|
Post by ragan on Nov 10, 2015 9:55:45 GMT -6
What I don't think can be modeled is the off axis response, diaphragm shadow and proximity effect. It obviously could work at one distance from a voice in a dead environment but moving the mike would create a completely different result. I wonder about this too, although those qualities are a result of a cardioid mic itself. I have put Slate's software right next to the hardware they modeled on an occasion or two and it is truly impressive, the modeling of all that complex nonlinear response stuff. If the capsule has the same physical behavior and then the whole signal (on/off axis, distance, etc) goes into that vortex of all the harmonic, transient, response modeling they've done, it wouldn't surprise me that much if even that off axis and distance stuff is quite similar. Proof will be in the pudding of course. Im curious, Bob, did you listen to the examples in the (totally ridiculous and over the top) VMS promo video? What did you think?
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Nov 10, 2015 10:01:17 GMT -6
I think the real problem for this (as is being discussed page after page on GS) is gonna be latency. Steven is always claiming this great performance if you run at 96k with a 64 buffer. Not only is that not gonna work for a shitload of people (particularly people VMS is targeted at) but I tried it the other day (64 buffer with no plugs in the session) and it still sounded like a comb filtery mess doing vocals. Going back and forth between the DAW monitoring and UA Consolw was a big difference. And that comb filtery sound is not something I'd live with for vocals. Not at all. Add to that the fact that if you try to overdub once you've already got a few latency inducing plugs (and the resulting delay compensation) and you're gonna be totally hosed.
I think most people will have to monitor the vanilla mic/pre and add the emulation later, which may suck.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Nov 10, 2015 10:12:00 GMT -6
Yeah the thought of having to use with latency was a bummer, but really, having to track without the effect of the software would be a fair trade off if it does what it's is said to do.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Nov 10, 2015 10:14:36 GMT -6
I think what makes things valuable for me is pretty simple - do they work. If this is a matter of putting up a mic, recording someone and auditioning three mics and one works without having to futz with yanking out multiple midranges - then it would be worth its weight in gold.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Nov 10, 2015 10:20:21 GMT -6
I didn't bother because it shouldn't be hard to match a single position. The differences between mikes are mostly about the mechanical construction of the capsules.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Nov 10, 2015 11:34:22 GMT -6
I think my biggest concern about both slate and UA is how fragile the resulting audio is and how well it can accept the inevitable additional processing. My experience with DSP has been that the sound quality goes downhill a bit after each additional process is applied. I just don't like the idea of not being able to back out to the raw microphone signal. It fascinates me how much I follow your thinking, or logic, or think like you... or how you better state what is actually on my mind. Even the point JK makes about recording a raw signal and processing it later backs up what you're saying about how each bit of processing takes away from the integrity of the audio.
|
|
|
Post by Gustav on Nov 10, 2015 11:41:59 GMT -6
Can I use this with my liquid channel?
Gustav
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Nov 10, 2015 12:00:02 GMT -6
If you mean with another pre. I tkink martin asked this at AES and was told yes.
|
|
|
Post by category5 on Nov 10, 2015 19:24:42 GMT -6
Still - I have yet to have heard a flat Condenser mic under $1000...and this is a mic and a pre. So... Hell, he could make a lot of money selling a $700 truly flat condenser. It doesn't have to be flat since it's designed to be used with his software. Since his mic is a constant the mic module just needs to subtract the source before applying the destination impulse. Consistency has to be near perfect mic to mic but it doesn't need to be flat.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Nov 10, 2015 20:01:28 GMT -6
Still - I have yet to have heard a flat Condenser mic under $1000...and this is a mic and a pre. So... Hell, he could make a lot of money selling a $700 truly flat condenser. It doesn't have to be flat since it's designed to be used with his software. Since his mic is a constant the mic module just needs to subtract the source before applying the destination impulse. Consistency has to be near perfect mic to mic but it doesn't need to be flat. Touché. Didn't think of it that way.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Nov 10, 2015 21:15:31 GMT -6
What I don't think can be modeled is the off axis response, diaphragm shadow and proximity effect. It obviously could work at one distance from a voice in a dead environment but moving the mike would create a completely different result. Am thinking the same thing, but what do you mean by diaphragm shadow, resonance/coloring from the basket? And what about high SPL without a pad and handling noise? One thing I would guess is that this system in its current form won't be able to emulate a KM84, E22S, Schoeps Colette series or a Coles 4038, some of the most useful mics in existence. So not as of yet much of a replacement for a mic locker.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Nov 11, 2015 1:02:21 GMT -6
It doesn't have to be flat since it's designed to be used with his software. Since his mic is a constant the mic module just needs to subtract the source before applying the destination impulse. Consistency has to be near perfect mic to mic but it doesn't need to be flat. True but is it even possible to make (potentially) thousands of near identical mics on the cheap? I think matching the components is doable but thousands of (most likely) mass produced capsules? I don't know where Slate is sourcing the mics but honestly, Chinese manufacturing and design is, depending on the designer and facility, a lot more advanced and generally excellent than many would like to think. It's not trendy to say but I think it's the case. Just look at the 3U Audio stuff. Pretty amazing. The idea that they could design and implement a low cost mic that suits their modeling needs wouldn't surprise me one bit.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Nov 11, 2015 8:24:30 GMT -6
Yeah - I think there are some good Chinese products out there. Although, sometimes I wonder about the material that is being used - but it's a little above my knowledge level. E.g. - Shannon's capsules that he sputters seem to have a richness in the midrange even before he tunes them.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Nov 11, 2015 12:06:00 GMT -6
My understanding is that the shadow causes the HF peak in omni condensers.
|
|
|
Post by warrenfirehouse on Nov 11, 2015 12:25:11 GMT -6
Even if this sounds great, my concern would be using a hardware comp after the pre. Then the mic's "sound" would be modeled after compression. Seems weird to me, and I dont ever want to go back to tracking a dynamic vocalist without some comp on the way in. I know you can use the plugs with it, but thats still post AD and therefore pointless to me.
With that said I think its a really cool idea and am looking forward to hearing it.
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Nov 11, 2015 15:17:40 GMT -6
I dunno.. at 1000 clams for mic and pre.
If its even remotely good .. its not a bad deal.
I have paid more than that for a microphone that sounded like crap.. much much more.
cheers
Wiz
|
|
|
Post by donr on Nov 11, 2015 16:27:13 GMT -6
I dunno.. at 1000 clams for mic and pre. If its even remotely good .. its not a bad deal. I have paid more than that for a microphone that sounded like crap.. much much more. cheers Wiz Wiz, sounds like another entertaining thread idea..
|
|
|
Post by donr on Nov 11, 2015 16:30:15 GMT -6
Even if this sounds great, my concern would be using a hardware comp after the pre. Then the mic's "sound" would be modeled after compression. Seems weird to me, and I dont ever want to go back to tracking a dynamic vocalist without some comp on the way in. I know you can use the plugs with it, but thats still post AD and therefore pointless to me. With that said I think its a really cool idea and am looking forward to hearing it. Good concern. If Steven's reading this thread, maybe he can comment. In the demo, he's using his software comps, but if there's ever a place for a hardware comp in the modern recording world, it's going in on a vocal mic.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,189
|
Post by ericn on Nov 12, 2015 9:46:20 GMT -6
It will be fashionable for about a year, then everybody will see the flaws, you just can't model the off axis response and other effects Bob mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Nov 12, 2015 12:26:16 GMT -6
There's a process called "working" a vocal mike that older singers and singers with older coaches learn. In involves moving themselves or the mike about to use the proximity effect and pattern to shape their vocal sound. Singers had to know how to do this before compression and anti-feedback technology became common in sound systems during the '70s. According to Wally Heider Frank Sinatra was so good at this that his vocals required no compression.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,189
|
Post by ericn on Nov 12, 2015 13:06:07 GMT -6
There's a process called "working" a vocal mike that older singers and singers with older coaches learn. In involves moving themselves or the mike about to use the proximity effect and pattern to shape their vocal sound. Singers had to know how to do this before compression and anti-feedback technology became common in sound systems during the '70s. According to Wally Heider Frank Sinatra was so good at this that his vocals required no compression. From my live days For every 1 who knows how to do it there are 20 who don't but think they do! But I do have to say the ones that do know how to do it are very frustrated with latency!
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Nov 12, 2015 14:09:43 GMT -6
Our ears can actually compensate using speakers.
|
|
|
Post by donr on Nov 12, 2015 14:21:10 GMT -6
I remember seeing one of the Divas, I can't remember which one, 'working' a hand held dynamic vocal mic live, singing close then holding it about a foot away for the 'big note.' The big note sounded a lot softer, likely because whatever compression in the vocal chain didn't release fast enough for the drop in level singing a foot away from the mic caused. It just sounded like she missed the mic.
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Nov 12, 2015 16:47:56 GMT -6
I remember seeing one of the Divas, I can't remember which one, 'working' a hand held dynamic vocal mic live, singing close then holding it about a foot away for the 'big note.' The big note sounded a lot softer, likely because whatever compression in the vocal chain didn't release fast enough for the drop in level singing a foot away from the mic caused. It just sounded like she missed the mic. I do a similar thing live.. but only move back small amounts... thinking about inverse square law.... Most of the time, I eat the 58. If I am performing and there is no compression, which is nearly always the case nowadays..and I am usually the guy mixing from stage... I will come back off the mic maybe what feels like inch, inch and a half.. no more when I am going to sing a louder note.. by listening to the monitors I can usually settle in to it reasonably quickly. I also do that to control how loud I am against another vocalist(s) when doing harmonies... so that I blend and not dominate... I often wonder, when I see a vocalist pull a mic that they have had against their lips, a foot or more away... and worse, when they are cupping the ball of the mic in their hands... cheers Wiz
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Nov 12, 2015 17:02:31 GMT -6
Whitney Houston used to do that in the studio, and her house engineer hated it! Looks cool on stage, is terrible in the studio.... He always said...
|
|