Ox versus good cab IRs. Is there really a big difference?

[klong]

It's been a while since I sold my Ox, and I have not picked up a Stomp yet, but may.

For a while now, I've been running my guitars through regular IRs, then using various room and reverb sounds (including Sound City/Ocean Way/Capitol Chambers) and getting good results.

This "dynamic" speaker modeling that the Ox products have - has anyone done shootouts with all the room/reverbs/delays disabled to see how much of a difference it actually makes versus a high quality IR?

I would buy an Ox Stomp if it was really worth it versus what I'm doing in-the-box now, I'm just not sure if the extra gear and extra round of AD/DA conversion is worth it.

 

[Sam Guaiana]

Not really. It’s the reason I passed on the OX. The room verb and built in compression etc is nice, but it’s a lotttt of money for something a Suhr box, a few very high quality IRs, and Valhalla Room will reproduce just as well

 

[flandybob]

I haven’t compared extensively sonically (I used to have a load box + monitoring through IRs of UAD2 amp sims then applying torpedo wall of sound ITB).

To me the workflow with the Ox is worth it. It sounds great (but the alternatives do too), to me it’s the plug and play aspect. Plug your amp head, select your cab, not a zillion mic choices or placement, plug the jack into the Apollo and there you go.

I also like that it’s all in one box, I can monitor through console within the Apollo and here you go

 

[agatsuma]

Love the dynamic reaction...speaker cry

 

[Matt Hepworth]

An IR is always static (even when they're called Dynamic IRs) and can't model/represent anything non-linear (distortion, etc.) or modulating, so they're just a capture of an EQ snapshot with whatever time delay is included. In practice, IRs do a reasonable representation of a speaker, but can't react like a speaker, unlike Ox.

 

[Xury]

Do you have any audio samples of what you are describing with the Ox speaker reaction? I couldn’t hear too much of a difference in the promo videos.

 

[SaffeyRoad]

I think it’s more important the dummy load or attenuation in this type of machine to emulate a real speaker connected to the amp

 

[klong]

An IR is always static (even when they're called Dynamic IRs) and can't model/represent anything non-linear (distortion, etc.) or modulating, so they're just a capture of an EQ snapshot with whatever time delay is included. In practice, IRs do a reasonable representation of a speaker, but can't react like a speaker, unlike Ox.

I understand all that, but it's not really clear to me whether or not even a trained audio professional can actually hear the difference. Like how much non-linearity or whatever is really happening when a microphone is in front of a cab?

 

[klong]

Rhett Shull did a video comparing Ox and captor a while back, and his thought was the Ox sounded better than the Captor, but he called out the reverb and the compressor etc as being a part of that. I'm just really interested to know what edge the dynamic speaker modeling has.

 

[m4o7tm]

ㄷㄱㄷㄱ쇼

 

[m4o7tm]

ㄷㄱ쇼ㅕ

 

[klasaine]

Ive had a Captor X for several years. I’ve never owned an Ox.
I’ve used an Ox a few times at other home studios and to my ears it beats the Captor, and I don’t think it’s just the fx section. Having said that, at almost 3 times the price, I don’t think it’s 300% better.
*Since I’ve gotten The UAFX amp pedals, I’ve barely used the Captor. Only when I want the sound of one of my weirder amps or one of the Two-Notes more unique speakers. Two Notes does have some pretty cool speakers.

 

[UniversalAudio]

To me the workflow with the Ox is worth it. It sounds great (but the alternatives do too), to me it’s the plug and play aspect. Plug your amp head, select your cab, not a zillion mic choices or placement, plug the jack into the Apollo and there you go.

I also like that it’s all in one box, I can monitor through console within the Apollo and here you go

This is what OX and UAFX are all about.

As an engineer, I like that I can grab these tools and know I will get an great sound in an instant.

 

[SameOh]

It's good. But not better than good IRs out there like York and Ownhammer.

The "dynamic" blurb about it is really nothing to tell the truth. It does not sound more or less like a real speaker because of that.

 

[Matt Hepworth]

It's good. But not better than good IRs out there like York and Ownhammer.

The "dynamic" blurb about it is really nothing to tell the truth. It does not sound more or less like a real speaker because of that.

Disagree. You can hear the difference between the real speaker recording and the IR just about 100% of the time. There's not a way to have exactly the same scenario, but if you do an IR from Ox and compare it to Ox you will be able to hear the difference between them nearly 100% of the time, just like a real speaker. That's not what I use to judge, but it DOES mean the IR doesn't cover everything a speaker does. Speakers DO behave dynamically AND have nolinearities. For example, there's no way for an IR to capture even massive speaker breakup, let alone subtle breakup.

 

[exoslime]

so:
OX/UAFX = digital modelling of a speaker (and a microphone? are the microphone modeled too or how are those integrated?)
IR = static snapshot of a speaker and a microphone
Dynamic IR = a variety of static snapshots of speaker and microphones, combined into one "application"

when you take the technical aspects at side, ultimately what matters on a record is how it sounds does it fit the music you are making.
i would rate those artistic aspect way higher then the technical aspects

of course, when you are playing alone, and you can hear and feel all the nuances and differences very well, of course that can matter to you very much, and that may also translate to your performances.
(also very important, not only how these tools sound, but how easy and intuitive are those to work with)

but at the end, in a full mix when guitars are competing with loud drums and even more upfront loud vocals that get all (or most) of the attention??

 

[chrisharbin]

An IR is always static (even when they're called Dynamic IRs) and can't model/represent anything non-linear (distortion, etc.) or modulating, so they're just a capture of an EQ snapshot with whatever time delay is included. In practice, IRs do a reasonable representation of a speaker, but can't react like a speaker, unlike Ox.

What's interesting to me is that virtually every vid I see of guitarists doing whatever, they frequently have an OX in the background. But I don't see much recently about them using it. It's always IR this, or AXEFX that, etc. I think (and I'm certainly this way) we're a fickle bunch

 

[UniversalAudio]

What's interesting to me is that virtually every vid I see of guitarists doing whatever, they frequently have an OX in the background. But I don't see much recently about them using it. It's always IR this, or AXEFX that, etc. I think (and I'm certainly this way) we're a fickle bunch

Links?

 

[Matt Hepworth]

but at the end, in a full mix when guitars are competing with loud drums and even more upfront loud vocals that get all (or most) of the attention??

An IR in a full mix is harder to tell apart from the actual speaker, yes.

 

[Eric Dahlberg]

The dynamic IR's can be dramatic. Some of them even go too far. I love the Alnico Blue IR but you have to watch your dynamics with it if you're playing clean or edge of breakup. It's still better than the Fractal Alnico Blue Dyna Cab, which isn't dynamic enough (plus harsh). And Rhett is correct about the room and effects playing a big part in what makes Ox sound so good, although the Boss version also has effects and I don't think it sounds as good.

I think Drew has said that Capitol Chambers and Hitsville are dynamic IR's. Maybe Sound City, too?