|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Jan 24, 2023 6:34:57 GMT -6
Anybody here using the Sphere microphone?
|
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jan 24, 2023 7:16:19 GMT -6
I've heard many comparisons against the different mics they have emulated, and it's not even close. It's like 50% there. The Neumanns, the ribbons, the Sony C800.
If you compare against the Slate, I think both are as far to the real deal as the other. But Sphere kind of sounds a bit better occasionally, I think.
One thing I like about the sphere is the dual mics possibilities. I've heard good results with that configuration.
|
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Jan 24, 2023 7:21:00 GMT -6
My sense is peeps like the convenience of its software features more then worrying about how exact the emulations are ?
|
|
|
|
Post by drastic on Jan 24, 2023 8:23:59 GMT -6
I’ve got one here I’ve actually been thinking about parting with… I like the mic, it’s a solid sounding mic even without using the software, just not using it much unfortunately. Thought it sounded really good as a stereo room mic, but haven’t spent much time with it on vocals.
|
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Jan 24, 2023 8:28:21 GMT -6
There's a used one up here: just kicking the tires.
With UA releasing their new mikes, lots of profile and the l22 is fully supported, good time to advertise if you were thinking about selling?
|
|
|
|
Post by drastic on Jan 24, 2023 8:34:23 GMT -6
There's a used one up here: just kicking the tires. With UA releasing their new mikes, lots of profile and the l22 is fully supported, good time to advertise if you were thinking about selling? Yeah I’m firmly on the fence about selling haha, that’s why I have too much stuff 😂 I saw they released another model as well, at least its not a product that’s disappearing immediately |
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Jan 24, 2023 9:09:37 GMT -6
I’ve got one here I’ve actually been thinking about parting with… I like the mic, it’s a solid sounding mic even without using the software, just not using it much unfortunately. Thought it sounded really good as a stereo room mic, but haven’t spent much time with it on vocals. If its a solid sounding mic all on its own, then it's leaps and bounds ahead of the Slate. JMHO |
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Jan 24, 2023 9:17:12 GMT -6
The lower priced lx doesn’t do the dual capsule and dlx has gone up $500, but adds in more mike emulations, so a used l22 is sort of a sweet spot?
|
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jan 24, 2023 9:43:22 GMT -6
I’ve got one here I’ve actually been thinking about parting with… I like the mic, it’s a solid sounding mic even without using the software, just not using it much unfortunately. Thought it sounded really good as a stereo room mic, but haven’t spent much time with it on vocals. If its a solid sounding mic all on its own, then it's leaps and bounds ahead of the Slate. JMHO Yeah, maybe. But putting the software in, they will sound probably as good. Sphere has more options on the software, which is another point to it. My take is: if you'll ever going to use it's stereo feature, get it. The modelling and the mic itself aren't bad. If the stereo is not interesting to you, get the slate to fiddle with modeling stuff, and another normal good mic. I think it'll be cheaper and achieve a better result. |
|
|
|
Post by donr on Jan 24, 2023 11:28:15 GMT -6
I've got one. Sounds fine. I don't use it much, but then I don't use my Chandler REDD, or any of my mics that much either. For vocals lately it's the STAM 47. I'm thinking of buying an SM7. Seriously.
The Sphere software is useful as a tonal option after the fact. If Sphere absolutely nailed all the emulations, we'd all have one, wouldn't we? I haven't yet used it outside UA's sharc hardware.
The Stereo capability is a significant plus. It's a quality product.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jan 24, 2023 11:44:56 GMT -6
The stereo functionality on the Sphere seems cool. I like the idea that you can manipulate it after the fact. It would be cool to see more mics like that.
That said, the modeling doesn't much appeal to me, if for no other reason than that I don't see how you accurately model the off axis response of all of those various mics.
General tonality? Sure, I suppose that's kind of doable, but a fig 8 mics is going to have a way different null and off axis pickup (or lack thereof) than a cardioid mic.
|
|
|
|
Post by donr on Jan 24, 2023 12:29:09 GMT -6
The stereo functionality on the Sphere seems cool. I like the idea that you can manipulate it after the fact. It would be cool to see more mics like that. That said, the modeling doesn't much appeal to me, if for no other reason than that I don't see how you accurately model the off axis response of all of those various mics. General tonality? Sure, I suppose that's kind of doable, but a fig 8 mics is going to have a way different null and off axis pickup (or lack thereof) than a cardioid mic. The off axis modeling is why Sphere went with a stereo mic. In intended use, it's front/back address, not left/right, and you wind up with a mono track. You can also use it as a regular stereo mic. |
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Jan 24, 2023 12:54:58 GMT -6
Similar pattern manipulation / stereo possibilities
Sennheiser MKH 800 Twin
Pearl ELM-A
Austrian Audio OC818
Lewitt thing 640-something? Prob the most inexpensive one.
I’ve used dual output mics like a zoom lens in post on acoustics, for instance. Zoom in on the quiet verse, out on the hard strumming chorus. Neat tricks to be had with drums. Delay the rear capsule for room enlargement.
Hard panned dual output they are same as MS with an omni mid, panned mono it's omni. I did the experiment of making a virtual omni and a virtual figure 8 from the same source, put it into an MS plug, and it was indistinguishable from the basic hard panned dual output.
Tangent - any ambisonic mic.
Definitely people in DIY world building dual output mics. I made a TLM67 dual output.
Given no one’s really sold on the modeling as real, if you can get the software side free, use it with anything as a color option.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jan 24, 2023 13:33:56 GMT -6
The stereo functionality on the Sphere seems cool. I like the idea that you can manipulate it after the fact. It would be cool to see more mics like that. That said, the modeling doesn't much appeal to me, if for no other reason than that I don't see how you accurately model the off axis response of all of those various mics. General tonality? Sure, I suppose that's kind of doable, but a fig 8 mics is going to have a way different null and off axis pickup (or lack thereof) than a cardioid mic. The off axis modeling is why Sphere went with a stereo mic. In intended use, it's front/back address, not left/right, and you wind up with a mono track. You can also use it as a regular stereo mic. Right, but are the two capsules, in combination, going to reject sound coming from the nulls in the same way that, for example, a ribbon will reject sound coming from it's nulls? What about some of these other mics? If the Sphere is picking up more or less of the room, especially at different frequencies than what the original mic would do, it's going to take more than just simple eq to model the original mic. I get that the reason (at least one of the reasons) the Sphere has dual diaphragms/inputs is to allow for approximating the various pickup patterns of these classic mics, but it's still just an approximation, at best. My point was that off axis response of classic mics is a topic of much discussion, and each mic has its own unique off axis response, which seems to be one of the hardest things to replicate, even when a modern clone is attempting to approximate just one single mic. I'm skeptical that the Sphere can somehow accurately model all of these classic mics with just software. That said, and as I've said before, the ability to manipulate the recorded signal after the fact, not as a result of plugin modelling of individual mics, but simply by virtue of taking advantage of the additive/subtractive nature of combining two nearby diaphragms, much in the same way that mid-side works, is still of interest to me, and has genuine utility all on its own, regardless of any attempts to tonally model classic mics. I think that's what makes the Sphere more attractive, at least to me, over the Slate mic. |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jan 24, 2023 13:40:56 GMT -6
Similar pattern manipulation / stereo possibilities Sennheiser MKH 800 Twin Pearl ELM-A Austrian Audio OC818 Lewitt thing 640-something? Prob the most inexpensive one. I’ve used dual output mics like a zoom lens in post on acoustics, for instance. Zoom in on the quiet verse, out on the hard strumming chorus. Neat tricks to be had with drums. Delay the rear capsule for room enlargement. Hard panned dual output they are same as MS with an omni mid, panned mono it's omni. I did the experiment of making a virtual omni and a virtual figure 8 from the same source, put it into an MS plug, and it was indistinguishable from the basic hard panned dual output. Tangent - any ambisonic mic. Definitely people in DIY world building dual output mics. I made a TLM67 dual output. Given no one’s really sold on the modeling as real, if you can get the software side free, use it with anything as a color option. I forgot about that Lewitt one. It had interested me before, for similar reasons. I agree, the software modelling thing is just kind of a bonus, as far as I'm concerned. Even if you never use the modelling, the simple pickup pattern combination/manipulation still affords some cool potential uses, much like you described. |
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jan 24, 2023 15:07:22 GMT -6
The polarity and off axis response worked pretty well from the tests I've heard.
The problem was especially the texture of the models. Sphere, and Slate for that matter, looks like simple eqs applied to neutral mics. They fail to imitate the mojo and character of what they are modeling.
You know when you hear a Neumann or a Sony 800G and you go "that's a Neumman, that's a Sony, that's an AEA". With Sphere and Slate every model sounds like a generic mic with different frequency responses.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,107 
|
Post by ericn on Jan 24, 2023 15:35:15 GMT -6
The polarity and off axis response worked pretty well from the tests I've heard. The problem was especially the texture of the models. Sphere, and Slate for that matter, looks like simple eqs applied to neutral mics. They fail to imitate the mojo and character of what they are modeling. You know when you hear a Neumann or a Sony 800G and you go "that's a Neumman, that's a Sony, that's an AEA". With Sphere and Slate every model sounds like a generic mic with different frequency responses. It’s the capsule, it’s always the capsule. The thing nobody in the mic modeling (or speaker modeling for that matter) biz ever seams to understand is that a big recognizable part of the sound we recognize is the distortion and at times lack of distortion of a given diaphragm. They don’t understand that unless they start with a perfect capsule it can’t work because they don’t acknowledge the fact that they can’t remove distortion. The other biggie is they think of distortion in a very EE way and forget that a lot of the distortion of a capsule is a physical characteristic that is converted to electrical, what I’m trying to say is this the mic’s distortion isn’t just a function of level but of direction and type of wave form as well. Most well designed preamps don’t distort that differently if you apply a sine or a triangle wave, but transducers sure do and your pre amp could care less about the angle of incendence but your mic’s diaphragm does. So what it comes down to is this with the blank slate that is a digital single you can play with distortion, phase and EQ and get pretty damn close to just about any electronic processing device, but with mics your trying to duplicate the very non linear character of a transducer starting with a single from a completely different nonlinear device? It just isn’t going to happen. Now if Neumann were to take a K47 / K49 cap put it in say one of their digital mics you could probably get a damn close model of a 47, 47 FET and M49 with k47’s even better k87/67 would be able to give a great vintage 87/ AI/ 67/TLM67 because that capsule could be mounted in the same windscreen. |
|
|
|
Post by tackhouse on Jan 25, 2023 14:22:48 GMT -6
Here's a quick take to compare WA-67 to L22: Little Curse demo.wav. This mix switches between WA-67 and L22 line by line (cowbell indicates source switch). The L22 is running the UAD Ocean Way Mics OW-269 model (this sounded closer to the WA-67 than either of the stock 67's in the Sphere plugin or the Putnam 67 model). Both mics are running through a (new to me) Great River MP-4 (whiteface 90's iteration). With Apollo x Unison pre's (I run two x8p's and an x4), there is no comparison, the WA-67 wins. But in this example, with the Great River pres, both sound pretty good to me. I own three L22s and have been using these as my primary large diaphragm condenser with Apollo Unison preamps for a couple of years now. Holy smokes, does moving to the Great River make a difference. I'm interested to hear from others how these two mics stack up in this example. Oh, in the example, the first line is the L22, the second is WA-67, and so on.  |
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Jan 25, 2023 14:54:22 GMT -6
Interesting, you’re not running the GR pre out into a unison pre: right ? Were you using a ua neve unison pre for the comparison ? I still prefer Ob, feel like, its easy to get lost in the software options snd gui eye candy. I have a stam 67, diy c12 with Campbell cap, wa84. The sphere is interesting but i think I ‘d buy a stam 800 vs the sphere. The one sort of locally, (5 hour drive!  , the guy is asking too much for used . |
|
|
|
Post by tackhouse on Jan 25, 2023 16:22:25 GMT -6
This example was all mic->GR->Apollo line in. No Unison used for this example.
|
|
|
|
Post by tkaitkai on Jan 25, 2023 17:28:40 GMT -6
The problem was especially the texture of the models. Sphere, and Slate for that matter, looks like simple eqs applied to neutral mics. They fail to imitate the mojo and character of what they are modeling. This was my impression as well. What I've heard from the various modeling mics reminds me a lot of EQ matching. The mics serve as a sort of "ruler-flat" starting point, and my guess is the software basically applies a very fine-grain EQ curve (probably an impulse response derived from sending sine sweeps into classic mics in anechoic chambers, using ultra clean mic pres & converters) plus other emulated nonlinearities like distortion, harmonics, compression, etc. The result usually sounds pretty good, but I almost always prefer the real deal. I'm interested to hear from others how these two mics stack up in this example. Nice demo. I pretty much immediately preferred the Warm — for lack of a better term, it sounds like a "real" mic compared to the Sphere. Don't get me wrong, the Sphere still sounds great, and it's not radically different from the Warm or anything, but it sounds a tad bit unruly in terms of dynamics, and there's a very slight grit in the high end that isn't my cup of tea.
Cool thing about the Sphere software is if you're not digging a specific emulation, you have a ton of others to choose from.
|
|
|
|
Post by tackhouse on Feb 1, 2023 8:52:34 GMT -6
Ran a brief head-to-head with the STAM-251 and L22 (Putnam 251 model loaded), both mics running through Great River pres.
Only had time for a quick blind AB. After just a few listens, and with no processing, I’m not sure I could tell them apart. I mean there’s differences sonically, but at first blush, what I guessed was the L22 was in fact the STAM-251.
Not the result I expected. I’m starting to look at these Apollo x8p Unison pres (all 16 of them)with a jaundiced eye.
I’ll post audio later when I get a few free minutes.
My API 3124 arrives later today.
|
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Feb 1, 2023 9:56:08 GMT -6
Ok, but sphere isn’t unison, so are you also experimenting with a ua neve pre and comparing to your GR?
|
|
|
|
Post by tkaitkai on Feb 1, 2023 10:47:00 GMT -6
Ran a brief head-to-head with the STAM-251 and L22 (Putnam 251 model loaded), both mics running through Great River pres. Only had time for a quick blind AB. After just a few listens, and with no processing, I’m not sure I could tell them apart. I mean there’s differences sonically, but at first blush, what I guessed was the L22 was in fact the STAM-251. Not the result I expected. I’m starting to look at these Apollo x8p Unison pres (all 16 of them)with a jaundiced eye. I’ll post audio later when I get a few free minutes. My API 3124 arrives later today.
You got the Stam pretty recently, right? In that case, you might still be adjusting to it. I bet if you spend a few more months with it, you'll know exactly what you're hearing every time.
Also, when shooting out multiple mics, I know it might seem more scientific to record all at same time so as to avoid separate takes being a confounding variable, but you actually introduce a different (but equally confounding) variable when doing this: it's usually not possible to be on-axis with multiple LDCs at the same time. You either get one mic that's directly on-axis and the rest are off, or they're all off-axis. Either way, this methodology is not without fault — maybe one mic has a better off-axis response, and maybe another would have fared better if it was directly on-axis.
I prefer doing two closely matched takes back-to-back, giving your best effort to make each mic sound its best. Maybe you have to back off one mic more than the other for it to truly shine. Maybe one requires a little more preamp gain or something. Personally, I find this kind of comparison much more useful because it tells me how each piece of gear sounds at its best, which is more relevant to how I'd be choosing gear in the real world.
Just my perspective, YMMV
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,107
|
Post by ericn on Feb 1, 2023 11:30:59 GMT -6
Ran a brief head-to-head with the STAM-251 and L22 (Putnam 251 model loaded), both mics running through Great River pres. Only had time for a quick blind AB. After just a few listens, and with no processing, I’m not sure I could tell them apart. I mean there’s differences sonically, but at first blush, what I guessed was the L22 was in fact the STAM-251. Not the result I expected. I’m starting to look at these Apollo x8p Unison pres (all 16 of them)with a jaundiced eye. I’ll post audio later when I get a few free minutes. My API 3124 arrives later today.
You got the Stam pretty recently, right? In that case, you might still be adjusting to it. I bet if you spend a few more months with it, you'll know exactly what you're hearing every time.
Also, when shooting out multiple mics, I know it might seem more scientific to record all at same time so as to avoid separate takes being a confounding variable, but you actually introduce a different (but equally confounding) variable when doing this: it's usually not possible be on-axis with multiple LDCs at the same time. You either get one mic that's directly on-axis and the rest are off, or they're all off-axis. Either way, this methodology is not without fault — maybe one mic has a better off-axis response, and maybe another would have fared better if it was directly on-axis.
I prefer doing two closely matched takes back-to-back, giving your best effort to make each mic sound its best. Maybe you have to back off one mic more than the other for it to truly shine. Maybe one requires a little more preamp gain or something. Personally, I find this kind of comparison much more useful because it tells me how each piece of gear sounds at its best, which is more relevant to how I'd be choosing gear in the real world.
Just my perspective, YMMV
Your absolutely right, but a trick I developed after doing about a hundred mic demos was to always leave up something like a 58 in the same position so during comparison you could compare the 58 tracks to get an idea what difference was performances vs mic. Perfect? No but it at least helped settle that issue. |
|
, the guy is asking too much for used .
