Suhr RL: too scooped and boomy, which RL next?

[DECEMBER]

I'm trying to devise a way to silently record my Mark V:90, but I haven't liked any of the many IRs, cab sims, and modelers I've tried. So I recently created IRs of my speakers and mics. Loaded in the TwoNotes Wall of Sound plugin in the DAW, running the FX send to the interface, it actually sounds pretty close to my speakers, but it's lacking the openness of the midrange and is a tad darker/less sharp, like softer edges, ‘fluffy’, which doesn't really work for high gain chuggy stuff.
So I started thinking that a reactive load would get it closer to the sound of the real speakers. The Suhr RL appears to be favored by the majority, so I bought one… It makes it way too bass-heavy and really scoops the mids, which makes the harsh high end a lot more present. The result with my IRs sounds even less like my speakers than the FX send into the IRs.
I would like to be able to dial in my sound thru the speakers and have it translate to the IRs, to get close enough to the same sound that I don't have to change the EQ every time I switch between speakers and IRs. I live in an apartment and would like to be able work thru the night and be satisfied enough with the IRs to just use them all the time, so I don't have to subject my neighbors to me playing repetitive riffs while recording.
So… if the Suhr RL is NOT accurately conveying the sound, which load box will? Fractal X-Load? Fryette?
Thanks for any insight. I have 30 days to return this Suhr and I'd like to get a different RL box while I still have this one, so I can compare them.

 

[rarebitusa]

The Suhr RL appears to be favored by the majority, so I bought one… It makes it way too bass-heavy and really scoops the mids, which makes the harsh high end a lot more present. The result with my IRs sounds even less like my speakers than the FX send into the IRs.

FWIW been down this rabbit hole a bit. Started off, years ago, just wanting to crank the amp's power section to get some tube warmth at low vols. My buddy had an old (vintage) Powersoak resistive attn, well that was just a blanket. Then forked for a basic Captor, WOS, etc. Reactive is better, right? All these great vids. Sheesh The Captor with it's -20db atten and a cab was tonally as you describe. Didn't matter which amp. Found out the Captor was presenting an impedance mismatch to the power section which lead to clipping and other issues. Of course the raw DI out of a silent load needs filtering or some sort of speaker emulator, but even with the WOS slapped on top of the raw DI track it just wasn't happening for me.

thought about chucking it and getting something else but dug into the reasons why did it sound that way. Started tinkering.

Some of this was the fact that the Captor's load design doesn't actually model a 2nd order reactive load. Did some circuit modeling (SPICE) and ended up modifying the Captor hardware... it actually got much better. Also found that using the Slave Out and then reamping into a 2nd amp fx return at a low volume finally produced an acceptable low vol tone. But the caveat was finding that sweet spot of amp settings with the load, ie: using a power output selection tube (90W, 45W, 10W) and output impedance (4 or 8 ohms), master vol. It just didn't work with any and all amp configs. Decending down the rabbit hole further I built a custom "Speaker Cab Emulator" pedal that now hangs off of the Slave Out and provides a decent enough tone for real time monitoring for tracking. Then use the WOS on the tracks after.

BTW I do not recommend doing any of this LOL... many more solutions have presented themselves recently. Just one player's opinion but I currently believe that the best fundamental solution is reamping. The Freyette or the Waza basically do that.

Maybe you can try using the slave out of the V with the Suhr load and back into the Carvin PA at low vol and see if that gives you any different results.

 

[incertracing]

I don't find the Suhr scooped at all, in fact I find it. has more mids than the captor. I find it to be quite close to the actual amp. May I suggest trying different IR's and a different IR loader. What are you using atm?

 

[CoG]

Never use what you hear in the room as a reference when you're recording, even when you're mic'ing amps. Only what's in your monitors or your cans. This is your core problem, not that the load box isn't transparent enough.

Re-amping is a good solution because allows the guitarist to play with a tone that lets them nail the performance (usually with way too much gain and lower mids) that the engineer is not then stuck trying to mix.

 

[DECEMBER]

Never use what you hear in the room as a reference when you're recording, even when you're mic'ing amps. Only what's in your monitors or your cans. This is your core problem, not that the load box isn't transparent enough.

Re-amping is a good solution because allows the guitarist to play with a tone that lets them nail the performance (usually with way too much gain and lower mids) that the engineer is not then stuck trying to mix.

I know the sound of the amp in the room sounds nothing like it does thru mics. I monitor the mics thru headphones while I dial in everything and I'm trying to get a direct thru IR sound to match the mic'd speaker sound. The IRs are of my speakers recorded with the same mics.

 

[DECEMBER]

I don't find the Suhr scooped at all, in fact I find it. has more mids than the captor. I find it to be quite close to the actual amp. May I suggest trying different IR's and a different IR loader. What are you using atm?

I made the IRs of my speakers with the same mics I record them with. I run them flat in the Wall of Sound plugin, no EQ, no power amp sim. I've demoed every single IR available to buy from Two Notes and none of them were usable to me. I've had a few floor modelers/multi-FX, a couple analog cab sims, 2 modeling amps, and a couple other amp/cab sim plugins... I couldn't stand any of them and could never understand how so many people could be satisfied with them.
These IRs I've made of my speakers are the first that are giving me a sound I would actually be ok with using in a song that I would share online. I prefer the mics/speakers but I'm in an apartment and I do better work late at night. I have a complex 3-amp, 5-speaker, 9-mic stereo wet/dry/wet rig with close to 30 pedals, 2 rack units, and several splitters and switches for changing routing without unplugging anything. There's a 10 band parametric EQ in the loop that took me months to dial in, so I don't want to ever change it. I've recreated the mic/speaker config with IRs (4 wet stereo pairs [2 vertical 2x12s w/2 mics/speaker] and 1 dry center [1x10 w/1 mic]). I'm trying to get the IR sound close enough to the mic'd speaker sound so I don't have to change any EQ every time I switch between them.
But running the FX loop signal to the IRs is sounding closer to the real thing than running the load box output to the IRs. It's a much bassier and mid-scooped sound, while the FX send-> IRs has much more of the midrange I get from the speakers. It's a Mark V, so the only variable settings that affect just the power amp are the Presence knobs. I would think the voicing of the power amp is causing it, but that's not how it sounds thru the speakers.

 

[rarebitusa]

But running the FX loop signal to the IRs is sounding closer to the real thing than running the load box output to the IRs. It's a much bassier and mid-scooped sound, while the FX send-> IRs has much more of the midrange I get from the speakers. It's a Mark V, so the only variable settings that affect just the power amp are the Presence knobs. I would think the voicing of the power amp is causing it, but that's not how it sounds thru the speakers.

Curious what power arrangement are you running 90-45-10, rect or diode, assuming 6L6s?

 

[DECEMBER]

Curious what power arrangement are you running 90-45-10, rect or diode, assuming 6L6s?

JJ 6L6GC, 45W on all channels, pentode on ch3, tube on ch1&2. I measured the IRs with the presence at 0 and I made 4 each of each speaker/mic pair: one thru ch3 pentode, one triode, and one thru ch2 tube, one diode. Not much difference but the ch3 IRs have a tad more midrange, so I've been using the pentode IRs (ch3 on pentode is mostly what I use for high gain, anyway).
I was thinking that because I measured the IRs thru the Mark V power amp, that using a RL could be doubling the power amp voice/influence, possibly adding to the bassy/scooped sound, so I measured more IRs thru the solid-state power amp of the Line 6 Flextone III XL, same speakers/mics, but these are sounding really thin.
And I measured a set of IRs thru the Carvin V3 power amp, but they sound kinda muddy and just generally wonky.
The ideal IR would be somewhere between the Mark V and Line 6 measured IRs, and with a bit more midrange presence/clarity.
I guess I could try importing the IR audio files into the DAW, EQ them, then export new files... it's just so much work.

 

[CoG]

I know the sound of the amp in the room sounds nothing like it does thru mics. I monitor the mics thru headphones while I dial in everything and I'm trying to get a direct thru IR sound to match the mic'd speaker sound. The IRs are of my speakers recorded with the same mics.

That's a pretty tall order tbh. I was trying to do the same thing a few years ago and it led me to just give up on mic'ing cabs myself or capturing my own IRs. A couple good commercial IRs for cabs that I know I like to record with and I know how to EQ gave me consistent results for like 1/8 the effort of trying to dial in mic'd cabs when I don't have a true iso room for them.

The other thing I started doing was just recording the load box signal and running the IRs in the DAW instead of in the load box. Gives you waaaay more options for mixing for a lot less effort than actual reamping and it avoids the trap of falling in love with a tone before you start trying to mix it.

This is also probably not the right board. I would suggest asking on TGP - don't describe/defend what you've done already, just describe what you're trying to do "I want to be able to get the same tones from my mic'd setup and an IR setup, here's my outboard gear and my preferred DAW" and see what solutions other people have come up with.

 

[DECEMBER]

That's a pretty tall order tbh. I was trying to do the same thing a few years ago and it led me to just give up on mic'ing cabs myself or capturing my own IRs. A couple good commercial IRs for cabs that I know I like to record with and I know how to EQ gave me consistent results for like 1/8 the effort of trying to dial in mic'd cabs when I don't have a true iso room for them.

The other thing I started doing was just recording the load box signal and running the IRs in the DAW instead of in the load box. Gives you waaaay more options for mixing for a lot less effort than actual reamping and it avoids the trap of falling in love with a tone before you start trying to mix it.

This is also probably not the right board. I would suggest asking on TGP - don't describe/defend what you've done already, just describe what you're trying to do "I want to be able to get the same tones from my mic'd setup and an IR setup, here's my outboard gear and my preferred DAW" and see what solutions other people have come up with.

IRs are in the WoS plugin in the DAW. RL isn't an IR version. I've tried a bunch of IRs, modelers, and analog cab sims and couldn't stand any of them. These ones I've made are the first that give me a sound I would actually use in a finished song that I would share publicly. I just wish I could get it to sound closer to the speakers because I'm just burned out on dialing in EQ and such. I was homeless for 3 years and lost all my original instruments and recording gear, didn't have a guitar again for 9 years. Started building up a studio again in 2021 and I've just been struggling with cheap gear ever since. I keep getting another amp or pedal or ______, and recording the same 5 songs, and it's just never sounded acceptable to me. I finally gave up on 20W tube amps after the 4th disappointment and splurged on the Mark V. Now I'm finally getting recordings that sound the way they're supposed to. But having to force myself to work in the daytime is dragging me down. I've always been naturally most alive and creative late at night. I play better and that's when new stuff comes to me. I can record all the guitar parts for one song in a few hours at night, but working in the daytime, it can take a week of 6 hour days to get it down. And I have to compromise on volume, so I'm not getting the best sound I could from the speakers.
I've been looking for a usable silent recording solution for a long time, I just really want to make these IRs work well enough so that I don't have to worry about having to get as much done as I can before 9pm.

 

[incertracing]

I made the IRs of my speakers with the same mics I record them with. I run them flat in the Wall of Sound plugin, no EQ, no power amp sim. I've demoed every single IR available to buy from Two Notes and none of them were usable to me. I've had a few floor modelers/multi-FX, a couple analog cab sims, 2 modeling amps, and a couple other amp/cab sim plugins... I couldn't stand any of them and could never understand how so many people could be satisfied with them.
These IRs I've made of my speakers are the first that are giving me a sound I would actually be ok with using in a song that I would share online. I prefer the mics/speakers but I'm in an apartment and I do better work late at night. I have a complex 3-amp, 5-speaker, 9-mic stereo wet/dry/wet rig with close to 30 pedals, 2 rack units, and several splitters and switches for changing routing without unplugging anything. There's a 10 band parametric EQ in the loop that took me months to dial in, so I don't want to ever change it. I've recreated the mic/speaker config with IRs (4 wet stereo pairs [2 vertical 2x12s w/2 mics/speaker] and 1 dry center [1x10 w/1 mic]). I'm trying to get the IR sound close enough to the mic'd speaker sound so I don't have to change any EQ every time I switch between them.
But running the FX loop signal to the IRs is sounding closer to the real thing than running the load box output to the IRs. It's a much bassier and mid-scooped sound, while the FX send-> IRs has much more of the midrange I get from the speakers. It's a Mark V, so the only variable settings that affect just the power amp are the Presence knobs. I would think the voicing of the power amp is causing it, but that's not how it sounds thru the speakers.

The Mark series 5 band eq (as im sure you know) is post pre amp and is affecting the power section so maybe play with that eq a bit and see if maybe you can dial to taste and it gets u closer. I. have. not had much luck with WOS and two nots IRS tbh, I find them very scooped and dark. and boomy at times. My suggestion would be to try the load box with ownhammer irs and a diff IR loader.

 

[DECEMBER]

The Mark series 5 band eq (as im sure you know) is post pre amp and is affecting the power section so maybe play with that eq a bit and see if maybe you can dial to taste and it gets u closer. I. have. not had much luck with WOS and two nots IRS tbh, I find them very scooped and dark. and boomy at times. My suggestion would be to try the load box with ownhammer irs and a diff IR loader.

The Mark's EQ is before the FX send, so it doesn't affect the sine sweep going into the FX return when measuring IRs. Though I still bypass the EQ and put presence to 0 so I get as flat a reading as possible. I made some IRs with the sweep going thru my parametric EQ and those aren't good.
Yeah, I demoed literally every IR available to buy thru the WoS plugin. I can't stand any of them. Boomy, boxy, very digital and harsh sounding high end... Couldn't get down with any IRs, modelers, or analog cab sims I've tried. But the IRs I made of my speakers are actually working out. Loaded into WoS with EQ and power amp sim byoassed is getting really close to the real mic'd speaker sound. Wanting it to be close enough that I didn't have to dial in new EQ presets is probably too much to ask. Digital can never exactly replicate analog sound.

 

[DECEMBER]

So I just ordered a Fractal X-Load and have been working with the Suhr RL all week, doing comparisons... Into my IRs, the SRL sounds exactly the same as the slave out on the Mark V.
But I've noticed that they sound very different if a speaker is connected to the Thru on the SRL, compared to using the internal load. And different speakers make the DI sound different.
The scooped mids and boomy bass is definitely a result of the Suhr's internal load. When a speaker is connected, the DI->IRs sounds a lot more like the mic'd speakers do, more open and present in the mids and the bass isn't boosted.
But having a speaker connected defeats the purpose, which is to do silent recording after midnight in an apartment. And the slave out can't be used silently, either, unless you put a load in place of the speaker...
I hope the two voicings on the X-Load can get me closer to the way it sounds when a speaker is connected to the Thru.
What about just using an actual speaker and taking the cone out of it? Wouldn't that essentially become a silent load?
The cheapest basic load box I could get to just replace the speaker so I could use the slave out silently is the Julius Music Box Amp Pad for $97, and it's just a coiled wire and heat sink in a box. I could just get a used V30 for ~$100 and tear out the cone... That would work, right?