|
Post by sirthought on Jul 24, 2019 12:38:08 GMT -6
I guess this is something from NAMM that I didn't attend to learn. Townsend Labs is going to be releasing a version update for their Sphere Microphone Modeling system and at least one new mic models will be a Soyuz 017 tube mic. LINKI doubt if many people on this board are using this system, but it has been a while since they released something new, so I wanted to pass it along. They already have most of the classic mics in their library. I'd say one area they haven't explored as much of is with specific stereo mics. Not sure if that's possible, but their product can record in stereo.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jul 24, 2019 14:10:55 GMT -6
I guess this is something from NAMM that I didn't attend to learn. Townsend Labs is going to be releasing a version update for their Sphere Microphone Modeling system and at least one new mic models will be a Soyuz 017 tube mic. LINKI doubt if many people on this board are using this system, but it has been a while since they released something new, so I wanted to pass it along. They already have most of the classic mics in their library. I'd say one area they haven't explored as much of is with specific stereo mics. Not sure if that's possible, but their product can record in stereo. Well, as everybody probably knows by now I don't believe in mic modeling systems for several reasons but, that being said, have you had occasion to actually use this one and, if so, what did you think?
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Jul 24, 2019 14:16:58 GMT -6
What little I know, IMHO they could be very handy on drums. More critical parts like lead vox, I think there's still "nothing like the real thing". I suppose exceptions are "Modern Pop" and "Modern R&B/Hip Hop/Rap". You know the stuff where no one really sings anyway. Chris
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Jul 24, 2019 14:51:21 GMT -6
A classical engineer I highly respect and have worked with has two of them and loves them. When I asked about them he said simply that the emulations were fine, but the stereo spectrum stuff is an amazing feature. If I ever try another digital mic system it will be the Sphere.
|
|
|
Post by sirthought on Jul 24, 2019 15:19:17 GMT -6
No, haven't personally used one. I've spoken with two studio owners who have them and like them. I was about to pull the trigger on it, and instead went with the TG mic, which has been great. My belief is they are both quality, non-classic, studio mics. Part of why I went with the TG is I felt if I did decide to sell the mic I might have an easier time with the Chandler Limited brand.
I believe it's growing in use. I might still try it in the future. I have tried the software, which is free, and messed around with test tracks they provide. I thought the experience with that was fine, but newbies will likely be tweaking more than they should if they don't know what they want.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jul 24, 2019 19:21:11 GMT -6
What little I know, IMHO they could be very handy on drums. More critical parts like lead vox, I think there's still "nothing like the real thing". I suppose exceptions are "Modern Pop" and "Modern R&B/Hip Hop/Rap". You know the stuff where no one really sings anyway:) Chris I try to ignore stuff that isn't actually music.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jul 24, 2019 19:23:20 GMT -6
No, haven't personally used one. I've spoken with two studio owners who have them and like them. I was about to pull the trigger on it, and instead went with the TG mic, which has been great. My belief is they are both quality, non-classic, studio mics. Part of why I went with the TG is I felt if I did decide to sell the mic I might have an easier time with the Chandler Limited brand. I believe it's growing in use. I might still try it in the future. I have tried the software, which is free, and messed around with test tracks they provide. I thought the experience with that was fine, but newbies will likely be tweaking more than they should if they don't know what they want. Of course it's growing in use. The question is does it do what they claim or is it snake oil.
IMO, if it doesn't get the off-axis response correct then it's snake oil. And I don't believe that's possible.
|
|
|
Post by sirthought on Jul 24, 2019 23:35:47 GMT -6
johneppstein Based on the test tracks they provided and working with the software, I think off-axis is one of the main strong points of this product.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jul 25, 2019 1:51:44 GMT -6
johneppstein Based on the test tracks they provided and working with the software, I think off-axis is one of the main strong points of this product. Interesting. I assume their system uses some sort of special mic?
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Jul 25, 2019 5:49:18 GMT -6
johneppstein Based on the test tracks they provided and working with the software, I think off-axis is one of the main strong points of this product. Interesting. I assume their system uses some sort of special mic? It records two signals from both the front and back of the capsule and the programming allows for manipulation of the signal from Omni to figure of 8. Because this they can correctly emulate the microphone's off axis responses (per their marketing anyway). You can also blend the microphones in the program. But there is a pretty amazing stereo array in the program that allows the two signals to be processed in stereo.
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Jul 25, 2019 6:41:44 GMT -6
What little I know, IMHO they could be very handy on drums. More critical parts like lead vox, I think there's still "nothing like the real thing". I suppose exceptions are "Modern Pop" and "Modern R&B/Hip Hop/Rap". You know the stuff where no one really sings anyway:) Chris I try to ignore stuff that isn't actually music. Get off my lawn.
|
|
|
Post by sirthought on Jul 25, 2019 13:13:23 GMT -6
johneppstein Based on the test tracks they provided and working with the software, I think off-axis is one of the main strong points of this product. Interesting. I assume their system uses some sort of special mic? I believe it's actually dual capsules, not unlike that new Austrian Audio mic (which might work with the Townsend software and cost less!) The two input tracks provide 360 degree capture. The software allows you to, post tracking, change the axis angle of the mic, and adjust separately for proximity effect. It's pretty amazing I must say. Run it through whatever processing and sit it in a mix, I doubt you'll know if it's a vintage mic or not. It still doesn't give you the same satisfaction as hanging up a desirable mic that you are certain is giving you what you want. But depending on your budget for multiple mics, this could offer a lot of variety and you can edit all the choices after the fact during editing. Add the Soyuz to the list.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jul 25, 2019 20:50:47 GMT -6
Interesting. I assume their system uses some sort of special mic? I believe it's actually dual capsules, not unlike that new Austrian Audio mic (which might work with the Townsend software and cost less!) The two input tracks provide 360 degree capture. The software allows you to, post tracking, change the axis angle of the mic, and adjust separately for proximity effect. It's pretty amazing I must say. Run it through whatever processing and sit it in a mix, I doubt you'll know if it's a vintage mic or not. It still doesn't give you the same satisfaction as hanging up a desirable mic that you are certain is giving you what you want. But depending on your budget for multiple mics, this could offer a lot of variety and you can edit all the choices after the fact during editing. Add the Soyuz to the list. I'd much rather purchase a real Soyuz, which I have considered. (And still am considering.) If I has an opportunity to audition I might pop.
My budget is always strained. but I'd much rather save my pennies for something real, which will probably have resale value in excess of what I paid (because I'm more or less a cheap, patient bastard) than to waste my cash on a software dependent plugin based product that will likely be obsolete in a few years. Real vintage mics never become obsolete. Even not that vintage great mics don't become obsolete.
If the mic was one of those four, six, or eight capsule mics I'd be more inclined to take it seriously. I see no way to get true off axis accuracy In all directions with only two capsules.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jul 25, 2019 20:54:59 GMT -6
I try to ignore stuff that isn't actually music. Get off my lawn. Or mow!
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jul 25, 2019 20:56:22 GMT -6
Interesting. I assume their system uses some sort of special mic? It records two signals from both the front and back of the capsule and the programming allows for manipulation of the signal from Omni to figure of 8. Because this they can correctly emulate the microphone's off axis responses (per their marketing anyway). You can also blend the microphones in the program. But there is a pretty amazing stereo array in the program that allows the two signals to be processed in stereo. No, they can't.
Pattern? Most assuredly.
Frequency response?
No way in hell.
When they can prove that they can duplicate the off axis frequency response of e.g. a KM84 I'll sit up and listen. Or a high quality omni for that matter.
Marketing is marketing. They're not called "sales weasels" for nothing.
EDIT: Board ate my first edit.
I can see this being possible with a six capsule microphone - front, back, left, right, top, bottom. Which has been done but is hideously expensive. I do not see it being possible with a two capsule/diaphragm microphone. At least not without capsules that are as "perfect" as a KM84 and probably not then.
But wishful thinking is a powerful force and they'll probably sell a bunch - at least until disappointed users start dumping them on the used market.
The other thing to be considered is what happens in 5 or 10 years when "system upgrades" make this (version of the) system obsolete? I'd prefer to put my money in something that will hold its value indefinitely, even probably appreciate, rather than dumping my cash down the sinkhole of planned obsolescence. Which all software based systems are.
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Jul 25, 2019 22:21:29 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by sirthought on Jul 26, 2019 5:02:08 GMT -6
If anything, John is reliable for opinions on this stuff.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jul 26, 2019 12:47:17 GMT -6
If anything, John is reliable for opinions on this stuff. Well, yes, I am generally skeptical about products that make claims that appear to defy the laws of physics.
The problem is this - once the sound has been converted to an electrical signal by the capsule(s), how can the software differentiate between the part of the signal that represents on-axis sound from that which represents off-axis sound? Only two diaphragms/capsules does not give enough sampling points to derive a complete picture of pickup in all dimensions. It seems to me that the minimum number of capsules would be 4 in a tetrahedral array, like a Soundfield mic, if not 6. If somebody can explain how an array geometry with less than tetrahedral pickup could create an accurate simulation of a microphone's true response in three dimensions I'm all ears.
I do see that Rode has introduced a Soundfield type mic system that is significantly less costly than the systems I had been familiar with - only $1000, street.
However I have yet to see a "mic modeler" that takes advantage of Soundfield technology.
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Jul 26, 2019 15:21:12 GMT -6
(best Leonard Nimoy/Spock voice) "Fascinating, but not possible". (?) Chris
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Jul 26, 2019 15:23:13 GMT -6
I was going to comment on this thread but I’m afraid it’s not in my purview.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jul 26, 2019 15:31:42 GMT -6
Some people I trust really love the Townsend mic over the slate stuff.
John, how close is always up to the users esthetic, but they have got some serious tech behind this thing. Before you take peoples impressions and their descriptions of what it does, it's worth checking out what Townsend Labs say it does and listening for yourself, rather than relying on second hand impressions of someone else's impression and description.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jul 26, 2019 23:55:44 GMT -6
Some people I trust really love the Townsend mic over the slate stuff. John, how close is always up to the users esthetic, but they have got some serious tech behind this thing. Before you take peoples impressions and their descriptions of what it does, it's worth checking out what Townsend Labs say it does and listening for yourself, rather than relying on second hand impressions of someone else's impression and description. Well, I would but for the facts that (1) my system is not set up to use plugins and (2) although I do have a pretty decent mic locker for a "semi-pro" it isn't nearly extensive enough to conduct comprehensive tests. I don't presently own a real U47 and the closest I have to a C12 is a C12A. Which isn't all that close.
And yeah, it's always up to the "user's aesthethic" but that's a fairly rapidly moving target. Look at all the people who were initially wowed by the Slate VMS only to abandon it later after the "new" wore off.
My position is that at this point in my life I prefer to let the "new wear off" on other people. I'm definetly NOT opposed to new tech. I'm just done with being an early adopter.
And I don't have the spare cash to purchase the Townsend system just for a test. And I doubt that anybody is going to loan me one long enough for the "new" to wear off.
I still don't see the Emperor's damn clothes.
|
|