|
Post by wiz on Oct 22, 2016 17:32:55 GMT -6
Slate just posted some audio files on the purple site, comparing the SOS 67 and 47 files, with slate, after using the modelling software they used to model the mics for the VMS.
Now, I assume modelling an audio file compared to modelling a mic results in a less accurate result, I think slate said that....
I was really impressed.
here is my response that i wrote...
I listened in my studio through my normal mixing rig.
I think these are pretty close.
I think that Grace67 and 47B are one type (either slate or real)
I hear the Grace 67 and 47B as not having the same high end and also a similar low end bump.
Now, I am really impressed by this. All things being equal, either of those would work in a track, given the track..
You might have to De Ess one, not the other, but by the same token in another track you might have to add high end...
I own VCC VTM Slate Trigger, and Deluxe sample packs, none of which I use anymore, but did in the past (I say this so as not to be perceived either as a fan boy, or detractor.)
A tool is a tool.
Whilst, I would consider the purchase of this system, as consumable, because of its reliance on software... I think for 1000 dollars US (wish there was parity in Australia) I think its a good and useful tool.
I think for its price point, that is a good workable sound.
Perhaps the marketing can sometimes rub a bit the wrong way, and not everyone is as enthusiastic about one product as someone else might be.
But, I think its an admirable piece of gear priced well.
cheers
Wiz
I think that its a good piece of kit, well priced.
As I said, you have to treat it as consumable, its software based... it might not work in 5 years or 10 years... if you can live with that, and need a mic that covers different bases for different singers.....
A decade ago, I used to record vocalists against their backing tracks .... this system would have been great for that.
I don't think anyone is seriously, apart from the marketing department at Slate , thinks that its ever going to replace all those mics for a grand. I don't.
But I think its a good tool....
cheers
Wiz
|
|
|
Post by ChaseUTB on Oct 23, 2016 14:49:37 GMT -6
ragan you were correct regarding Slate having different emubof the c800g.and I was wrong regarding the c800 instrument mic vs the c800g vox mic ... I know two studios and a friend who have bought multiple of these c800g old and new and they sound very very close like a new mic and a ten year old mic would sound compared to each other of the same make...Some lead free components were changed in Japan and in Japan the c800g9x was released in 2007, however the US Sony rep, my friend, and the two studios have never heard of or seen the c800g9x which is the model number to the lead free component model. So idk I'm kinda confused on the topic, as well as theywhen I asked and my friends newer c800g sounds just like the old one, the older one is not smoother or more mellow in the highs. It's the same bright voices mic. Have a great day
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Oct 23, 2016 15:01:46 GMT -6
ragan you were correct regarding Slate having different emubof the c800g.and I was wrong regarding the c800 instrument mic vs the c800g vox mic ... I know two studios and a friend who have bought multiple of these c800g old and new and they sound very very close like a new mic and a ten year old mic would sound compared to each other of the same make...Some lead free components were changed in Japan and in Japan the c800g9x was released in 2007, however the US Sony rep, my friend, and the two studios have never heard of or seen the c800g9x which is the model number to the lead free component model. So idk I'm kinda confused on the topic, as well as theywhen I asked and my friends newer c800g sounds just like the old one, the older one is not smoother or more mellow in the highs. It's the same bright voices mic. Have a great day Yeah I don't know. They're bright mics regardless of age or iteration. Steven was just saying that of the two VMS C-800 models, the SOS guys didn't choose the one that would have been the closer match.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Oct 23, 2016 15:10:20 GMT -6
GS thread is pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Oct 24, 2016 8:30:49 GMT -6
Good response on GS from Sound on Sound, who are more polite than warranted, and get your popcorn.
Ragan, as far as I'm concerned you are 100% right in all exchanges.
This is basically a disinformation ad campaign and an insult to the honest experience of real capsule and mic manufacturers. Someone might want to explain to Steven (although I suspect he essentially knows this) and all his useful idiots that sibilance is not the same thing as brightness, airiness or non-dullness, but is a form of resonance and nonlinear distortion, influenced by positioning and design of the headbasket, poorly tensioned capsules and cheap IC amps.
This is why VMS will never sound like a U67.
This is really too much to bear. A cheaply made and tuned Chinese edge terminated capsule with completely different backplate design, transformerless circuit and preamp, is supposed to sound like a carefully tuned for response center terminated European made capsule, transient-smoothing and subtly compressing transformer/tube circuit through an all discrete transformer or tube preamp? Or soon enough a ribbon mic!
How many layers of emulation is that, all done after a poor capture? Then all the interactions under all studio conditions too, and who wants to constantly fiddle with an intensity slider and a deesser, when you can spend a little more on a mic that doesn't have these shortcomings?
Like someone in the thread observed, all the emulations maintain some of the same ersatz character.
Just doesn't work. This is what the SOS review and all the other real world demos make abundantly clear.
|
|
|
Post by ChaseUTB on Oct 24, 2016 16:39:17 GMT -6
joseph Slate cronies are slagging a real vintage u67 saying it's dark compare to the VMS and Slate modeled a u67 with the broadcast filters removed. Not even fair to compare but the fanboys are bashing an amazing u67 mic regardless... Then Slate was playing the semantics game trying to talk down to me in that thread as well...Then he finally admitted I was correct about his fanboys slagging the u67 when his emu model is not of a stock factory spec Neumann u67. For me, the slagging and fanboy ism is gross and self absorbed, especially when Slate belittles other companies in the process. To make the claims he does about his cheap oem $150 dollar VMS's sound quality is borderline disrespectful.. Slate has no problem using an edge terminated capsule that's copied from the original. Then when using the original or nylon ck12 it's thin and harsh and lacking body... How when that capsule he is slagging is of better or same quality as the vms mic capsule. I just see it as disrespectful the way he tries to put down the vintage Mics as if they are crap and the vms and SW is gods gift to mankind. It doesn't stop there though, he has been bullying his way through the VMS thread since the SOS vid. Then goes on to take their hi res files and process them while continually shitting on a established company that's giving Slate Digital free promotion and the front page ad for free... Also I hate how Slate thinks non pro audio equipment doesn't exist outside his bubble. He told me to i needed to come to LA to hear real Sony c800g Mics ( face palm ) I don't have to go to LA " Bro ", im in Atlanta, the home of the c800g and famous DARP c12....I have use real Sony C800g's, a friend has 2, and two prestigious studios have I think 5 total... Not one of the c800g's are or less bright than the others and they all sound phenomenal. Most recent model is less than 3 years old and was bought brand new... The way the Sony handles the 2khz and up is amazing and even sibilance is presented wonderfully in these Mics and is not a "pain to deal with " as Slate claims... All vintage mic models have a sound the people recognize, that family of sound from vintage Mics is not being heard in every other emu besides the 47 emu which does sound good after making a few plugin slider adjustments:)
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Oct 24, 2016 17:27:24 GMT -6
I was rooting for Slate to get it right. They certainly have the balls to go for it, and according to Slate, take painstaking care to do so. I believe they do. So, to me, the problem is obvious, the mic itself just isn't as good as it should be to then allow the various emulations to sound their best. Perhaps it is as good as it gets at the price point, but I think a better quality mic to begin with might have made this more viable professionally.
Joseph makes a good point when he said, "sibilance is not the same thing as brightness, airiness or non-dullness, but is a form of resonance and nonlinear distortion, influenced by positioning and design of the head basket, poorly tensioned capsules and cheap IC amps".
Te promise of Chinese manufacturing classic German design capsules that are less expensive isn't quite there yet to my ears.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Oct 24, 2016 21:28:34 GMT -6
Maybe down the road we'll be able to buy just the emulations as a plugin. That way we might be able to demo it before investing.
I'd love to know if the $24 MicClone stands up to it. The U67 model they have ain't bad at all.
|
|
|
Post by donr on Oct 24, 2016 21:53:16 GMT -6
It seems the main difference most people at RGO and GS hear between the VMS and the sources emulated is the subtle "there-ness" of the original mic which is likely not a function of eq, dynamics, or dynamic eq. I suspect the quality of the Slate VMS mic is responsible. Wouldn't a modern neutral mic capable of that "there-ness," regardless of how that quality was achieved, as source mic, be potentially able to deliver emulations as sonically attractive as the venerated classics? The VMS is pretty close, but if you want "there," you still want a better mic than the Slate LDC.
I have a sense that the mic emu thing is about to bust wide open, but what's becoming evident, it'll require a source mic with the quality needed to stand on its own before the emulation software.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Oct 25, 2016 10:20:48 GMT -6
Exactly my thinking too Don.
If a mic begins at the level of say.. a U87 or close to that, emulations might work professionally. I sold my Blackspade UM-17R (needed to pay bills). It had top quality components, practically identical to some mics costing $4,000-$6,000, and it sells for $1,900. it sounded somewhere between a U47 and an M49, very clean and detailed, and no extra sibilance.
Take something like that and try and try emulations, and you might have something.
* I did try the MicClone with it, just for kicks, and it didn't help at all. The original sounded better. Where the MicClone was great was with cheaper mics in the under $600 range. It was like they got a nice little make-over, still the same, but more put together.
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on Oct 26, 2016 13:49:13 GMT -6
Good response on GS from Sound on Sound, who are more polite than warranted, and get your popcorn. Ragan, as far as I'm concerned you are 100% right in all exchanges. This is basically a disinformation ad campaign and an insult to the honest experience of real capsule and mic manufacturers. Someone might want to explain to Steven (although I suspect he essentially knows this) and all his useful idiots that sibilance is not the same thing as brightness, airiness or non-dullness, but is a form of resonance and nonlinear distortion, influenced by positioning and design of the headbasket, poorly tensioned capsules and cheap IC amps. This is why VMS will never sound like a U67. This is really too much to bear. A cheaply made and tuned Chinese edge terminated capsule with completely different backplate design, transformerless circuit and preamp, is supposed to sound like a carefully tuned for response center terminated European made capsule, transient-smoothing and subtly compressing transformer/tube circuit through an all discrete transformer or tube preamp? Or soon enough a ribbon mic! How many layers of emulation is that, all done after a poor capture? Then all the interactions under all studio conditions too, and who wants to constantly fiddle with an intensity slider and a deesser, when you can spend a little more on a mic that doesn't have these shortcomings? Like someone in the thread observed, all the emulations maintain some of the same ersatz character. Just doesn't work. This is what the SOS review and all the other real world demos make abundantly clear. I was thinking about the edge terminated capsule and the U67 capsule issue and I broadly agree with you.
I own a lovely Wunder CM7 with M7 capsule and one feature I love about it, is how it renders my sibilants into a smooth forgiving element of the recording.
IME, cheaper LDC mics haven't worked out well with my sibilants - but as I haven't tried a VMS I can't say how I'll get on.
As regards the dilemma of the edge terminated capsule, I was thinking about how a modern fighter jet isn't actually capable of flying without it's massive computers, without the computer an F15 is apparently nothing more than a large brick!
With that in mind it occurred to me with the correct DSP and a known starting point, perhaps any capsule can be manipulated into flight so to speak, and be modelled to behave in a similar fashion to a U67 capsule?
I wouldn't expect the modelling to create an exact physical clone - that's impossible, but maybe close enough to allow one to focus on the music and not worry about missing out on something maybe unaffordable anyway.
I'm feeling open minded bout VMS and other systems released by other developers.
I own a CM7 but that took a few years of saving for, so owning in addition a C-12, U67, 251 and Sony 800 would take me so long I'd probably be retired by the time I'd bought them LOL
I'm tempted by VMS, if it got me even 85% of the way there, I'd be no worse off in the vocal dept than I would with my virtual piano, virtual drums and virtual guitar amps.
I still aspire to own in addition to my Wunder CM7, a Sony 800, Bock 251 and original U67 but until that boat sails in I think I could live with something like VMS .... but I'll have to demo one first of course :-)
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Oct 26, 2016 15:39:35 GMT -6
To me - all these mics sound like different versions of one mic. Not to say it couldn't be useful...but I downloaded the Townsend plug and samples and felt the same way.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Oct 26, 2016 17:47:40 GMT -6
Good response on GS from Sound on Sound, who are more polite than warranted, and get your popcorn. Ragan, as far as I'm concerned you are 100% right in all exchanges. This is basically a disinformation ad campaign and an insult to the honest experience of real capsule and mic manufacturers. Someone might want to explain to Steven (although I suspect he essentially knows this) and all his useful idiots that sibilance is not the same thing as brightness, airiness or non-dullness, but is a form of resonance and nonlinear distortion, influenced by positioning and design of the headbasket, poorly tensioned capsules and cheap IC amps. This is why VMS will never sound like a U67. This is really too much to bear. A cheaply made and tuned Chinese edge terminated capsule with completely different backplate design, transformerless circuit and preamp, is supposed to sound like a carefully tuned for response center terminated European made capsule, transient-smoothing and subtly compressing transformer/tube circuit through an all discrete transformer or tube preamp? Or soon enough a ribbon mic! How many layers of emulation is that, all done after a poor capture? Then all the interactions under all studio conditions too, and who wants to constantly fiddle with an intensity slider and a deesser, when you can spend a little more on a mic that doesn't have these shortcomings? Like someone in the thread observed, all the emulations maintain some of the same ersatz character. Just doesn't work. This is what the SOS review and all the other real world demos make abundantly clear. I was thinking about the edge terminated capsule and the U67 capsule issue and I broadly agree with you.
I own a lovely Wunder CM7 with M7 capsule and one feature I love about it, is how it renders my sibilants into a smooth forgiving element of the recording.
IME, cheaper LDC mics haven't worked out well with my sibilants - but as I haven't tried a VMS I can't say how I'll get on.
As regards the dilemma of the edge terminated capsule, I was thinking about how a modern fighter jet isn't actually capable of flying without it's massive computers, without the computer an F15 is apparently nothing more than a large brick!
With that in mind it occurred to me with the correct DSP and a known starting point, perhaps any capsule can be manipulated into flight so to speak, and be modelled to behave in a similar fashion to a U67 capsule?
I wouldn't expect the modelling to create an exact physical clone - that's impossible, but maybe close enough to allow one to focus on the music and not worry about missing out on something maybe unaffordable anyway.
I'm feeling open minded bout VMS and other systems released by other developers.
I own a CM7 but that took a few years of saving for, so owning in addition a C-12, U67, 251 and Sony 800 would take me so long I'd probably be retired by the time I'd bought them LOL
I'm tempted by VMS, if it got me even 85% of the way there, I'd be no worse off in the vocal dept than I would with my virtual piano, virtual drums and virtual guitar amps.
I still aspire to own in addition to my Wunder CM7, a Sony 800, Bock 251 and original U67 but until that boat sails in I think I could live with something like VMS .... but I'll have to demo one first of course :-)
If they started with a good capsule, I might be interested. But they didn't, they went cheap, and you can hear it. It can't compete with Wunder or Flea, Gefell, and especially not vintage Neumann, Josephson, Brauner.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Oct 26, 2016 17:49:31 GMT -6
To me - all these mics sound like different versions of one mic. Not to say it couldn't be useful...but I downloaded the Townsend plug and samples and felt the same way. That's exactly my feeling. A cheap sibilant capsule slathered with different sauces.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Oct 26, 2016 18:01:30 GMT -6
To me - all these mics sound like different versions of one mic. Not to say it couldn't be useful...but I downloaded the Townsend plug and samples and felt the same way. That's exactly my feeling. A cheap sibilant capsule slathered with different sauces. I haven't tested it in awhile, but (last I did) I get the same 'slathered on' feeling from VCC. I end up feeling like "Yeah, I kind of like what that does...I just want it to sound more....real"
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on Oct 27, 2016 4:16:01 GMT -6
Well if they "went cheap" on the caspule then I imagine it will have sibilant issues with my voice and be a non starter.
VCC I'm happy with, it has without doubt made my mixes sound better - "better" so even my wife can tell the difference and that's really saying something! (lol)
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Oct 27, 2016 9:16:18 GMT -6
I did this quick and dirty for you guys. I was trying the GuageUSA MicClone and it didn't help with a high end mic like my Blackspade, but have a listen and see what it did with the $600 Avantone CV95.
I used the U67 setting around 75%.
https%3A//soundcloud.com/martin-john-butler/vocal-test-plain
https%3A//soundcloud.com/martin-john-butler/vocal-test-with-micclone I used the MicClone on the U67 setting, around 75%.
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Oct 27, 2016 9:20:10 GMT -6
I did this quick and dirty for you guys. I was trying the GuageUSA MicClone and it didn't help with a high end mic like my Blackspade, but have a listen and see what it did with the $600 Avantone CV95. https%3A//soundcloud.com/martin-john-butler/vocal-test-plainhttps%3A//soundcloud.com/martin-john-butler/vocal-test-with-miccloneI literally like it 1000x better plain.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Oct 27, 2016 9:40:56 GMT -6
here's the same file flat, with no reverbs:
https%3A//soundcloud.com/martin-john-butler/flat-solo-vocal-test-no-micclone
https%3A//soundcloud.com/martin-john-butler/flat-solo-vocal-test-with-micclone
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Oct 27, 2016 16:14:38 GMT -6
Hi! New member here! I'm a refugee from the purple site. This very same thread (over there) made me end up deleting my account. I've been a lurker here for a while and it looks like a much gentle place, with wiser people (and some familiar faces)
|
|
|
Post by BenjaminAshlin on Oct 27, 2016 16:53:49 GMT -6
here's the same file flat, with no reverbs: https%3A//soundcloud.com/martin-john-butler/flat-solo-vocal-test-no-micclonehttps%3A//soundcloud.com/martin-john-butler/flat-solo-vocal-test-with-miccloneWow, I like that. Might have to check out that plugin sometime.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Oct 27, 2016 17:23:31 GMT -6
I didn't have time to try it with the U47, M49 or C12 sims, but it's possible one was even better.
It's only $24, so if it helps every now and then on any track, it's well worth it.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Oct 27, 2016 17:25:22 GMT -6
Hey stormymondays, welcome to the forum. It's true, cats here are generally very cool, and helpful.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Oct 27, 2016 17:34:32 GMT -6
Hi! New member here! I'm a refugee from the purple site. This very same thread (over there) made me end up deleting my account. I've been a lurker here for a while and it looks like a much gentle place, with wiser people (and some familiar faces) Hey, welcome, man! My evil plan is coming to fruition... MUUUWWWWAAAAAAAAAA
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2016 17:35:59 GMT -6
Thanks for the heads up gonna try this with my cheapie mikes (NT1A, Chinethe toob miclophone, sm57) to see how they fare. Maybe Mictone will be better for these?
|
|