiltered if I want to mess with other cabs in the computer. And I also thought it sounded much better than the OX for my tastes. It's one of the best guitar purchases I've ever made. So you can record the IR out and the unfiltered in parallel on the Suhr? Are those TRS outs? Yes! You can see the back panel here at the bottom of the page www.suhr.com/electronics/tone-tools/reactive-load-ir/
|
|
|
Post by bricejchandler on May 3, 2021 12:39:10 GMT -6
Ownhammer are my favorites, as well. About to buy the Revolution bundle as soon as I get the chance, haven't heard that one yet. Some of the Celestion IR's are good too, very direct sounding. I've also used the Celestions. Some are great but they are very very dry a little too much for me. Nothing that can't be fixed but still, it means a little extra work after.
|
|
|
Post by Ned Ward on May 3, 2021 12:43:43 GMT -6
I'm looking at this as well, and actually avoiding the OX - will be either the Suhr Reactive load or the Torpedo Captor. Would rather have controls on the box or in Wall of sound on my computer than on my iPad.
One of the selling points of the Suhr after talking to them was that while its an 8 ohm box, it will work with my Princeton Reverb at 8 ohms and my 65 Fender Tremolux at 4 ohms without a problem. YMMV with the Ox, Katana and others with multiple impedance amps.
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on May 3, 2021 13:14:40 GMT -6
Thanks, I did see that but wanted to ask as I'd been wondering. (I have pres that have multiple outputs and one brand says OK to use in parallel while the other says it will load the signal improperly.)
|
|
|
Post by Quint on May 3, 2021 13:32:59 GMT -6
I really need to check out the Suhr Reactive Load. The question is, do I get the cheaper, Suhr Reactive Load non-IR version and just use it with my Torpedo C.A.B. for it's IRs, or get the more expensive Suhr Reactive Load IR version and just sell the Torpedo C.A.B.?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2021 13:53:51 GMT -6
I've got the original Suhr reactive (without IR) and if your interface is low latency (sub 5ms) then it's not an issue. Can't say I ever struggled with Amplitube back in the day on worse equipment..
|
|
|
Post by Quint on May 3, 2021 14:07:26 GMT -6
I've got the original Suhr reactive (without IR) and if your interface is low latency (sub 5ms) then it's not an issue. Can't say I ever struggled with Amplitube back in the day on worse equipment.. For tracking, at least, I'm all in on standalone boxes. At this point, I'm completely done with messing around with the computer and latency during tracking. So anything I might use has to load IRs independent of the computer, and has to use dedicated knobs to do so. Messing around with the computer, during tracking, is just a complete drag, for me anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2021 14:16:46 GMT -6
I've got the original Suhr reactive (without IR) and if your interface is low latency (sub 5ms) then it's not an issue. Can't say I ever struggled with Amplitube back in the day on worse equipment.. For tracking, at least, I'm all in on standalone boxes. At this point, I'm completely done with messing around with the computer and latency during tracking. So anything I might use has to load IRs independent of the computer, and has to use dedicated knobs to do so. Messing around with the computer, during tracking, is just a complete drag, for me anyway. Understood but I've only found latency an issue when doing overdubs (which is a none issue if you freeze your plugs), I'd still take the DI signal irrelevant so you can change or multiply cabs if needed. The IR portion for me would be monitoring only.. Personally I'd go Suhr all the way in whatever configuration you prefer then sell the rest (it's a great box).
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on May 3, 2021 14:18:55 GMT -6
So I've checked out the Suhr Reactive Load box and IR loader/player and it's a compact solution without an attenuator which I don't need. I've always been a bit confused by the OX and TAE for me as I'm spending money on an attenuator I don't need as I'm trying to achieve turning up my Princeton silently so to speak.
The Suhr seems to supply the two elements I need - Reactive Load - IR's for direct recording.
The bit I still can't work out - is where is the software for choosing mics etc?
Is it the case 3rd party IR's are a certain speaker with a certain mic and all that is then baked into the IR? This method seems less flexible than the TAE or OX which let you choose mics and cabs etc .... maybe I'm overlooking something here?
|
|
|
Post by bricejchandler on May 3, 2021 14:21:07 GMT -6
I've got the original Suhr reactive (without IR) and if your interface is low latency (sub 5ms) then it's not an issue. Can't say I ever struggled with Amplitube back in the day on worse equipment.. For tracking, at least, I'm all in on standalone boxes. At this point, I'm completely done with messing around with the computer and latency during tracking. So anything I might use has to load IRs independent of the computer, and has to use dedicated knobs to do so. Messing around with the computer, during tracking, is just a complete drag, for me anyway. Same here. My Suhr is always hooked up to the amp and then to a DI and preamp. I just turn the amp on and I'm recording right away. I personally would get the Suhr IR and sell the CAB, simpler setup. And for those hesitating between Two Notes and The Suhr Reactive. I tried both and to me the Suhr sounded way way better. But again I think you have to try these things in your own place as it really is amp dependent, some amps sound better through some loadboxes.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on May 3, 2021 14:25:32 GMT -6
So I've checked out the Suhr Reactive Load box and IR loader/player and it's a compact solution without an attenuator which I don't need. I've always been a bit confused by the OX and TAE for me as I'm spending money on an attenuator I don't need as I'm trying to achieve turning up my Princeton silently so to speak. The Suhr seems to supply the two elements I need - Reactive Load - IR's for direct recording. The bit I still can't work out - is where is the software for choosing mics etc? Is it the case 3rd party IR's are a certain speaker with a certain mic and all that is then baked into the IR? This method seems less flexible than the TAE or OX which let you choose mics and cabs etc .... maybe I'm overlooking something here? Once your raw, non-IR-convolved signal (even if you’re monitoring through IRs for performance) is captured in your DAW, you can use any IR host you’d like to try out various IRs. I use TH-U because I have it. If you want multiple mics, just duplicate the Suhr track (or have a couple armed from that same input whil tracking) and put whatever IR you want on each track and then mix like you would if you had multiple mic tracks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2021 14:25:34 GMT -6
The bit I still can't work out - is where is the software for choosing mics etc? Is it the case 3rd party IR's are a certain speaker with a certain mic and all that is then baked into the IR? This method seems less flexible than the TAE or OX which let you choose mics and cabs etc .... maybe I'm overlooking something here? When you buy IR's they come in multiple configurations, like 87 / 441 in centre position or 87/441 off centre. You scroll through them like presets and decide which one you like. It might be less flexible but there's only so many variations that are useful. You will need some sort of cab software plugin to house them initially, I believe I got mine free with some impulses (wasn't Ownhammer, RedWirez maybe?!).. After that upload your favourites to your IR / Load box and use the DI (IR) TRS out to record.
|
|
|
Post by bricejchandler on May 3, 2021 14:27:13 GMT -6
So I've checked out the Suhr Reactive Load box and IR loader/player and it's a compact solution without an attenuator which I don't need. I've always been a bit confused by the OX and TAE for me as I'm spending money on an attenuator I don't need as I'm trying to achieve turning up my Princeton silently so to speak. The Suhr seems to supply the two elements I need - Reactive Load - IR's for direct recording. The bit I still can't work out - is where is the software for choosing mics etc? Is it the case 3rd party IR's are a certain speaker with a certain mic and all that is then baked into the IR? This method seems less flexible than the TAE or OX which let you choose mics and cabs etc .... maybe I'm overlooking something here? You can't really like yoou can with the OX. You have to load ready made IRs, but most libraries give you many many placement options. But you have to decide which IRS you like best and then load them into the Suhr. You can't change things on the fly. In that way it is less flexible. If you're recording many different bands and amps, the OX probably would work better. But if you're like me and don't need a million options and sounds but a few really really good ones, it's great. I made IRs of my amps, with my mics and preamps in a studio I like, it's actually pretty fast and it sounds about as close to my setup as it can get.
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on May 3, 2021 14:29:11 GMT -6
Thanks guys!!
I get it - I think :-)
So I can monitor the IR part of the Suhr box for a latency free experience - record the DI part and then it's actually MORE flexible than the OX or TAE because I can post recording choose my IR's to apply to the DI signal.
Cool.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2021 14:32:24 GMT -6
Thanks guys!! I get it - I think :-) So I can monitor the IR part of the Suhr box for a latency free experience - record the DI part and then it's actually MORE flexible than the OX or TAE because I can post recording choose my IR's to apply to the DI signal. Cool. Spot on, I often blend tracks with different cabs post recording and the Suhr allows you to do this. Whether I record with a mic or not I still use the DI function of the Suhr just in case I prefer a different cab.. It's pretty cool.
|
|
|
Post by bricejchandler on May 3, 2021 14:36:34 GMT -6
Thanks guys!! I get it - I think :-) So I can monitor the IR part of the Suhr box for a latency free experience - record the DI part and then it's actually MORE flexible than the OX or TAE because I can post recording choose my IR's to apply to the DI signal. Cool. Spot on, I often blend tracks with different cabs post recording and the Suhr allows you to do this. Whether I record with a mic or not I still use the DI function of the Suhr just in case I prefer a different cab.. It's pretty cool. Yep. that's my workflow too.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on May 3, 2021 14:37:09 GMT -6
For tracking, at least, I'm all in on standalone boxes. At this point, I'm completely done with messing around with the computer and latency during tracking. So anything I might use has to load IRs independent of the computer, and has to use dedicated knobs to do so. Messing around with the computer, during tracking, is just a complete drag, for me anyway. Understood but I've only found latency an issue when doing overdubs (which is a none issue if you freeze your plugs), I'd still take the DI signal irrelevant so you can change or multiply cabs if needed. The IR portion for me would be monitoring only.. Personally I'd go Suhr all the way in whatever configuration you prefer then sell the rest (it's a great box). That's my point though. I don't want to EVER have to think about latency, early or late stage on a song. I don't want to freeze plugins or have to do other time wasting work arounds. I'm just done with all of that. Which is why I have standalone boxes for this sort of thing now. The Suhr RL sounds like another standalone box that I should give a try. It's great that these sort of products exist now. I do, however, always take a DI for reamping and what not.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on May 3, 2021 14:46:25 GMT -6
For tracking, at least, I'm all in on standalone boxes. At this point, I'm completely done with messing around with the computer and latency during tracking. So anything I might use has to load IRs independent of the computer, and has to use dedicated knobs to do so. Messing around with the computer, during tracking, is just a complete drag, for me anyway. Same here. My Suhr is always hooked up to the amp and then to a DI and preamp. I just turn the amp on and I'm recording right away. I personally would get the Suhr IR and sell the CAB, simpler setup. And for those hesitating between Two Notes and The Suhr Reactive. I tried both and to me the Suhr sounded way way better. But again I think you have to try these things in your own place as it really is amp dependent, some amps sound better through some loadboxes. I have the C.A.B. and an Iridium, but one thing I don't have is a reactive load. The one downside to selling the C.A.B. is that it accepts and sends line level signal, whereas the Suhr, by design, takes a much hotter signal, post power amp, but isn't designed to take lower level signal. I'll probably just have to try out both and then decide whether or not to sell the C.A.B. I would eventually like a reactive load box one way or the other.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on May 3, 2021 14:51:54 GMT -6
So I've checked out the Suhr Reactive Load box and IR loader/player and it's a compact solution without an attenuator which I don't need. I've always been a bit confused by the OX and TAE for me as I'm spending money on an attenuator I don't need as I'm trying to achieve turning up my Princeton silently so to speak. The Suhr seems to supply the two elements I need - Reactive Load - IR's for direct recording. The bit I still can't work out - is where is the software for choosing mics etc? Is it the case 3rd party IR's are a certain speaker with a certain mic and all that is then baked into the IR? This method seems less flexible than the TAE or OX which let you choose mics and cabs etc .... maybe I'm overlooking something here? Once your raw, non-IR-convolved signal (even if you’re monitoring through IRs for performance) is captured in your DAW, you can use any IR host you’d like to try out various IRs. I use TH-U because I have it. If you want multiple mics, just duplicate the Suhr track (or have a couple armed from that same input whil tracking) and put whatever IR you want on each track and then mix like you would if you had multiple mic tracks. Regardless of how the sound of the Suhr compares to others, the feature on the Suhr that really appeals to me is the non-IR convolved DI out. That's a really cool feature. I would totally use that to record the dry and wet IR signal into the DAW in parallel.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on May 3, 2021 14:57:34 GMT -6
Understood but I've only found latency an issue when doing overdubs (which is a none issue if you freeze your plugs), I'd still take the DI signal irrelevant so you can change or multiply cabs if needed. The IR portion for me would be monitoring only.. Personally I'd go Suhr all the way in whatever configuration you prefer then sell the rest (it's a great box). That's my point though. I don't want to EVER have to think about latency, early or late stage on a song. I don't want to freeze plugins or have to do other time wasting work arounds. I'm just done with all of that. Which is why I have standalone boxes for this sort of thing now. The Suhr RL sounds like another standalone box that I should give a try. It's great that these sort of products exist now. I do, however, always take a DI for reamping and what not. I am with you re: latency/standalone. I haven't touched native DAW monitoring in many years. I just hate even a few ms of latency. It doesn't have to sound like a slapback to bug me, it gets un-immediate and thin/phasey long before I can perceive it as 'latency'. Everyone has different sensitivities to these things though. But, like you, I won't muck around with trying to crank my DAW buffer way down. I have bus processing in my sessions from the beginning, some of which are HW inserts. Native DAW monitoring is a non-starter for me.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on May 3, 2021 14:59:50 GMT -6
Once your raw, non-IR-convolved signal (even if you’re monitoring through IRs for performance) is captured in your DAW, you can use any IR host you’d like to try out various IRs. I use TH-U because I have it. If you want multiple mics, just duplicate the Suhr track (or have a couple armed from that same input whil tracking) and put whatever IR you want on each track and then mix like you would if you had multiple mic tracks. Regardless of how the sound of the Suhr compares to others, the feature on the Suhr that really appeals to me is the non-IR convolved DI out. That's a really cool feature. I would totally use that to record the dry and wet IR signal into the DAW in parallel. Yeah for sure. If I didn't already have the Iridium (which I can use as a live IR host), I'd have gotten the Suhr RL IR version. I still might sometime.
|
|