I've been wondering about how the Suhr Reactive Load compares to my speaker cabs as an output presented to my tube amps.
 |
| Suhr Reactive Load (Green) vs V30/H75 in my Jet City 2x12 (Blue) |
I used a Dayton Audio DATS V3 to take some measurements to compare the impedance curves of various speaker configurations vs the Suhr Reactive Load. The Suhr Reactive Load is meant to mimic a Marshall 4x12 with Greenbacks as a reference. I was surprised how close its impedance curve compared to my Vintage 30/Creamback H75 combination (illustrated above).
I am looking into recording my tube amps with speaker loads when my playing environment is favorable to loud noise. The Suhr Reactive Load + IRs will continue to be tools that I utilize, but there is excitement in pushing air and moving microphones.
The accuracy of my lower gain amp DI captures should benefit from using complementary speaker loads. The Suhr’s 4x12 response adds some beef for rock tones, but it can be a bit much for some edge of breakup tones.
For those times that I cannot turn my amps up, my plan is to capture my amps in NAM with a speaker load.
NAM Speaker Load Captures vs Suhr Reactive Load Captures
https://www.tone3000.com/tones/vox-ac15c1-normal-channel-115dbu-ttsv10-input-31553
https://www.tone3000.com/tones/vox-ac15c1-top-boost-channel-115dbu-ttsv10-input-37813
NAM Full Rigs
https://www.tone3000.com/tones/full-rig-peavey-6505-1992-original-115dbu-ttsv10-36456
Varying speaker impedance curves is something I already explore in my Fractal FM3. Adding the contribution of my speakers to my digital tones via NAM is the next logical step.
No comments:
Post a Comment