| Author |
 Topic 
|
SoloTune
Location: USA
Posts: 194
|
 Posted - Sun Oct 14, 2001 7:03 am
|
|
|
Hi folks, I was looking at the Antares auto-tune after seeing posts about it in this forum, and noticed the Mic Modeler software. I was wondering if anyone has tried this software or uses it regularly.
The reason I ask is because I don't seem to understand why someone would use something like this. While I can understand the use of amp modeling devices such as those available from Line 6 and Johnson, where one might desire to emulate the sound of a vintage Fender Twin or a Marshall stack, I can't seem to understand this same usage for microphones.
In other words, if one has a Shure SM58, I can't imagine software that will make it sound like a Neumann U87, and likewise, if one has a Neumann U87, why would you want it to sound like a Shure SM58? (Not knocking Shure here, the SM58 is a classic old work-horse.) But I think you get my drift.
Anyway, anyone have any thoughts or comments on this? Thanks.
|
|
SteveG
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 6695
|
|
Posted - Sun Oct 14, 2001 7:11 am
|
|
|
We have actually discussed it before (slightly). I don't think that anything's changed since then, and I'm pretty dubious about the whole concept anyway, for reasons explained in the thread. Basically, I share your reservations...
'what is the best mic on antares mic moduler'
_________________
 |
|
|
|
SoloTune
Location: USA
Posts: 194
|
|
Posted - Sun Oct 14, 2001 7:25 am
|
|
|
Thanks Steve, I don't know why I didn't think to do a "search" for this topic! In my defense, it IS early here and I'm still on my first cup of coffee. 
|
|
SteveG
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 6695
|
|
Posted - Mon Oct 15, 2001 1:42 am
|
|
|
That's okay. It was almost missable anyway...
Steve
_________________
|
|
|
|
SoloTune
Location: USA
Posts: 194
|
|
Posted - Wed Oct 17, 2001 4:28 pm
|
|
|
[/quote]
if a mic has sufficient energy across the frequency band above the noise at that frequency, I can make it sound like anything.[/quote]
...and thats the problem, it won't, so you can't. Don't take this wrong, Bob, but I can't help but wonder if you've ever had the opportunity to hear a truly great microphone. The difference betwen a "good" mic and a "great" mic is not frequency response, or distortion. Its simply the ability to pick up minute nuances of the sound that a lesser mic will miss.
I'll never forget, about 20 years ago, working for a very small pro-sound company that owned an equally small recording studio, we came to acquire a Neumann mic. I can't remember exactly which one, but I do remember being in the studio very late at night playing with it. It was around 1:00 or 2:00 in the morning, everything was dead quiet, and we stood in the studio, with the mic with headphones on. We held perfectly still, with this mic active, and listened to things like our eyelashes crashing when we blinked, and the roar of gentle breathes.
And, there was the time I worked for the small audio-phile store in an equally small town. I was the service tech, and I couldn't afford much of the wares we sold. One night the owner had us over to listen to some new "piece" he had acquired. I can't remember the whole system, but I remember that the speakers were some model of Magnapan's with four panels each, the amp was a great golden "brick" with the name Classe', I don't recall the pre-amp, and the turntable was a conglomeration of at least four different manufacturers. Each piece, from the cartridge, that cost more than my car, to the base, to the motor, to the arm, and the wires, were all from different sources. He put on some "Import" Linda Ronstadt record, and I'll never forget how it started . . . with the subtle sound of the moisture breaking as she parted her lips to open her mouth. It was like the kiss of an angel on my eardrum, and though I didn't know it at the time, I was hearing something other than the standard "stage" mic.
Has twenty years embellished my memory a bit? Perhaps, but the point is, some things can't be synthesized with software. Pure, inherent quality is one.
I wish you the best on your project, and will look forward to perhaps, trying a demo when it comes to fruition. But, I won't hold my breathe. (Unless there's a Neumann in the room!) Art
|
|
|
|
Graeme
Member
Location: Spain
Posts: 4663
|
|
Posted - Wed Oct 17, 2001 5:45 pm
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| I am close to releasing for alpha testing a competing stand alone product for mic transformation and trust me, if a mic has sufficient energy across the frequency band above the noise at that frequency, I can make it sound like anything. Exactly. |
Well, the proof of this particular pudding will be in the eating - but I for one think that it's actually an impossible task for all the reasons stated here and elsewhere.
If it really did work, then studios would be saving a fortune on microphones by buying a load of cheapish mics and a big rack of modelers - and I see little evidence of such a trend. In fact, quite the reverse - certain 'classic' microphones are now totally out of the reach of those with only a modest budget... and moving further away on an almost daily basis.
However, given that you can meet your claim, one thing I am curious about is how you actually construct the necessary algorithms in the first place? Do you have a good example of each of the microphones you are modeling, or what? That would seem to me to be an extremely expensive proposition.
|
|
SteveG
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 6695
|
|
Posted - Wed Oct 17, 2001 7:10 pm
|
|
|
Well I have to say that Bob has rather condemned himself out of his own mouth, never mind my, or anybody else's opinion. One of the major differences between microphones of different types is diaphragm behaviour, and this inevitably manifests itself as intermodulation distortion differences. The mass of any dynamic mic diaphragm is inevitably far greater than any capacitor mic one, as there is a socking great coil attached to it! This means that its dynamic characteristics, and the way that it responds to complex waveforms is inevitably inferior to a low-mass capacitor diaphragm. Also, the increased mass means that its sensitivity to low-level sounds is, as Solotune points out, nowhere near as good. Never mind if it's an SM58, a Beyer, a Sennheiser or whatever, it doesn't matter. All dynamic mics are inherently non-linear!
'Energy across the frequency band' does not a classic mic make, I'm afraid. And small-diaphragm capacitor mics are nowhere near as sensitive as large-diaphragm ones. So where are you going to get the missing information from? Are you going to correlate it back out of the noise? You've already admitted that you can't undistort a mic, so what exactly are you going to achieve, apart from making good mics sound like cheaper ones?
I still don't buy mic modelling...
Steve
_________________
|
|
|
|
Mark T
Location: Norway
Posts: 890
|
|
Posted - Thu Oct 18, 2001 12:08 am
|
|
|
Hi all, I am not going to get into any technical stuff - I'm not qualified! What I will say is that one of the most important contributions that digital technology has made to music production is to enable private individuals to make music to a standard impossible before, on a hobby basis.
I have spent thousands of (insert your favourite currency, mine is Norwegian Kroner) over the past several years on computer hardware and software, on guitars and effects, and one (count it, one) microphone. Now I would love to buy several microphones, a better effects processor, a faster PC etc etc,but I have just bought some studio monitors and paid my tax bill and electricity bill etc. I just can't justify it right now.
What it comes down to is you HAVE to compromise in everything at some time. I am not going to stop doing vocal and guitar recordings while I save up for a top-range microphone, so if someone can provide me with a microphone modeller that I feel makes my microphone sound better (or even just gives variety to the sounds), AND which I can afford, then I am not going to say no.
Sorry for the rant but music is for everyone, even us suckers with limited budgets.
Rock on!
Mark
_________________
Mark 
nil desperandum - nunc est bibendum |
|
|
|
SteveG
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 6695
|
|
Posted - Thu Oct 18, 2001 2:02 am
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| If a system is linear, and I'll say again that any reasonable mic is sufficiently so, those nuances have one and only one source, the frequency response as revealed by its impulse response.--Bob |
The frequency response cannot be revealed by impulse response alone - to make even an approximate guess you would need to use a pulse response with some sort of flattish top. If you don't take account of the way the pulse settles, you will never be able to establish the phase response, never mind the frequency response.
You cannot characterise the response of a linear system from the pulse response alone, because this cannot establish the steady-state response, and therefore you've got nowhere near even characterising the I/M distortion, never mind compensating for it.
I still don't buy it...
Steve
_________________
|
|
|
|
jonrose
Location: USA
Posts: 2901
|
|
Posted - Thu Oct 18, 2001 12:06 pm
|
|
|
I'm sorry Bob, I don't buy it, either...
Not to say that many of the things you've put forth aren't logical - and I can follow some of them (I'm not an EE, don't have the math under my fingers for it, and don't profess to understand a lot of these technical aspects - I just use my knowledge of gain-staging and signal-processing tools, along with my ears, to make a living in a studio environment).
Nonetheless, I have some serious problems with what you've put forth;
1)
| Quote: |
| So long as a system is linear (that has a precise mathematical definition which has nothing to do with mass)... |
Okay, let me stop you right there... Please correct me if I'm wrong, but this does NOT describe nor typify a dynamic microphone, as I understand it...and even I can grasp the basic physics involved here... I guess I'm wondering how you could possibly arrive at an algorithm that could account for something so finicky. I'm not speaking of the desired end-result here, which would of course be your high-end AKG C12 or Neumann M49 - I'm talking about the source mic; a cheap, stage-beaten SM58, let's say. Thoughts on this?
2)
| Quote: |
| Neither I.M. or harmonic distortion exist in a linear system. They can only arise in the presence of non-linearity. Again, that's fundamental. One definition of a linear system is that the only frequencies ever present at its output are those at its input. They may come out at a different magnitude and phase but there will be no intermodulation products or harmonic overtone frequencies. |
Okay, but isn't a dynamic mic a non-linear system? And you certainly can't say it doesn't have harmonic distortion characteristics. How would you account for this? And, once again, how could you produce something from nothing? I guess I'm just not getting this.
3)
| Quote: |
An impulse response has a unique inverse (and any two have a unique ratio.)
|
Okay, I need clarification, here - what do you mean by the inverse? A reversal of the impulse? Or one that's 180 degrees out of phase? If you invert a waveform and paste it back over the original you have nothing. How do you compare these as ratio? I can't follow this. Maybe I don't have the necessary math. Or did you mean that you are comparing this with a different microphone's characteristics as a ratio?
| Quote: |
| Inverses and ratios are what I calculate and work with for transforming mics. If you convolve an impulse response with its inverse the result is a one sample impulse in discrete linear systems. |
... I understand convolution to a degree. I have to assume you're comparing two mics, now, as a ratio.
Following this train for a moment - as I said before, you can't create something from nothing without an engine for synthesis, can you? If a particular frequency isn't there (as in, not reproduced by the source mic), you're not going to be able to boost it, so your algorithm will have to "guess" as to what might have been there. True? How can it do this? Am I totally off-base here? How could you account for this in the algorithms?
| Quote: |
| A consequence of this is that by convolving a system's output with a properly calculated IR you can give the combined system any other arbitrary IR. |
Could you give a quick explanation of this calculation for the arbitrary IR? Sorry if this sounds daft, but I'm trying to understand your method, without having to go back to college.
| Quote: |
| In other words you can make any linear mic sound like any other linear mic. |
And that's the crust of the biscuit, isn't it? Not all mics are linear, which gives rise to my suspicions that it you can't make this work accurately - not even considering only on-axis material. Though I'm sure it could be useful for creative tweaking, as for different sounds and whatnot that just don't exist in the natural world of physics. Computers have always been great for this! ;-)
You needn't try to explain this in laymen's terms if you don't choose to, but I really can't accept your premises as they're written above. I'm just not convinced. If I hear it work, then I'll believe.
After listening to and recording with myriad microphones for years, I can't imagine how anything short of a supercomputer working overtime for 10 years could come up with an algorithm accurate enough to turn a cheeseball dynamic mic into a C12. And even then, it wouldn't be the same for the next cheeseball mic you might want to plug in...
If you're so inclinded, help us out, here.
All the best... -Jon
:-)
_________________
 |
|
|
|
jonrose
Location: USA
Posts: 2901
|
|
Posted - Fri Oct 19, 2001 12:56 am
|
|
|
Hi Bob,
Thank you for taking the time to try to explain some of this away for me. I appreciate it. I can follow it well enough to get the concepts you've elaborated on.
I do have one small reply to something you had to say, though...
| Quote: |
| As a frame of reference, modestly priced dynamic mics are much more linear than even the best dynamic loudspeaker. |
....and that would be, "Ughh!"
Loudspeakers are terrible devices, requiring a lot of electronic "patchwork" (pre-processing) to compensate for their ugliness!
But I take your points under consideration.
Thanks again... -Jon
:-)
_________________
|
|
|
|
SoloTune
Location: USA
Posts: 194
|
|
Posted - Fri Oct 19, 2001 10:11 am
|
|
|
There's one small point that almost slipped past me. This thread has meandered to a discussion of the viability of a theoretical program thats still in development. The original question was about the same type of software that already exists, by an established company.
I can't help but wonder if the total absence of any comments about Antares mic-modeler, means that either no one desires this type of application, or, it works so poorly as to not merit any comment.
I may go ahead and download a demo version just to try it out, although, I'll only be able to test it with an inexpensive Audio-Technica mic. I'll report back here whatever my limited tests reveal. Maybe!
|
|
Graeme
Member
Location: Spain
Posts: 4663
|
|
Posted - Fri Oct 19, 2001 12:05 pm
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| There's one small point that almost slipped past me. This thread has meandered to a discussion of the viability of a theoretical program thats still in development. |
Things like that can happen here :-)
| Quote: |
The original question was about the same type of software that already exists, by an established company.
I can't help but wonder if the total absence of any comments about Antares mic-modeler, means that either no one desires this type of application, or, it works so poorly as to not merit any comment.
I may go ahead and download a demo version just to try it out, although, I'll only be able to test it with an inexpensive Audio-Technica mic. I'll report back here whatever my limited tests reveal. Maybe!
|
I can only repeat what I said in my first post which, although not specifically directed to you, was my take on the whole concept, viz;
"If it really did work, then studios would be saving a fortune on microphones by buying a load of cheapish mics and a big rack of modelers - and I see little evidence of such a trend. "
Please - try it out - I did and was not surprised that it failed to work as predicted. However, that does not mean to say that it is unusable. It might not make a cheap mic sound like an expensive one (in fact, it won't) - but it might make it sound like you want to hear it.
Edited by - graeme on 10/19/2001 12:06:23 PM
|
|
SteveG
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 6695
|
|
Posted - Fri Oct 19, 2001 2:10 pm
|
|
|
Sorry, Bob. A little earlier I should have said non-linear, not linear.
But you still have a problem with this, I think, called analysing a microphone as a linear system when it clearly isn't one. Of the very few mic manufacturers who actually quote distortion figures (the reason why this is is quite interesting in itself), Neumann will tell you that at their quoted maximum ( sometimes rather low ) SPL figures, which people quite regularly hit with vocals when they're close-mic'ed, their mics will produce up to 0.5 percent distortion. And these are good mics! And anybody who's used them will tell you that it's not the frequency response variations that matter to them, it's what amounts to the distortion characteristics, usually described as some sort of variation of 'warmth', which is still there even if you eq the mic.
As far as the sensitivity issue is concerned, large-diaphragm capacitor mics have a far greater amplitude range over which they can produce a useable signal than any dynamic mic - the effects of this having been described more than adequately by Solotune earlier. If this information is not available to you, you just cannot convolve a 'better' mic out of a 'worse' one, which is what the users of the Antares mic modeler, which I believe works on the same basic principle you are describing, will tell you. There is a somewhat rustic expression for it, but it's rude, and involves gold-plating something, and it's not a mylar diaphragm!
But I would like to know where you got your dynamic mic distortion specs from - Shure don't quote one for the SM58, but I bet it's worse than any Neumann. I suspect, (but I don't actually know) that the reason that distortion specs aren't quoted is that manufacturers know that they will vary according to the conditions that the mic is used in, to a degree. Anyone who has ever used a mic for acoustic measurements will tell you that at high frequencies, you have to be careful to avoid shadowing effects which can significantly affect your measurements. Just the process of moving a vocalist (admittedly pretty closely) in front of different mics will have different effects on the mic's output.
So I'm afraid that 'sufficiently linear' probably isn't sufficiently linear, precisely because it is small differences in temporal linearily which play a significant part in characterising microphones. People don't use mathematics to listen to microphones...
Yes, I know that a time-domain response can be converted into the frequency domain by using a Fourier Transform. Trouble is, this transform can only be applied to a continuous periodic signal. This, I believe, is why we use Laplace transforms and the S plane to analyse signals that are a function of time. And it works just fine for filters. But to use what amounts to a similar approach to a signal function containing non-linearities of whatever size will surely just leave them there for all to hear after convolution, since we have taken no account of them? Isn't this why you can make a pretty posh SM58 out of a U87, but not the other way around?
Steve
_________________
|
|
|
|
SteveG
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 6695
|
|
Posted - Fri Oct 19, 2001 2:36 pm
|
|
|
Oh, I forgot to say that there's a little more stuff on the lack of proper specs for microphones at http://www.josephson.com/aeshdout.txt
and that Crown quote the distortion spec for one of their boundary effect microphones as being 3 percent @ +120dB (ref. 20uPa, I presume). I'd have said that was pretty significant, if it's true...
Steve
Edited by - SteveG on 10/19/2001 2:38:01 PM
_________________
|
|
|
|
SoloTune
Location: USA
Posts: 194
|
|
Posted - Fri Oct 19, 2001 3:32 pm
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| "If it really did work, then studios would be saving a fortune on microphones by buying a load of cheapish mics and a big rack of modelers - and I see little evidence of such a trend. " |
Graeme, I guess I missed this the first time through. By rights, this should have been the end of this thread. So true!
| Quote: |
- but it might make it sound like you want to hear it.
|
And this, could be an entire Forum all by itself! 
|
|
SteveG
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 6695
|
|
Posted - Sat Oct 20, 2001 5:09 pm
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| The intrinsically non-linear dyanmics compressors and limiters we use to mix and master recordings introduce far more than that at typical usage levels without signifigantly changing the microphone personalities. It sounds like you have done such work, is that not what you find? |
On the wide dynamic range recordings I've done (yes, quite a lot), if I introduce compression, it will be to catch peaks, so it will be applied to the very top of the dynamic range, leaving very much the largest part of it, and significantly the low end, untouched. I do sometimes wonder why people bother to use good mics if they are going to do serious damage to to the response - it seems quite pointless.
| Quote: |
| It just isn't that hard any more to design a dynamic that is very linear and it is not hard to repeatably manufacture it. There have been enormous advances in both materials science, magnetic circuit design and manufacturing methods since the dynamic earned its poor reputation. |
But the trouble is that they aren't the mics that sell! The ones that sell are the SM58s, etc. which have a significant sonic character which is pretty hard to ignore. Compared to just about any condenser mic I've ever experienced, they just don't cut the mustard for any sort of 'exposed' environment where you are listening not just to the performer, but the recording acoustic as well.
Mic noise. As far as I'm aware, the ultimate limiting factor on self-noise in a mic would be, in a dynamic, the thermal noise generated by the resistance of the coil, and the only mics that beat dynamics from that point of view are ribbon mics, with a few ohms resistance and impedance, and you have to be really careful if you are to gain any advantage from them. Now there's a challenge... Condenser mics only get away with working at all because valves and FETs have optimum noise figures at several Megohms input impedance and can be virtually in the same space as the mic's collector plate. A low SPL will still produce relatively more output from a condenser than a dynamic under the same circumstances, because the combined mass of the coil and diaphragm require more energy to move them. If you made the big mistake of matching the coil resistance into the preamp rather than the impedance, things would be even worse! Anyway, as a result of all these factors, which partially cancel each other out, and which really only have major implications for mic preamp design, most people consider that, certainly at low levels, condensers have a considerable advantage over dynamics.
But all this can give rise to another problem - it is well known that the same mic with different preamps can give audibly different results - there is a large body of literature supporting this. How do you propose to take account of that?
| Quote: |
| What is temporal linearity? There is no such concept in mic literature. |
This is true enough. But there is also virtually no concept of distortion in the literature either! There was actually a clue to what I meant in the previous paragraph, but perhaps I should have explained it better. If, during a performance, a singer moves position in relation to the mic, which they do, and are even trained to do sometimes, the response of the mic will change, depending upon their movement, and where they are at any given time.
So where's the significance? Let's just consider the physics of microphones for a moment. At very low frequencies, where the sound wavelength is very much greater than the size of the microphone, you could consider it to have point size; it will not noticeably interfere with the sound wave. But this is not true at high frequencies where diffraction, scattering and reflection from the surface of the microphone become significant. This is of course true for all microphones, as they are an obstacle in the path of the wavefront. Okay, that is at least partly correctible. But if you alter the angle of incidence between a performer and a microphone in real time, it cannot be, which we know as well. But what is worse is that as a result of this, microphones really do behave differently in different acoustic conditions, primarily in three different ways; the free-field, pressure and random incidence responses will vary. This can certainly all be calculated for any given mic using diffraction theory, but it remains the case that any mic will behave differently in different conditions. B&K actually specify different mics for measuring in different conditions because of this, and calibrate them accordingly, but it affects recording mics just as much. So my 'temporal linearity' is just a global term that I coined to cover these particular non-linear effects, and those of proximity.
But I think that the real question, which will have to remain unanswered until the results are heard, remains. I suspect that people are sensitive to lower distortion levels than you think they are, and that an SM58 cannot ever do for a vocalist what a U87 does. I'd be quite happy to be proved wrong, but somehow I don't think I will be.
Nevertheless, it will be interesting to see how much you can achieve, and it's certainly worth discussing.
Steve
_________________
|
|
|
|
Graeme
Member
Location: Spain
Posts: 4663
|
|
Posted - Sun Oct 21, 2001 10:42 am
|
|
|
Well, we all seem to be in agreement that this idea won'tk - or maybe it will :-)
Personally, I fall into the first camp - but I'm always open to persuasion.
Perhaps, when he has finished his design work, the ultimate test would be for arcaneznet to let a few of the people on the forum test it out under real world conditions?
I wil pass on this, as I do too little live recording these days and I don't have a suitable army of exotic mics to use as a reference - but there are folks here who do and it seems to me this would be the best way to settle the argument.
|
|
jonrose
Location: USA
Posts: 2901
|
|
Posted - Sun Oct 21, 2001 1:38 pm
|
|
|
Are you implying that we "studio rats" should take him up on his alpha-testing? heh-heh...
;-)
_________________
|
|
|
|
SteveG
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 6695
|
|
Posted - Mon Oct 22, 2001 2:14 am
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| I think I can put the SM58 to bed. I found an impulse response measurement of one and omigod. It has a _very_ limited band. To pull the low end up to flat takes 6 dB at 100 Hz, 20 dB at 60 Hz and 36 dB at 30 Hz. The top end would take 8 dB at 14 kHz, 24 dB at 16 kHz, 54 dB at 18 kHz, and 62 dB at 20 kHz!--Bob |
I thought you knew about that! Why do you think we've been sniggering about SM58s all this time? It may be a very flawed mic, but a helluva lot of people seem to like it...
Steve
_________________
|
|
|
|
Heavens to Betsy
Location: USA
Posts: 508
|
|
Posted - Mon Oct 22, 2001 8:12 am
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| I thought you knew about that! Why do you think we've been sniggering about SM58s all this time? It may be a very flawed mic, but a helluva lot of people seem to like it... |
Hey--I can actually contribute something to this debate (very interesting, actually)! Regarding the 58, I've read of engineers and recording artists swearing by the nasty little thing. Sound-On-Sound interviewed engineers Flood and Robbie Adams in both 1994 and 1997, I believe, regarding U2's albums, respectively Zooropa and Pop. It seems that when some are privy to the most sensitive, clean, accurate equipment, they choose to go expressionist and retro.
Specifically, Adams remarked how Flood was "so tired of this full-stereo drums bullsh*t," (oh! the humanity!) and wanted to turn towards some of George Martin's techniques, namely a three-mic, mono setup. Kick, snare, overhead. The overhead mic of choice? The 58, of course, with its truncated, coloured, transient-blurring sonic qualities. I think they'd put a 58 on the snare, as well--though tradition might dictate a 57. For added smirks, they preferred a U87 in the kick! Showoffs. :)
What's more, Bono seems to be infatuated with using a Beta 58 for studio vocals. Rumour has it that Mick Jagger has done this as well for the most recent album(s).
To be honest, though, Bono's vocal sound has been stuffy and opaque, as opposed to the nice transparency and airy delicacy from 1991's Achtung Baby and before when they'd stuck to Neumanns.
So yes, the Sm58 is a flawed mic with a very interesting lore surrounding it; but not, strictly speaking, anything close to a Neumann. Some food for thought.
|
|
|
|
jester700
Posts: 546
|
|
Posted - Wed Oct 24, 2001 8:22 am
|
|
|
|
There have been other technology gains besides DSP of late. Global manufacturing & new design & construction have made some very usable mics for not a lot of $$$. I'd rather see a beginner own a few different mics. Maybe an AT4050 large diaphragm, an equivalent small diaphragm, and the aforememtioned SM58 (or better yet, a 57). Maybe a picked Shanghai mic thrown in for good measure. Then he could play with the best (or experiment with the worst!) uses of each, combine & contrast, etc. And if he DOES choose to use a modeler, an AT4050 is a hell of a better place to start to emulate a Neumann than an SM58!
|
|
jonrose
Location: USA
Posts: 2901
|
|
Posted - Wed Oct 24, 2001 9:44 am
|
|
|
Hi jester,
I think I'll second that assessment! Although the ($600US) AT4050 is rather clinical sounding to my ear, I still like it; Now and then, I'll even use it on a particular vocalist - anyway, wherever it's qualities are appropriate - and you'd be surprised (or maybe not) how good those things work on a french horn section!
I don't mean to sound like an advertisement, but I do like the 40 series, and usually recommend them to "serious-but-budget-limited" recordists as a good a place to start as any, building a microphone cabinet. And although it's a bit more money, the AT4060 is one of my favorite tube-based "go-to's", and it's only about $1100US.
Of course there's a lot of other interesting mics out there, and for good prices.
Everyone has a bottom line to look after, and in a small project studio like mine, it's not like we can put out the money for high-end mics whenever the urge strikes. And that urge does strike often...
Heh-heh-heh... ;-)
So, we've also been messing with some of those cheap Cino-based capsules around here...
So far, we've all decided that 'Studio Projects' line of mics (C1, C3, T3) are the best sound for the money in the Cino category, but that's an entirely subjective judgement (of course!), and everyone's mileage will vary...
I'm looking forward to anything Bob comes up with though, as we like to play with new "toyz" around here - hardware or software - even if they're just for twisting sounds beyond recognition (this is acceptable for some kinds of work, after all!)
;-)
Best.... -Jon
_________________
|
|
|
|
jester700
Posts: 546
|
|
Posted - Fri Oct 26, 2001 8:28 pm
|
|
|
Jon,
Comin' from the 414BULS school, clinical is my taste default. Call me "mr. sparkly" ;-)
I don't even own a 4050; it isn't different enough from my 414 to warrant for my uses. But if I were buying new, that'd likely be the first mic I'd buy.
I'll have to check out the 4060 - I've read some good things and don't have a tuber yet...
|
|
HairWasHere
Location: USA
Posts: 191
|
|
Posted - Thu Sep 12, 2002 9:33 pm
|
|
|
| Quote: |
So, we've also been messing with some of those cheap Cino-based capsules around here...
So far, we've all decided that 'Studio Projects' line of mics (C1, C3, T3) are the best sound for the money in the Cino category, but that's an entirely subjective judgement (of course!), and everyone's mileage will vary... |
What are "Cino" mics?
|
|
jonrose
Location: USA
Posts: 2901
|
|
Posted - Thu Sep 12, 2002 10:46 pm
|
|
|
Boy - I didn't think anyone would resurrect this thread to ask about that!
Well, anyway, sorry...
It's really just a prefix.
Basically, it means 'Chinese'. And 'Russo' would be Russian - they make a lot of microphones, too, of course! Like the Oktavas.
Best... -Jon
_________________
|
|
|
|
Graeme
Member
Location: Spain
Posts: 4663
|
|
Posted - Fri Sep 13, 2002 11:51 pm
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| Boy - I didn't think anyone would resurrect this thread to ask about that! |
Nor me - a real 'blast from the past'.
However, since it has been re-opened, I wonder if arcaneznet has any progress to report and whether he has got to an alpha yet?
|
|
VoodooRadio
Location: USA
Posts: 3971
|
|
Posted - Sat Sep 14, 2002 2:52 am
|
|
|
"blast from the past", .... funny you say that, I was noticing yesterday that alot of "old" threads are getting rehashed. I think some folks do it instead of starting a new thread (which personally I would prefer). I do, however, like it when someone pulls a thread back up that is a year or so old and the last person to post is inquiring about something.... and the person that digs up the year old thread, post the answer as if the asker has been sitting by patiently, just waiting for their reply. Anywho... Good Luck Voodoo
_________________
I said Good Day!
Voodoo
 |
|
|
|
Graeme
Member
Location: Spain
Posts: 4663
|
|
Posted - Sat Sep 14, 2002 4:16 am
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| "blast from the past", .... funny you say that, I was noticing yesterday that alot of "old" threads are getting rehashed. I think some folks do it instead of starting a new thread (which personally I would prefer). |
Yes - I think something like this really warrants a new thread. It gets a little tedious having to wade through all that was said before just to ensure it hasn't already been covered.
| Quote: |
| I do, however, like it when someone pulls a thread back up that is a year or so old and the last person to post is inquiring about something.... and the person that digs up the year old thread, post the answer as if the asker has been sitting by patiently, just waiting for their reply. |
Well, jonrose answered the question within about an hour and a quarter of it being asked, so that wasn't too bad a response. What I fail to understand is why it took HairWasHere eleven months to ask the question!
|
|
post78
Location: USA
Posts: 2887
|
|
Posted - Sat Sep 14, 2002 4:39 am
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| ...the last person to post is inquiring about something.... and the person that digs up the year old thread, post the answer as if the asker has been sitting by patiently, just waiting for their reply. |
About once a week, I'll spend a good 30 minutes to an hour searching through old topics (like this one, actually) and notice a very old, unanswered question. Every single time I seriously consider answering it, but I always come to the conclusion that it would more than likely just be annoying to some. Then again, I think Synt recently appointed me forum jester, so...
Something interesting about this: I don't remember quotes ever being so small. It must have been something changed with the new forum.
_________________
Answer = 1. Probably.
|
|
|
|
VoodooRadio
Location: USA
Posts: 3971
|
|
Posted - Sat Sep 14, 2002 4:48 am
|
|
|
FWIW, I don't particularly find it bothersome but,... as Graeme alludes to, I'm not necessarily going to wade through a 3 page thread to accumulate info to see if the answers has been addressed. I don't have a problem at all with people starting "new" threads. And, I DO find it humorous when someone answers a question a year later [;D] . It's as if they assume the asking person is sitting at the ready and awaiting their personal reply. I guess it's just my wry sense of humor.... at least I thought it funny....  Good Luck Voodoo
_________________
I said Good Day!
Voodoo
|
|
|
|
Graeme
Member
Location: Spain
Posts: 4663
|
|
Posted - Sat Sep 14, 2002 9:56 am
|
|
|
|
...But it wasn't the answer which was delayed, it was the question that took such a long time to surface
|
|
HairWasHere
Location: USA
Posts: 191
|
|
Posted - Wed Sep 25, 2002 5:06 pm
|
|
|
| Graeme wrote: |
| What I fail to understand is why it took HairWasHere eleven months to ask the question! |
Well, I have (just recently) acquired a great interest in vocal mics, so I've been doing a lot of researching in Syntrillium's archives; and, instead of creating a new thread, I decided to just add to a previous thread (I was under the impression that that was preferred, as opposed to starting a new thread).
Oh, well. "Live and learn," I guess.
|
|
Andrew Rose
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 875
|
|
Posted - Fri Sep 27, 2002 6:32 am
|
|
|
All of which fails to answer the question of what happened to arcaneznet's software. I missed this one first time around and have just read through from the beginning. (OK, so I skimmed through some of it when it got really technical:)).
As I got closer to the end I was expecting the resurrection to involve a software announcement. What a disappointment:(.
Fascinating discussion though...
|
|
CalG
Posts: 20
|
|
Posted - Thu Oct 10, 2002 7:41 pm
|
|
|
| SoloTune wrote: |
Hi folks, I was looking at the Antares auto-tune after seeing posts about it in this forum, and noticed the Mic Modeler software. I was wondering if anyone has tried this software or uses it regularly.
The reason I ask is because I don't seem to understand why someone would use something like this. While I can understand the use of amp modeling devices such as those available from Line 6 and Johnson, where one might desire to emulate the sound of a vintage Fender Twin or a Marshall stack, I can't seem to understand this same usage for microphones.
In other words, if one has a Shure SM58, I can't imagine software that will make it sound like a Neumann U87, and likewise, if one has a Neumann U87, why would you want it to sound like a Shure SM58? (Not knocking Shure here, the SM58 is a classic old work-horse.) But I think you get my drift.
Anyway, anyone have any thoughts or comments on this? Thanks.
|
|
|
CalG
Posts: 20
|
|
Posted - Thu Oct 10, 2002 7:51 pm
|
|
|
To Answer ur question Solotune,
I have used Mic modeler and it can do some interesting things to certain kinds of music tracks mostly drums and guitars. Does it make a Radio shack mic sound like a U47 tube? hardly but if u treat it as a effect or a eq shaping tool its kinda of cool i have used it on a kick drum sound that wasnt as thick and full as i liked tried the mic modeler on it and it gave it some extra ummpf that a eq didnt quite give it. Try it out on ur drum tracks the demo i think is 14 days fully functional u Can decide whether its worth the coin they want for it
CalG
|
|
Graeme
Member
Location: Spain
Posts: 4663
|
|
Posted - Fri Oct 11, 2002 1:30 pm
|
|
|
| CalG wrote: |
To Answer ur question Solotune,
I have used Mic modeler and it can do some interesting things to certain kinds of music tracks mostly drums and guitars. Does it make a Radio shack mic sound like a U47 tube? hardly but if u treat it as a effect or a eq shaping tool its kinda of cool |
Which is pretty much what I said almost a year ago (previous page)  . It won't make one mic sound like another, but it might make it sound like you want it to.
|
|
SteveG
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 6695
|
|
Posted - Fri Oct 11, 2002 2:13 pm
|
|
|
| Andrew Rose wrote: |
All of which fails to answer the question of what happened to arcaneznet's software. I missed this one first time around and have just read through from the beginning. (OK, so I skimmed through some of it when it got really technical:)).
As I got closer to the end I was expecting the resurrection to involve a software announcement. What a disappointment:(.
Fascinating discussion though... |
I seem to recall hearing somewhere that he had a problem with his Windows programmer (AWOL?), and that the project was on ice, or whatever, but I don't recall precisely where I heard it. You could try emailing him, of course...
_________________
|
|
|
|
SoloTune
Location: USA
Posts: 194
|
|
Posted - Mon Oct 28, 2002 10:59 am
|
|
|
Well, I appreciated SteveG and Graeme's answers a year ago, and I appreciated the lively discussion that ensued, but I also appreciate CalG's answer because, as I read back through this thread, he(she), seems to be one of the few people who have actually used this software. Good info all the way around!
And yes, I have been sitting very patiently.
|
|
Graeme
Member
Location: Spain
Posts: 4663
|
|
Posted - Mon Oct 28, 2002 2:07 pm
|
|
|
|
I have it - I suspect SteveG has as well. My original comments were based on using it. I failed entirely to make it do what the manufacturers claim (which came as no surprise at all) but it is a useful sort of 'fixed EQ' for some things - not necessarily mic derived.
|
|
SteveG
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 6695
|
|
Posted - Mon Oct 28, 2002 4:46 pm
|
|
|
I tried it extensively on a friend's machine (I get him to buy all the dodgy stuff!) and came to the conclusion that if I actually wanted to alter recorded sound the way that the 'mic modeler' did, I could do a similar, but better and more controlled job using Ozone (which I have purchased!)
_________________
|
|
|
|
VoodooRadio
Location: USA
Posts: 3971
|
|
Posted - Mon Oct 28, 2002 6:19 pm
|
|
|
I have the Mic Modeling software, and as I've alluded to recently..... where it is a nice piece of kit, it doesn't meet the expectations that I had of it. I still use it, but not in the traditional sense that it was intended. Santa is buying Isotope's Ozone this Christmas, and then I'm done for awhile. (until Synt releases 2.0a) I recently purchased Wave's Native Gold Bundle and got BBE Sonic Maximizer and T-Racks for Christmas last year. As you can see, I'm pretty software poor! 
_________________
I said Good Day!
Voodoo
|
|
|
|
Sonicillusion
Posts: 7
|
|
Posted - Tue Nov 05, 2002 5:53 am
|
|
|
Yes, Please...I would love to test release .001 !!!!
Great Concept Bob !! Good Luck!
|
|
| |
Topic
|
All Forums
Antares Mic Modeler question
